Orlando Terrorist’s Father Appears Behind Hillary at Florida Rally

The NBC News affiliate in West Palm Beach, Florida noticed a special guest standing behind Hillary Clinton at her rally today in Kissimmee (pronounced kih-SIM-ee, not like an Italian guy saying “kiss me.”) It was none other than Seddique Mateen, father of Omar Mateen – the terrorist who massacred 49 at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando in the name of the Islamic State and jihad against the West.

There are some brain melting bizarro visuals going on here. A few that jump out:

– Hillary is wearing her prison jumpsuit-like orange pantsuit as she remains a fugitive from justice on the campaign trail, cackling that the coppers will never catch her alive.

– At a quick glance, Mateen’s red hat almost looks like a Trump “Make America Great Again” hat.

– As Mateen stood behind her smiling, nodding and applauding, Clinton opened by saying  “I know how many people, families, loved ones, and friends are still grieving, and we will be with you as you rebuild your lives.”

Mateen was reluctant to talk to the news crew outside of the rally at first, but then he later approached them at a rest stop ready for an interview with a well made sign in hand.

When asked if the Clinton campaign knew if he was going to be there he responded “it’s the Democratic Party, so everyone can join.” I wonder how many immigrants out there, who may not have the best English skills and don’t know the ins and outs of the American political debate, believe that they are excluded from the Republican Party? Do large numbers of immigrants believe the GOP is for whites only?

It’s never crossed my mind before but Mateen’s comment has me stroking my chin going hmm, HMMMMM. It’d be interesting to see some translated non-English Democratic Party outreach material. Just a hunch.

Mateen also said “…I wish that my son joined that Army and fought ISIS and destroyed ISIS. That would be much better.” I guess. But given that you had a show supporting the group fighting against the US in Afghanistan, why would you want that now? It’s almost as if it would be made into a big deal if a Muslim immigrant family had a son that died fighting for the US Army and a major political party would use it as a weapon of guilt against the nominee of the other party!

Recall when a California delegate was found to be a white nationalist and pushed out by the Trump campaign. Also note the ongoing demand that Trump “disavow” David Duke – former KKK member who has expressed support for the GOP nominee. All this is said to “speak volumes” about Trump, his campaign, and his supporters. How long will the media pressure Clinton to disavow the support of Seddique Mateen? Don’t hold your breath.

I find it interesting that Mr. Mateen seems to be going on about his life in relative obscurity. He’s clearly doing well judging by the BMW he pulls up in in the NBC report. I doubt he ever gets recognized day to day as Omar Mateen’s father and doesn’t seem to ever have been harassed or threatened in a serious way. I thought about this as I read Ibtihaj Muhammad’s comments from the Rio Games:

“[I feel unsafe] all the time. I had someone follow me home from practice and try to report me to police,” she said. “And this is right on 28th and 7th in New York City.”

 

“I’m very vocal about these things because I want people to know I’m not a novelty, I’m not special in any way, I’m a woman who wears hijab and these are my experiences,” Muhammad said.

Of course there’s no proof either way, but given that New York City is incomparably open, diverse and accepting of everyone (there’s gotta be at least one person from every single country on Earth in New York), I’m gonna put this in the “things that never happened” files. She continued,

“I want people to know that as hard as [these racist incidents] are on me, they don’t come even close to things we’ve seen like the shooting in North Carolina or the rhetoric around the Khan family at the DNC. It’s ridiculous and we as a country have to change and I feel like this is our moment.”

I assume she’s talking about right-wing conservative Christians here, so it’s funny she brought up a shooting committed by a left-wing atheist who shot some Muslims over a parking dispute to make her point about Islamophobia. No mention of Orlando, San Bernardino, Chattanooga, Boston, Fort Hood or Garland by the way. If the father of the guy who committed the worst terrorist attack in America since 9/11 is just fine going about his day, you’re just fine, too, Ms. Muhammad.

“It’s ridiculous and we as a country have to change and I feel like this is our moment.” To that I say: Nah. You change.

It’s not news that Omar Mateen was a registered Democrat or that Seddique Mateen hosted a TV show with a “decidedly Pashtun nationalistic, pro-Taliban slant; full of anti-US rhetoric and inflammatory language.” And it’s not that big of a surprise that the elder Mateen would come out as a Clinton supporter, but it’s not important. What you must never forget is that:

R hate kills

 

Advertisements

On Trump’s Overtures to Russia

On Wednesday Trump again rustled jimmies across the land by suggesting that Russia should release any of Hillary Clinton’s gazillion deleted emails that they have as a result of her illegally keeping a private server and using it for government business. Deliberately misunderstanding and misrepresenting what he said, much of the media proclaimed that what Trump did was tantamount – TANTAMOUNT, I say! – to treason because he urged a foreign power to hack an American official’s emails.

“This morning, he personally invited Russia to hack us. That’s not law and order. That’s criminal intent” said Retired Rear Admiral John Hutson. Clinton foreign policy adviser Jake Sullivan said, “This has gone from being a matter of curiosity, and a matter of politics, to being a national security issue.” (Glad to know that her emails are indeed a national security issue, after Clinton denied such.) “He asked the Russians to interfere in American politics. Think about that for a moment. Donald Trump is asking one of our adversaries to engage in hacking or intelligence efforts against the United States to affect our election” said Leon Panetta.

Of course, he did no such thing. If he did, you’d find the verbs “hack”, “infiltrate”, “steal” or a like synonym in his statement: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” He was calling on Russia (and later, any country) to release any emails they had after already hacking into Clinton’s compromised server, which everyone knows happened. It was arguably a dumb move by Trump to bring the Russians into the election so bluntly, but the fact remains that we are here because of three things:

– Hillary Clinton broke the law and opened herself up, and by extension many other parts of the government, to being hacked.

– The Department of Justice failed to indict Clinton despite all the evidence for doing so.

– The PR arm of the Democratic Party – the American mainstream media – failed to apply adequate pressure on all the relevant parts of the government complicit in the above.

In that light it makes sense to appeal to outsiders when our own government is too corrupt to do the necessary job. And it makes no sense for the above mentioned parties to flap their yaps about how outrageous Trump’s suggestion is.

Hillary has done worse in fact and deed than Trump has said in words. The left constantly equates words and actions, rhetoric and behavior, so this doesn’t matter. Democrats know that Hillary is disqualified from being elected president, but they must at the same time stay committed to their nominee. The cognitive dissonance must be overwhelming, and it is understandable that they would grasp at any chance to flip the narrative back to where they can claim the moral high ground.

It will all backfire because hordes of voters will be driven to look into things like Clinton’s Russia-U.S. uranium deal, and how the Clinton-Obama Russian “reset” failed. Many have responded by advocating what they accuse Trump of doing: that Russia, or some other foreign government, should hack into IRS records and release Donald’s tax filings. This is too much spite and whataboutism for my taste, and not worth entertaining. And, given how open and shut all the above is, it’s not even the interesting part.

The Don’s comments have not only pushed Hillary and Democrats into a corner where they are forced to concede she’s a criminal and the accusations against her are correct, it has also brought the right’s unthinking attitude towards Russia to the fore. Paul Ryan spokesman Brendan Buck said in response to Trump that “Russia is a global menace led by a devious thug” and “Putin should stay out of this election.” Trump’s running mate Mike Pence added “The FBI will get to the bottom of who is behind the hacking. If it is Russia and they are interfering in our elections, I can assure you both parties and the United States government will ensure there are serious consequences.”

My estimation is that one of the many aspects of The Trumpening is a re-examination of America’s stance towards the Rooskies. Are they the same Cold War foe we faced for decades? Are they godless commie heathens threatening to bring down Pax Americana and its world order? Do we really need to be as adversarial as we are? Are there more pressing problems in the world in which it would be beneficial to have a better U.S. – Russia partnership? Wouldn’t it be nice if we actually got along with them? as Trump put it.

It looks to me like Trump realizes that even though the Russian government is not a friend, they are pretty low on the list of enemies. Despite the media and political establishment painting Trump as a dangerous stooge of Putin, the position he stated in his official foreign policy speech is measured and reasonable:

“We desire to live peacefully and in friendship with Russia and China. We have serious differences with these two nations, and must regard them with open eyes, but we are not bound to be adversaries. We should seek common ground based on shared interests.

“Russia, for instance, has also seen the horror of Islamic terrorism. I believe an easing of tensions, and improved relations with Russia from a position of strength only is possible, absolutely possible. Common sense says this cycle, this horrible cycle of hostility must end and ideally will end soon. Good for both countries.

“Some say the Russians won’t be reasonable. I intend to find out. If we can’t make a deal under my administration, a deal that’s great — not good, great — for America, but also good for Russia, then we will quickly walk from the table. It’s as simple as that. We’re going to find out.”

The Republican establishment has ironically had its view of Russia shaped by the Russian and international left for a good chunk of the post-Soviet era. For example, leftist lesbian activist Masha Gessen and her book The Man Without a Face: The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin are often cited in America, by the left and right alike, to support charges of Putin’s tyranny. Ponder that for moment. American Republicans’ and conservatives’ regularly rely on a left-wing lesbian who would like to see the end of Christianity and the traditional family to shape their view of Russia. (I don’t mean to say all of Gessen’s critiques of Putin are wrong or illegitimate. My gripe is that most of the American right uncritically accepts the left’s position on Russia almost wholesale, because it’s convenient.)

Maybe it’s because, as an entrepreneur, Trump looks around the world and sees business opportunities where a politician would see threats? Maybe Russia interests him and he’s thought a lot about this? I don’t know. Either way, Trump is pushing the GOP away from this, or at least making people think about it, which is good.

Maybe Trump realizes an opportunity here for a realignment with Russia. It’s a notoriously bad American political habit to not think long term and only about how to solve the present situation. Trump may be looking to establish some good will, and take a longer term ‘keep your friends close and your enemies closer’ approach with Moscow. Maybe his senior campaign advisor Paul Manafort’s Russian connections have something to do with it? (Though I don’t personally see much there as it’s very common for American campaign advisors of all stripes to do consulting abroad.) We’ll see.

Another irony is the left’s mockery of the Putin-Trump “bromance.” There’s hypocritical gay shaming splooged all over the place, along with confusing giving Putin credit where it’s due with admiration and support for him generally. Salon leads the way saying “Donald Trump’s got Putin Fever” and  “Trump goes to sleep snuggling a photo of the Russian dictator every night…”

It’s also interesting to see many on the left worried about that classic left-wing specialty: being useful idiots for Russia. Timothy Snyder wrote in the New York Review of Books, 

The premise of Russian foreign policy to the West is that the rule of law is one big joke; the practice of Russian foreign policy is to find prominent people in the West who agree. Moscow has found such people throughout Europe; until the rise of Trump the idea of an American who would volunteer to be a Kremlin client would have seemed unlikely. Trump represents an unprecedented standard of American servility, and should therefore be cultivated as a future Russian client.

The concern for the rule of law, that perennial obstacle of leftist aims, is also striking. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m unaware of Mr. Snyder writing anything about the body blow to the rule of law inflicted by Clinton, Obama, Comey and the DOJ.

In all this, there is one Russian leader conservatives and Republicans in America can look to. The one who said,

“Another serious challenge to Russia’s identity is linked to events taking place in the world. Here there are both foreign policy and moral aspects. We can see how many of the Euro-Atlantic countries are actually rejecting their historic roots, including the Christian values that constitute the very basis of Western civilisation. They are denying moral principles and all traditional identities: national, cultural, religious and even sexual. They are implementing policies that equate large families with same-sex partnerships, belief in God with the belief in Satan.

“The excesses of political correctness have reached the point where people are seriously talking about registering political parties whose aim is to promote paedophilia. People in many European countries are embarrassed or afraid to talk about their religious affiliations. Holidays are abolished or even called something different; their essence is hidden away, as is their moral foundation. And people are aggressively trying to export this model all over the world.

“I am convinced that this opens a direct path to degradation and primitivism, resulting in a profound demographic and moral crisis. What else but the loss of the ability to self-reproduce could act as the greatest testimony of the moral crisis facing a human society? Today almost all developed nations are no longer able to reproduce themselves, even with the help of unlawful migration. Without the values embedded in Christianity, without the standards of morality that have taken shape over millennia, people will inevitably lose their human dignity. We consider it natural and right to defend these values. One must respect every minority’s right to be different, but the rights of the majority must not be put into question.

“I want to stress again that without focusing our efforts on people’s education and health, creating mutual responsibility between the authorities and each individual, and establishing trust within society, we will be losers in the competition of history. Russia’s citizens must feel that they are the responsible owners of their country, region, hometown, property, belongings and their lives. A citizen is someone who is capable of independently managing his or her own affairs, freely cooperating with equals.”

Oh wait, that wasn’t another Russian leader. That was Vladimir Putin himself at the Valdai Forum in 2013. Is there a conservative out there who doesn’t share these sentiments? Even if Putin doesn’t always live by them, he at least is open to moving in that direction. Though far from ideal, is this someone to be antagonized and provoked, or does this strike you as someone who can help beat back the rise of Islam and the decline of Western civilization?

If Republicans and conservatives believe that the West is in dire need of a rediscovery of its Christian roots its Christian ethos, we should ask if it’s worth fighting a nation struggling, and succeeding in doing just that. As Eric Metaxas wrote, “In Russia, ‘more monasteries and parishes are reopened, growing numbers of Russians profess belief in God, and more young Russians are choosing a religious vocation.’ Vladimir Putin may be taking advantage of Russians’ hunger for God, but he didn’t create that hunger. Seventy-four years of state-sponsored atheism, and the wreck it left in its wake, did that all by itself.” As Western Europe and America increasingly ditch Christianity, they will face the same wreckage.

In the next few years and decades we are going to see Europe’s energy, drive, ambition and moral clarity move to the center and East of the continent, including European Russia. The thousand year split between the Eastern and Western churches hasn’t completely ended, and probably won’t soon. But we do live in far more ecumenical times and a reinvigorated Russian Orthodoxy doesn’t preclude closer ties with Catholics, Protestants or anyone else in the West, if the West does indeed enter a similar religious revival. The United States would do well to adjust its foreign policy accordingly. If the Eurasian Economic Union and One Belt, One Road initiative gain serious traction, America should be a part of it. It’s probably the next region to take off economically in a major way, and we will need a much better working relationship with Russia to do so.

Is Putin too authoritarian by American standards? Yes. Does that make alienating a potential partner who can do a lot to help solve global security problems worth it? No. Donald Trump may just have the right idea.

Confucius Say: Political Correctness Kills

Am I the only one who feels like he’s taking crazy pills around here? No? That’s a relief. Half the country is feeling a little insane after the Orlando terrorist attack as we go through another round of finger pointing about what caused this. In a statement released after the attack, Donald Trump said,

“Last night, our nation was attacked by a radical Islamic terrorist. It was the worst terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11, and the second of its kind in 6 months. My deepest sympathy and support goes out to the victims, the wounded, and their families.

 

“In his remarks today, President Obama disgracefully refused to even say the words ‘Radical Islam’. For that reason alone, he should step down. If Hillary Clinton, after this attack, still cannot say the two words ‘Radical Islam’ she should get out of this race for the Presidency.”

To which President Obama replied,

“Let me make a final point, for a while now the main contribution of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have made in the fight against ISIL is to criticize the administration and me for not using the phrase ‘radical Islam,’. That’s the key they tell us. We cannot beat ISIL unless we call them ‘radical Islam.’ What exactly would using this label accomplish and what will it change? Will it make ISIL less committed to try to kill Americans? Would it bring more allies for military strategy than it is served by this? The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away.”

The President has committed two slights of hand here that reverse the truth. First, he is making it seem like he has no problem saying the words by saying them in a consequence and implication free context. He is not saying it in relation to a threat we face, but in relation to what someone else has said about him. Thus, it’s meaningless. Second, he is the one who insists that calling the threat by a different name will make it go away. The obvious question that has been asked is if it doesn’t make a difference then why not just say it?

Every society that has either faced serious threats or produced any lasting wisdom has grappled with this question. In ancient Greek philosophical circles there was the idea (attributed to Socrates but hard to pin down exactly) that “the beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms.” In Indian philosophy everything in existence is categorized into padarthas. Padartha is pada (word) and artha (meaning). So, to understand anything it has to first be categorized and named correctly. The oral Vedic tradition stresses the right pronunciation of words.

In the Bible what is the very first thing God does? He labels things. He calls things what they are by giving them words and pronouncing their names. When He does, He is then able to make the judgement “it is good”, thus implying that there is evil and that they are distinct and have their own set of correct words. Why do orthodox Jews have to call God by names other than His true one?

In ancient Rome, Emperor Marcus Aurelius wondered during one of his many military campaigns, “This thing, what is it in itself, in its own constitution? What is its substance and material? And what its causal nature or form? And what is it doing in the world? And how long does it subsist?” In his pursuit of knowledge and wisdom, and in dealing with Rome’s enemies, he knew that first he must call things what they are.

In the annals of American philosophy we have “calling a spade a spade”, “keeping it real”, and “it is what it is.” And of course, “the first step in solving a problem is admitting you have a problem.” (Oh yeah this, too.)

But the man who best tied this to statecraft was Confucius,

“If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant. If what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done goes undone. If this remains undone, morals and the arts deteriorate. If morals and the arts deteriorate, punishments will not be properly awarded. If punishments are not properly awarded, the people will stand in helpless confusion. Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect.”

This recognition of the power of properly naming things led to, among other things, a practice of name taboos for emperors in which he would take several different public names for different settings. Prominent public figures would also take nicknames, noms de plume and aliases and keep their real names hidden. A trait that can be found across cultures is the belief that not using or concealing a person’s real name protected them from curses or evil forces. In China,

Traditionally personal names were selected with attention to their meanings —names often suggest good luck, good looks, good morals, or goodness in general. But attention was (and is) given also to the number of strokes that made up the characters of a name.

 

Fortune tellers were often consulted about this to make sure that a child’s name accorded well with his moment of birth. In traditional times, and occasionally today, names were created to protect a child from harm. By giving a baby a name that was impressively unappealing, it was hoped to avoid the notice of envious or malicious spirits that might seek to harm a conspicuously attractive child.

 

You’ll recognize a similar phenomenon in Harry Potter. Everyone in the magic world refuses to say Voldemort’s name in the beginning, for fear that the very act of pronouncing his name gives him extra power, and not saying his name means everyone can put off confronting his immanent return for just a little while longer. Perhaps if we don’t name radical Islam and name its war on the West, we won’t have to deal with it?

When President Obama refuses to say radical Islam is our enemy and that we are at war with it, he is violating deeply embedded, ancient rules of human perception, knowledge and the ability to act accordingly with them.

“Hindrance to the perceptions of sense is an evil to the animal nature.” Marcus Aurelius says. That is, any living creature that denies what its eyes perceive will face harm or death as a result. “Hindrance to the movements is equally an evil to the animal nature. And something else also is equally an impediment and evil to the constitution of plants. So then that which is a hindrance to the intelligence is an evil to the intelligent nature.” When a Muslim commits an act of mass murder and himself says he does so in the name of Islam, and pledges allegiance to a world wide Islamic movement, you are not only insulting my intelligence to insist otherwise, but you are doing evil to intelligence itself. (Yes yes yes NAXALT.)

By the way, George Bush was guilty of the same thing. “The War on Terror” was a fundamental mis-naming about which Donald Rumsfeld said “Saying we were in a war on terrorism was like saying we were in a war against bombers or we were waging a war on tanks…”

It goes further. Our refusal to name the enemy is getting people abused and killed. From the Fort Hood shooting, to Chattanooga, to the Boston Bombing, to the Rotherham sex ring, to San Bernardino, to Orlando – in every situation there was a point when someone said something or wanted to say something but didn’t for fear of being accused of some form of bigotry. The result is a mound of bodies.

Roughly half the country refuses to correctly identify what happened in Orlando. Thus, we have the embarrassing spectacle of House Democrats holding the world’s most retarded sleepover party. Or as Guy Benson put it, the ugly sight of a civil rights hero (John Lewis) going full circle and participating in Congress’ first anti-civil rights sit-in. It’s enough to make you want to shout reality at their faces.

Confucius made his “rectify the names” remark when China was falling apart and splitting into numerous warring states. He was asked to advise one of the new emerging states on what they had to do to rule successfully. The first thing he said in his diagnosis was that the old dynasty had lost touch with reality by coming up with all sorts of convoluted names for things (workplace violence, overseas contingency, Department of War Department of Defense etc.). The very first order of business was to call things what they are.

Scroll back up and compare Trump’s and Obama’s statements. There is a rectification of names coming in November to the culturally warring states of America.

The Judgement of Brock and Trump

The reactions to the judges in the Brock Turner sexual assault case and the Trump University fraud case are forcing the contradictions of left-wing identity politics to collapse on themselves. Before the collapse is completed, however, we are going to see the logical end of identity politics come completely out in the open. Namely, that it is okay, and encouraged, to be openly racist against white men (not just passive aggressively as it has been), and for whites to start much more visibly politically agitating for white interests just like every other group does for their interests.

First, the Brock case. Brock. Looks like Bro, sounds like Jock. BroJock. Blonde. Athlete. Exactly the villain the Left needs after years of The Narrative taking numerous embarrassing, high-profile beatings from the Duke Lacrosse rape hoax a decade ago, to the “mattress girl” rape hoax, to the UVA campus rape hoax and others (1, 2, 3, 4). When this story broke you could hear all across the land exhales of relief “Phew! we finally got one, you guyz!” (What’s it like to have charcoal ash where your soul used to be?) And “Our victimology studies degrees really did train us for real work! Maybe we really can pay off this student debt!” The world at large has not bought the myth of widespread rape in America, and after years of wandering in the ideological desert, The Narrative mongers are going to milk BroJock to death: “The [victim’s] courtroom statement continued to reverberate across the country and campus this past week. Michele Dauber, a Stanford law professor (and ruthless, ball-busting ice-careerqueen) who has helped create the university’s policies for dealing with sexual assault complaints, called her a new Rosa Parks.” Look, I feel bad for the girl, but Rosa Parks? You’ve gotta be shitting me.

Not a chance. She is super cereal, you guyz. “‘We are at a real watershed moment in public perception of campus sexual assaults,’ said Ms. Dauber, who is also leading the effort to have Judge Persky recalled…Ms. Dauber is friends with the victim and said she is helping her to obtain a book contract.” A fucking book. To be ghostwritten and padded with propaganda by Ms. Dauber, no doubt. Again, not to be hard on the girl, but she didn’t escape from a North Korean prison camp. She didn’t cross Antarctica on a dog sled. She got blackout drunk and the dipshit she was with fingered her and dry humped her like a little ankle biting ratdog. How long can this book possibly be?

Campus feminist shrieking to the contrary notwithstanding, a chick getting shitfaced at a frat party is leaving your car in the ‘hood with the windows down. Yes, when you get jacked the ultimate responsibility lies with the criminal. But, you made it a lot more likely and bear some responsibility, because you could easily have avoided the situation altogether. The mantra that it’s never ever ever EVER the woman’s fault in any way AT ALL for increasing the chances of rape or sexual assault strips women of moral agency and reduces them to the helpless victims the Left insists they’re not.

Not only is this case part of the Left’s war on whites, it’s part of its war on distinctions. The distinction facing obliteration here is the one between sexual assault and rape. The court documents say Brock was “found guilty by a jury of Assault with Intent to Commit Rape…” Note that he was not convicted of rape (a.k.a rape rape). In the Fact Sheet section of the case evaluation, one box is checked: digital penetration. The other unchecked choices are “penile, hands/fist, foreign object.” I have fallen pitifully behind on the ever changing definition of rape according to campus feminists and leftist activists, but my understanding is that rape means nonconsensual oral, vaginal or anal penetration with the penis. That didn’t happen in this case. The intellectually honest thing to do here is acknowledge that are distinctions between rape and sexual assault, and a gradation on the scale of sexual assault.

Tell me these are the exact same thing:

1.) Two horny kids get extremely drunk at a college frat party where it’s well known from the beginning that people are going to be looking for sex. On the way back to the guy’s room, the girl passes out. The guy, being a loser, thinks this is his only chance to get some action. He fingers her a little. With eyes red from alcohol and swimming pool chlorine, he mounts her. But being a generally good Midwestern kid with an intact family, he knows he’s getting into some bad shit and can’t quite go all the way. He gets caught by some passersby and busted by the cops and is very remorseful.

2.) A guy breaks into a home or waits behind some trees to catch an unsuspecting woman. He grabs her by the hair and pulls hard. He covers her mouth and puts a knife to her throat. He smacks her around and has his way with her. He’s been planning this for a while, and if he doesn’t get caught he might do it again. He expresses no remorse.

To hear the Left talk about it, there is no difference at all between these two scenarios. If you believe that, it makes sense to be outraged at BroJock’s 6 month sentence. If you’re sane and can grasp gradations and distinctions, you ain’t trippin’ so much.

Laura Garnette, the Chief Probation Officer who put together the case evaluation wrote, (emphasis mine)

“Furthermore…this officer weighed the fact that this 20 year old offender is now a lifetime sex registrant, his future prospects will likely be highly impacted as a result of his convictions, and he surrendered a hard earned swimming scholarship. Perhaps, just as importantly, but sometimes overlooked, are the victim’s wishes as to the potential outcome.”

What did Officer Garnette write about the victim’s wishes?

“The victim in this matter will forever by impacted by the defendant’s conduct. When the undersigned interviewed her, she provided a clear illustration of the hurt and devastation caused by the instant offenses and the ordeal of the trial. This officer was struck by the victim’s ability to objectively digest the gravity and ramifications of the defendant’s behavior and and while she was understandably traumatized by the experience, her focus and concern was treatment, rather than incarceration.

This and the approximately 50 pages of letters attesting positively to Brock’s character written to Judge Aaron Persky led him to give Brock the light sentence of 6 months in jail…plus a lifetime ban from Swimming USA, a lifetime sex offender registry, mandatory counseling and possibly a speaking tour on college campuses to address the dangers of excessive drinking and college hook up culture. In light of the facts, this seems fair to me.

So what explains the tremendous, and highly selective in the face of the statistical trends, media focus on this case? Your Honor, I humbly submit to the Bullshit Court of Public Opinion, that, like women whose periods sync up after spending a lot of time together, the media intuitively senses this is peak fertility time for The Narrative and it’s time to get on the same page. They have been wronged by reality for too long, and they are feeling scornful. That page of The Narrative says blond, white frat boys are on a rape rampage across America’s university campuses, and that they are this nation’s biggest threat. In short, another crusade for the Great White Defendant.

There’s another curious aspect to this story – that of the Swedish students who caught BroJock in the act and the underlying satisfaction in the media with this. Now I grant you, this is a little bit crazy, but here we have another layer of the pasty white onion that is white ethno-masochism across the West. Sweden has experienced a dramatic rise an explosion in rape and sexual assault since the acceleration of immigration, particularly of the Moose-leem variety, into the country. The Swedish mainstream media and most of the government do whatever they can to minimize or even cover up this phenomenon by accusing those who express opposition with charges of bigotry. Yet all right thinking people are furrowing their brows, stroking their chins and nodding their heads earnestly to the “wake up call” of this (non) epidemic of Aryan rapists on America’s college campuses. As if this dire situation requires our moral betters from one of those awesome democratic socialist paradises, and self described moral superpower, to intervene and save us from our backward, instuhtooshunalyzed rape culture. The Swedish students did the right thing, and I applaud them. There’s a good chance BroJock would’ve rape-raped the girl if it wasn’t for them. I’m not really talking about them specifically, just a little ironic plot twist worth noticing. That is to say, if only there was a wave of Swedes doing this in Sweden. And Germany for that matter.

Judge Persky, also of evil and boring sauerkraut heritage, has now been kicked off a new sexual assault case because his judgement has been questioned. Another judge, of spicy salsa y sabor descent, is getting vigorous defense after his judgement got called out by the Great White Savior Donald J. Trump.

Trump has said that Judge Gonzalo Curiel is unfit to oversee the class action fraud lawsuit against Trump University because “he’s a Mexican.” A storm of condemnation from all sides ensued, and many of us right-wing extremists are scratching our skinheads and wondering why. As Steve Deace put it,

“…how come those same progressives are now criticizing Donald Trump for referring to a native-born American as a “Mexican judge”? How come the Left is offended by Trump pointing out his “one African-American [supporter] over there” at a recent rally? After all, aren’t the Left masters at bean-counting Americans by race, ethnicity and gender? These attempts extend to every walk of life. How many times do progressives inform us how many women aren’t generals in the military? How many blacks aren’t head coaches in a major sport? How often the street cops in an urban area don’t share the same ethnicity of the neighborhoods they’re patrolling? And so on and so forth?”

To say it up front, Trump is right but he’s right in a stupid way. 28 U.S.C. §§ 455 & 144 states among other things that “(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Maybe it’s the nature of TV, but there are tons of things Trump could have pointed out about Judge Curiel. For example, Curiel belongs to the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association (SDLRLA yes, I know it’s not that La Raza, but the two vatos are homies) and here is their explicitly racial mission statement: “Our purpose is to advance the cause of equality, empowerment and justice for Latino attorneys and the Latino community in San Diego County through service and advocacy. We are dedicated to promoting diversity [less whites] on both the bench and bar. We support law students with mentorship programs and scholarships.”

The racial advocacy continues:

“Specifically, the goals of SDLRLA are:

• “Increase the overall number of Latinos in the legal profession.

• “Encourage and support Latino and Latina judicial candidates to apply to the bench

• “Advocate for the promotion and retention of Latino and Latina attorneys and judicial officers.

• Improve the professional skills of our members through our certified MCLE programs.

• “Provide for the professional and social interaction among our members and other organized bar associations.

• “Improve the delivery and access of legal services to the county’s Spanish speaking community.

• “Provide role models and mentoring to Latino youth through direct interaction with students and school districts.

• “Strongly advocate positions on judicial, economic and social issues to political leaders and state and local bar associations that impact the Latino community.”

I suppose there’s nothing necessarily wrong with any of this, but you don’t get to cry “dass rayciss!” as a foul when the whole point of your organization is forwarding racial interests. Here is a small sample of recipients of scholarship funds from the SDLRLA in 2014, whom Judge Curiel had a part in choosing:

“Patricia Mejia…was born in El Salvador and immigrated to the United States when she was six years old. Ms. Mejia wants to become a criminal defense attorney to help people of color who face life‐changing circumstances, but also to show Latino youth that with perseverance and a dream injected with faith, anything is possible.” Ms. Mejia explicitly states that a defining characteristic of her career goals is to exclude whites.

“Jessica Vasquez…Her parents worked in the strawberry fields of Oxnard to provide for the family. Ms. Vasquez is the first in her family to attend college. She was described as a ‘highly intelligent, driven and compassionate future lawyer.’ Ms. Vasquez hopes to pursue a career in immigration law so that she can continue helping her community.” What community would that be, and what’s she going to help them do?

“Ricardo Elorza…immigrated to the United States when he was 11 years old. In college, he led workshops at high schools, non‐profit organizations, colleges, and parks where he talked about the DREAM ACT…Mr. Elorza wishes to someday tell any student struggling with higher education, ‘Look, a boy from Oaxaca, who did not know English and is undocumented has now graduated from law school and is an attorney.‘” (Emphasis mine.)

Judge Curiel is also affiliated with the Hispanic National Bar Association (HNBA) which said on July 2, 2015:

“The HNBA calls for a boycott of all of Trump business ventures, including golf courses, hotels, and restaurants.  We salute NBC/Universal, Univision and Macy’s for ending their association with Trump, and we join them in standing up against bigotry and racist rhetoric. Other businesses and corporations should follow the lead of NBC/Universal, Univision and Macy’s and take similar actions against Donald Trump’s business interests.  We can and will make a difference.”

There is also a very strong chance that Judge Curiel himself is an anchor baby. And finally, the law firm appointed by Judge Curiel to represent the defendants in the class action lawsuit against Trump University are big Clinton donors. Given Trump’s attitude toward anchor babies and immigration, and his presidential run against Hillary Clinton, might Judge Curiel’s impartiality “reasonably be questioned”?

One more thing, why is Trump getting shit for saying what he did when Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor famously remarked “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”?

Trump ain’t bout dat life, dass fo sho. But he’s completely justified in saying Judge Curiel is unfit to oversee the case. He’s also calling identity politics on its bullshit. He didn’t cave and apologize, which is making people actually think about the disgusting double standards and contemptible contradictions of progressive race baiting. I’m not completely sold on Trump yet, but if he accomplishes just a few things, I hope one of them is making everyone unafraid to challenge The Narrative bullies without reservation.

Signs of the Times at the Pyongyang Trade Fair

Aram Pan, the Singaporean photographer who runs DPRK 360, recently posted a long video at the Pyongyang International Trade Fair. He walks around the grounds and his two lovely guides explain the products to him and where they come from.

The details you can observe here really show a lot, and one that stands out is at 12:18 – you see a transaction taking place in US dollars…at the Cuba booth (actually you see a lot of greenbacks trading hands). The times they are a-changin’. For the better.

Is North Korea Angling For Talks With The US Via Cuba?

poster 4With President Obama’s ongoing visit to Cuba and his recently concluded nuclear deal with Iran, people are wondering if there is an Obama-led rapprochement with the DPRK coming before the lame duck president leaves office later this year.

After the conclusion of the Iran Deal, Obama said he was open to talks with North Korea on sanctions, with the usual preconditions. The DPRK rejected that statement, but they may still see in Obama a president willing to abandon the US’s usual precondition demands that North Korea take steps to abandon its nuclear program. Huge concessions given to Iran (and China in the US-China climate agreement) would seem to justify this view.

So, as Obama tours Cuba, Pyongyang is no doubt watching very closely, and in the weeks and days leading up to Obama’s Cuba visit, DPRK media have been showcasing DPRK-Cuban relations in what is perhaps a subtle “me too!” gesture.

On March 9 “a meeting was held at the Taedonggang Diplomatic Club on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of Fidel Castro Ruz’s visit to the DPRK. Present there on invitation were ambassador Jesus De Los Angeles Aise Sotolongo and staff members of the Cuban embassy in the DPRK” KCNA reported.

Kim Sung Du, chairman of the Educational Commission and chairman of the Korean Committee for Solidarity with Cuba “said in a speech that Fidel Castro Ruz’s visit to the DPRK was an important occasion that strikingly demonstrated the firm will of the parties and the peoples of the two countries to carry on the struggle for the victory of the socialist cause under the uplifted banner of independence against imperialism.

“He stressed that the Korean people will regard the Cuban people as the brothers and sisters of the same class and comrades-in-arms standing together on the forefront of the struggle against the imperialists and the US and will make all efforts to boost the friendly and cooperative relations between the two countries.”

That, or, trying to woo the imperialists into injecting some much needed capital into their economies.

On March 14 Kim Yong Nam, president of the Presidium of the Supreme People’s Assembly of the DPRK met with “a delegation of the Centre of the Cuban Workers headed by General Secretary Ulises Guilarte De Nacimiento, who paid a courtesy call on him, at the Mansudae Assembly Hall.”

The following day was the annual meeting of the Korean Committee for Solidarity with Cuba “attended by Kim Sung Du, chairman of the Education Commission who doubles as chairman of the above-said committee, So Ho Won, vice-chairman of the Korean Committee for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries, members of the solidarity committee, Jesus De Los Angeles Aise Sotolongo, Cuban ambassador to the DPRK, and staff members of his embassy.”

According to KCNA, “The meeting reviewed last year’s work of the committee and discussed this year’s action program.”

One can’t help but wonder if as Pyongyang watches Havana and Tehran opening to Washington, there is a case of “keep your friends close, and your enemies closer” going on.

Peggy Noonan Ruined My Day

She did so with her Wall Street Journal column yesterday “Socialism Gets A Second Life” which, as a Millennial, reminded me that I belong to arguably the most clueless generation of all time. “I was watching Bernie Sanders speak last week at a town hall in Bedford” she says, “when an early intuition became a conviction: Take Mr. Sanders seriously. He is not just another antic presence in Crazy Year 2016. His rise signifies a major shift within the Democratic Party.” She’s right. What is happening in America as manifested by the senior Senator Sanders the socialist is super cereal. Feast upon and digest these quotes for a moment:

“The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.” (Also sometimes just said “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”)

– John Philpot Curran

“Each new generation born is in effect an invasion of civilization by little barbarians, who must be civilized before it is too late.”

– Thomas Sowell

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

– Ronald Reagan

The rise of Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Party, and his dedicated support from the hipster elite, is the failure of America to heed these words. We have not been vigilant. We have not civilized our little barbarians. We have passed on nothing of the hard won lessons of the 20th century, and all of history.

How many billions of people had to be enslaved for some utopian vision of “a new way of doing things” or being a “new kind of man?” And how many millions had to die fighting to liberate the world from the hell those visions produced? Two world wars and a prolonged Cold War of proxy conflicts managed to keep the entire world from falling to Socialism in all its manifestations – from Nazism to Communism. At the end of that century socialism and leftism were thoroughly discredited. At the beginning of this century none of that matters. The slate is clean. Back to square one. We have to do it all over again. But, preferably through a war of ideas and not an actual war this time. (This is one thing that bothers me about the Republican candidates’ refrain of “I am the one who can beat Hillary Clinton.” It’s not really about her. If she or Sanders doesn’t win this time, it’ll just be Julian Castro or Elizabeth Warren next time. What they should talk about is who can discredit the left and revive Americanism for the rising generations.)

Noonan says that this is because Millennials have only had negative experiences with capitalism, thus, socialism appears “new” again: “If you are 20 or 30 you probably see capitalism in terms of two dramatic themes. The first was the crash of ’08, in which heedless, irresponsible operators in business and government kited the system and scrammed. The second is income inequality. Why are some people richer than the richest kings and so many poor as serfs? Is that what capitalism gives you? Then maybe we should rethink this!”

If these are the two primary reasons Millennials are turned off of capitalism, that’s relatively easy to fix. The reason they believe these things is simply that they have had the facts hidden from them by schools and the media. For example, one of the biggest factors of the ’08 crash was the housing market collapse (the other was Fed policy). That collapse was 100% traceable to government intervention and over regulation. Read Thomas Sowell’s book for a clear explanation. Or watch him explain below:

The “problem” of inequality can also easily be done away with. Ask yourself, are two people better off in situation A where one makes $1000/month and the other makes $1500/month for a decade, or in situation B where one makes $2000/month and the other makes $8000/month and they are both advancing in the job market? Clearly, they are both better off in situation B, even though there is a greater level of inequality. As long as there is economic mobility, inequality is not a problem. Inequality becomes a problem when force and coercion, that is, government, enter the picture. If the latter is the kind of inequality you are concerned with, you should be devoting your time and energy to reducing the size and scope of the government, and to giving more space to the individual and civil society.

Why don’t Millennial Sanders supporters see this? Simply, they have been trained not too. If I remember correctly, it was William F. Buckley who spoke of a “tendency towards liberty” in an episode of Firing Line. That is, what is your gut reaction, your primal sense of what to do, when confronted with a question or problem? If you have a tendency towards liberty, your reaction is to look for the answer or solution that maintains or maximizes liberty. That is the whole reason behind starting every school day with the Pledge of Allegiance and a prayer. Children’s brains are not developed, so adults must guide them in terms of values and behavior. Every generation has to be won over, to get them on our side; to instill in them a tendency towards liberty. You can call this brainwashing, and I suppose it is in a sense, but it’s right. Brainwashing is necessary to some degree with children – they don’t know better and adults do (or should). That doesn’t mean that you have to hide America’s past mistakes or faults from young students, but before you do you must have already planted in them the seeds of loyalty to liberty, so that when faced with these mistakes or faults, their moral compass points in that direction.

What we have done with the Millennial generation, and the one after them, is instilled a tendency towards statism. We have trained them to have gut reactions and primal senses that are adversarial and even outright hostile to America and its founding principles. That’s why when you present the above arguments about the ’08 financial crisis and inequality, they become slippery eels in a vat of Vaseline and will do anything to wriggle and writhe themselves out of understanding or accepting what you’re saying, because of their tendency towards statism. Maybe we should elect Bernie and let it all fall apart. Maybe that’s the only way we can re-learn the lessons our ancestors already did, but didn’t pass down.

It all starts with that babbling barbarian on your lap.

The 2016 Collapse of the Republican Party

Lincoln Republicans

1968 Republican Platform brochure.

“Today we are in turmoil…many young people are losing faith in our society. Our inner cities have become centers of despair. Millions of Americans are caught in the cycle of poverty – poor education, unemployment or serious underemployment, and the inability to afford decent housing.

“Inflation has eroded confidence in the dollar at home and abroad. It has severely cut into the incomes of all families, the jobless, the farmers the retired and those living on fixed incomes and pensions. Today’s Americans are uncertain about the future, and frustrated about the recent past. America urgently needs new leadership – leadership courageous and understanding – leadership that will recapture control of events, mastering them rather than permitting them to master us, thus restoring confidence in ourselves and in our future.”

Does that pretty much sum up America’s mood and situation as the 2016 Presidential election shapes up? It’s a passage from the 1968 Republican Party platform which gave Richard Nixon a narrow election victory over Hubert Humphrey.

There are many forces on the move in 2015 similar to what was going on in 1968, not least of which were certain ideological and intellectual trends. In May of that year (which, like 2015, was a wild one) Nixon gave a CBS radio address titled “A New Alignment For American Unity” in which he quoted French thinker and politician Alexis de Tocqueville:

“Time, events or the unaided individual action of the mind will sometimes undermine or destroy an opinion, without any outward sign of the change. It has not been openly assailed, no conspiracy has been formed to make war on it, but its followers one by one noiselessly secede; day by day a few of them abandon it, until at last it is only professed by a minority…They are themselves unaware for a long period of time that a revolution has actually been effected…The majority cease to believe what they believed before, but they still affect to believe, and this empty phantom of public opinion is strong enough to chill innovators and to keep them silent and at a respectful distance.

This year saw the collapse of political correctness. From cultural gatekeepers insisting that a man is a woman if he says so, to the campus Victorians banning harmless Halloween costumes, and culminating in a San Bernardino man not reporting the suspicious activity of Islamist terrorists who murdered 14 out of fear of being called racist or bigoted, the whole thing has fallen apart. It’s just as de Tocqueville described, people have been silently defecting from the worldview mandated by political correctness for years, though the affectations of belief persisted. But 2015 has been the breaking point. One man is largely to thank for bringing out into the open and making it official: Donald J. Trump. As Monsieur Alexis said in one of his lesser known books: the mainstream media and political class have felt the cold stinging wind on their bare assess as they get caught with their pants down. And it’s beautiful to watch.

In Nixon’s “New Alignment” address he laid out five areas where the alignment had formed. Aside from the Republican Voice, there was “The Voice of the New Liberal” which called for a workable form of “‘participatory democracy.’ It demands a political order close to the people who are governed, in which the people play a vital part. That voice demands greater personal freedom and less government domination.” There are echoes of this in 2015. The Left still calls for “participatory democracy” and “fixing income inequality.” Conservatives are looking for the same thing, but with more of a “the glass is half full” approach usually expressed as “growing the middle class.” Nixon said “Let’s not oversimplify. The voices are not joined in harmonious chorus – far from it. The ideas of the new alignment differ in emphasis, not fundamentals; differences in the speed of change, not so much in the direction of change.” Again we have come to a point where the lines of Left and Right are somewhat dissolved if you look at the fundamentals. The more accurate dividing line is authoritarianism versus liberty – despite how it looks on the surface, there is a lot of overlap. This will continue as long as liberals are pushed out of the Democratic Party by the hard Left. Many of them are looking for alternatives but can’t yet bring themselves to vote Republican (who can blame them really?) Indeed, some of Trump’s support is said to come from Reagan Democrats.

The “Solid South” began making the switch slowly from Democrat to Republican in the 1930s (although it wasn’t solidly Republican until the late 80s and early 90s). The Democrats’ hold on the South was akin to their hold on New York and California today, but in ’68 Nixon spoke of the “Voice of the New South,” a South that was “in ferment.” It hasn’t been talked about much, but many staunchly Democratic areas are in ferment today in the face of municipal bankruptcy and school system failure. Hell, even Victor Davis Hanson holds out on the possibility that there will be a shift in the California political landscape back to something more conservative as the massive immigrant population moves up into middle class life.

Nixon’s fourth Voice was that of the “Black Militant.” “There is a deep and widening division between today’s black leadership and the doctrinaire welfarist,” he begins. “When you listen to these black voices, you hear little about ‘handouts’ or ‘welfare.’ Instead you hear the words ‘dignity,’ ‘ownership,’ ‘pride.’ They do not want to be recipients, they want to be participants.” The black militants are still with us alright. But if Nixon is accurate here in summing up their stance, I’ll take them over the screeching victicrats who occupy our universities today. Nixon called for “a share in American opportunity” and “a legitimate role in private enterprise.” I don’t get the sense that today’s black militants are very interested in these things. Most of them are rich already anyway. They want “the system” torn down in its entirety. The black militants are the one group today who have purposefully excluded themselves from any new alignment forming today, and I’m afraid the only solution here is widespread social opprobrium and ostracization until they grow the hell up. One of the dirty secrets of 2015 is the black (and Hispanic) support for allegedly racist Donald Trump. The reason? He came out swinging on illegal immigration which has hurt blacks the most, especially young blacks, by driving down wages and swelling the labor pool.

The last voice Nixon spoke of was “The Silent Center” – what he said was actually “a non-voice” of sorts. They are those who “do not demonstrate, do not protest or picket loudly. Yet, these people are no less committed to seeking out the new direction. They are willing to listen to new ideas, and they are willing to think them through.” The silent center or silent majority concept has been around for a long time, and though I think 2015 is overwhelmingly going to be a base election, I think the silent majority will also assert themselves like they haven’t in many years. A lot of them are the Trump supporters – or at least people who declare as much to pollsters. One thing the media doesn’t understand is that Trump supporters don’t necessarily actually support any of his stances or policy proposals – they are simply reacting to what they know they hate: the media, entrenched career politicians, the politically correct cultural climate. Trump has finally given everyone a runaway freight train to latch onto as it smashes all of these things, and most people are just going for the ride even if they are not going to the ultimate destination.

***

The Democrat Party has collapsed morally and ideologically, though not yet formally. That risk lies with the Republican Party, for it is in that party where there is debate and flexibility. On the Democratic side, there is the coronation of Hillary Clinton with all of its inevitability and predictability. Senator Bernie Sanders has been an interesting addition shaking things up a bit and bringing some honesty and integrity to the table (he’s still wrong about just about everything though), but so far his chances of winning the nomination look improbable and his campaign is largely symbolic. The Republican nomination, by contrast, is up for grabs.

With the Party looking at more than a dozen candidates (half of them imaginable) and the possibility of no one getting a clear majority of delegates in the primaries, there has been talk of a brokered convention and third parties. Donald Trump said in the Las Vegas debate that he was truly committed to the Republican Party, but the possibilities are still worrying. Trump has no discernible chance of winning a general election, and a Trump nomination will probably put the White House out of the Republicans’ reach for a generation or longer. Why? Four years of Democrat manipulated immigration and demographic trends will ensure it.

The next most likely Republican nominee at the moment, Ted Cruz, also has the specter of a Goldwater repeat looming over him. However, I don’t think this will happen because in 1964 President Lyndon Johnson had taken over for the slain President John F. Kennedy just a year earlier and due to public sympathy was probably unbeatable, no matter whom the Republicans nominated. The country at large was just not ready to take the sharp right turn the Republicans wanted to with Goldwater. The next two elections seemed to prove Nixon right in his assessment of the “New Alignment” as he won the next two elections – the first barely squeaking by, the second in a landslide. His resignation left a bad taste in the public’s mouth so Ford lost in ’76, but the “New Alignment” was still there and made itself heard in ’80,’84 and ’88 with Reagan’s elections and then Bush. Ted Cruz has plenty of enemies, but the Democratic Party of Obama and Clinton is more out of favor with America at the moment.

This does not guarantee victory for the eventual Republican nominee. It’s theirs to lose, and Republicans excel at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. A brokered convention will signal the demise of the Party because in a year of raging against the machine on the Right, the insider backroom dealing that will happen is exactly what the base is fighting against. The moment will come for a fracturing of the Party and the Right, thus putting both out of national power for a long time.

Nixon spoke of the 3 thirds of the 20th century – the first was the New Deal era, the middle was the shift, the last ended with the Reagan era. He was overall correct in that division, even though we are not entirely done with the New Deal era. 2016 is about setting the tone for the next century – will the Obama administration turn out to be the final gasp of the New Deal era, or its rejuvenation?

With the internet and the capabilities provided to individual citizens by the smartphone, American society and its economy have long discarded the New Deal/Great Society model and it is impossible for the State to catch up, but half the country hasn’t realized this yet. In short, we have a smartphone economy and a New Deal/Great Society government. Half the country still believes in continuing down the road of greater centralization – be it Obamacare or the proposals of Sanders and Clinton to centralize education. Just as the future of warfare is a micro affair, the future of economics and politics is diffused and decentralized. And that’s not a prediction – it has already happened. The choice is The Hyperloop “Race” or Jerry Brown’s choo choo chase. The choice is whether we want a government to catch up and serve this reality, or to stubbornly preserve the old bureaucratic armies of the past.

One can only hope that Nixon’s vision will come to pass again: “As we coalesce the elements of this new alignment, some surprising things will begin to happen. As frustration ends, violence will wane; as runaway government is curbed, personal freedom will grow; as demanding welfare systems are replaced, individual initiative will take the lead; as peace returns to the American city, America will be better able to build peace in the world.”

“We Are Mujahid” ISIS Makes Mandarin Song To Recruit Chinese Jihadis

On December 7 the Islamic State (ISIS) released a song in Mandarin in an effort to recruit Chinese Muslim fighters. Most jihadi propaganda targets Muslim Uighurs in China’s Xinjiang Province, but it’s rarely done in Mandarin; rather the calls come in the Turkic Uighur language. It’s hard to say who this song is dedicated to, but there is a chance that the aim is to rouse China’s Hui Muslim minority into waging war against the Communist Party. The Hui, like ISIS, practice a Sunni form of Islam and are considered very moderate.

According to Z News, the song was made in Pakistan by Al-Hayat Media Center, an Islamic State media outlet. And according to SITE intelligence group, it was released through Twitter and the messaging app Telegram.

Interestingly, one of the lines in the song talks about “a century of slavery” that has left “shameful memories” for Chinese Muslims, which could be a reference to the “Century of Humiliation” – a Chinese government narrative used to describe the West’s treatment of China from the Opium Wars to the founding of the People’s Republic. This use of language would sound familiar to any Chinese listener.

China has come into closer focus for the Islamic State in the last year and half since ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi said in a July 2014 speech that “Muslim rights are forcibly seized in China, India, Palestine…” The Hong Kong magazine Phoenix Weekly, which broke the story in China, noted that China was called out first on the list. The result was a spike in interest and outrage in China towards the Islamic State’s actions. That continued when in June of this year ISIS released a video featuring an 80 year old Uighur grandfather, said to be the oldest member of ISIS. In September, a knife attack by Uighur separatists prompted a government crackdown in Xinjiang, including an outright ban on several Muslim names. Then in November, the Chinese government confirmed that ISIS had executed Beijing native Fan Jinghui whom they had kidnapped in Syria and put up for ransom along with a Norwegian man. Later that month, Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou “urged the public not to panic” when ISIS released a video in which a display of the flags of countries fighting against them included the flag of Taiwan, which was taken to mean ISIS recognition of Taiwan as a sovereign country.

This song, “We Are Mujahid”, came out just a couple of weeks later. If you didn’t know what it was, what is said, and who made it, you might actually like it. It’s hypnotically catchy. Now, the moment you’ve been waiting for, listen here and scroll down to sing along.

There were a couple parts I wasn’t sure about, so if you want to correct a translation, please do so in the comments. 


我们是 Mujahid, 无耻的敌人会恐慌,
Wǒmen shì Mujahid, wúchǐ de dírén huì kǒnghuāng,
We are Mujahid, our shameless enemies will be stricken with fear and panic,

站死在这沙场上就是我们的梦想.
Zhàn sǐ zài zhè shāchǎng shàng jiùshì wǒmen de mèngxiǎng.
To die on this battleground is our dream.

我们是 Mujahid, 无耻的敌人会恐慌,
Wǒmen shì Mujahid, wúchǐ de dírén huì kǒnghuāng,
We are Mujahid, our shameless enemies will be stricken with fear and panic,

站死在这沙场上就是我们的梦想.
Zhàn sǐ zài zhè shāchǎng shàng jiùshì wǒmen de mèngxiǎng.
To die on this battleground is our dream.

一个世纪被奴役, 留下那耻辱的回忆,
Yīgè shìjì bèi núyì, liú xià nà chǐrǔ de huíyì,
A century of slavery, leaving that shameful memory,

无知的沉睡下去, 噩梦就会直去.
Wǒ zhǐ de chénshuì xiàqù, èmèng jiù huì zhí qù.
Deep in ignorant slumber, the nightmare continues.

一个世纪被奴役, 留下那耻辱的回忆,
Yīgè shìjì bèi núyì, liú xià nà chǐrǔ de huíyì,
A century of slavery, leaving that shameful memory,

无知的沉睡下去, 噩梦就会直去.
Wǒ zhǐ de chénshuì xiàqù, èmèng jiù huì zhí qù.
Deep in ignorant slumber, the nightmare continues.

起来吧穆斯林兄弟, 现在是觉醒的时期,
Qǐláiba mùsīlín xiōngdì, xiànzài shíjiān xǐng de shíqí,
Get up Muslim brother, now is the time to awaken,

来上信仰和勇气, 履行丢失的教义.
Lái shàng xìnyǎng hé yǒngqì, lǚxíng diūshī de jiàoyì.
Take up your faith and courage, fulfill the lost doctrine.

起来吧穆斯林兄弟, 现在是觉醒的时期,
Qǐláiba mùsīlín xiōngdì, xiànzài shíjiān xǐng de shíqí,
Get up Muslim brother, now is the time to awaken,

来上信仰和勇气, 履行丢失的教义.
Lái shàng xìnyǎng hé yǒngqì, lǚxíng diūshī de jiàoyì.
Take up your faith and courage, fulfill the lost doctrine.

我们是 Mujahid, 无耻的敌人会恐慌,
Wǒmen shì Mujahid, wúchǐ de dírén huì kǒnghuāng,
We are Mujahid, our shameless enemies will be stricken with fear and panic,

站死在这沙场上就是我们的梦想.
Zhàn sǐ zài zhè shāchǎng shàng jiùshì wǒmen de mèngxiǎng.
To die on this battleground is our dream.

我们只遵守这古兰经和圣训,
Wǒmen shì zūnshǒu zhè gǔlánjīng hé shèng xùn
We only abide by the Koran and Sunnah,

没有任何力量能阻止我们的前进.
Méiyǒu rènhé lìliàng néng zǔzhǐ wǒmen de qiánjìn.
There is no power whatsoever that can impede our progress.

我们只遵守这古兰经和圣训,
Wǒmen shì zūnshǒu zhè gǔlánjīng hé shèng xùn
We only abide by the Koran and Sunnah,

没有任何力量能阻止我们的前进.
Méiyǒu rènhé lìliàng néng zǔzhǐ wǒmen de qiánjìn.
There is no power whatsoever that can impede our progress.

为祝祷而战斗, 为大阿拉的命令,
Wèi zhùdǎo ér zhàndòu, wéi dà āla de mìnglìng
To pray and wage war, for Great Allah’s commands,

拿起武器去反抗, 权谋胜的这里. (???)
Ná qǐ wǔqì qù fǎnkàng, quánmóu shèng de zhèlǐ. (???)
Take up arms and resist, deception/trickery will lead to victory. (Not sure about the second half, WSJ translates it as “To take up weapons in rebellion is Muhammad’s order.”)

为祝祷而战斗, 为大阿拉的命令,
Wèi zhùdǎo ér zhàndòu, wéi dà āla de mìnglìng
To pray and wage war, for Great Allah’s commands,

拿起武器去反抗, 权谋胜的这里. (???)
Ná qǐ wǔqì qù fǎnkàng, quánmóu shèng de zhèlǐ. (???)
Take up arms and resist, deception/trickery will lead to victory. (Not sure about the second half, WSJ translates it as “To take up weapons in rebellion is Muhammad’s order.”)

我们是 Mujahid, 无耻的敌人会恐慌,
Wǒmen shì Mujahid, wúchǐ de dírén huì kǒnghuāng,
We are Mujahid, our shameless enemies will be stricken with fear and panic,

站死在这沙场上就是我们的梦想.
Zhàn sǐ zài zhè shāchǎng shàng jiùshì wǒmen de mèngxiǎng.
To die on this battleground is our dream.

伊斯兰的辉煌在那里史上,
Yīsīlán de huīhuáng yíliú zài nàlǐ shǐshàng,
The brilliance of Islam is handed down through history,

让它重返光芒, 是奋斗的方向.
Ràng tā chóng fǎn guāngmáng, shì fèndòu de fāngxiàng.
To have a return to radiance, that is the direction of the struggle.

伊斯兰的辉煌在那里史上,
Yīsīlán de huīhuáng yíliú zài nàlǐ shǐshàng,
The brilliance of Islam is handed down through history,

让它重返光芒, 是奋斗的方向.
Ràng tā chóng fǎn guāngmáng, shì fèndòu de fāngxiàng.
To have a return to radiance, that is the direction of the struggle.

起来吧穆斯林兄弟, 现在是觉醒的时期,
Qǐláiba mùsīlín xiōngdì, xiànzài shíjiān xǐng de shíqí,
Get up Muslim brother, now is the time to awaken,

来上信仰和勇气, 履行丢失的教义.
Lái shàng xìnyǎng hé yǒngqì, lǚxíng diūshī de jiàoyì.
Take up your faith and courage, fulfill the lost doctrine.

起来吧穆斯林兄弟, 现在是觉醒的时期,
Qǐláiba mùsīlín xiōngdì, xiànzài shíjiān xǐng de shíqí,
Get up Muslim brother, now is the time to awaken,

来上信仰和勇气, 履行丢失的教义.
Lái shàng xìnyǎng hé yǒngqì, lǚxíng diūshī de jiàoyì.
Take up your faith and courage, fulfill the lost doctrine.

我们是 Mujahid, 无耻的敌人会恐慌,
Wǒmen shì Mujahid, wúchǐ de dírén huì kǒnghuāng,
We are Mujahid, our shameless enemies will be stricken with fear and panic,

站死在这沙场上就是我们的梦想.
Zhàn sǐ zài zhè shāchǎng shàng jiùshì wǒmen de mèngxiǎng.
To die on this battleground is our dream.

China Is Playing The West At The Paris Climate Conference

The Illuminati-One World Order-One World Government guys may be on to something this time. Well, it looks like it on the surface anyway what with words like “International Tribunal of Climate Justice” and sentences like UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon’s “The business community is asking for a clear signal from governments that the low emissions economy is inevitable” being spoken. Nearly 200 countries are in the middle of negotiations at the Paris climate conference, with the prospect of a legally binding grand bargain among the nations being hammered out.

As Shikha Dalmia recalls in The Week:

“Every major climate change initiative to date has gone up in smoke. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which sought to cut emissions 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012, was doomed from the start. India and China, even then among the world’s top five polluters, refused to even participate. Meanwhile, President Bill Clinton supported the treaty, but he didn’t have a prayer of getting it past the U.S. Congress, so he didn’t even try. Canada ratified the deal but blew its target cuts by 25 percent and eventually quit. Japan and New Zealand similarly faced a compliance gap. Europe met its target but not because its cap-and-trade program was a roaring success, as environmentalists would have you believe. Rather, it was because the industrial emissions of former Soviet bloc countries were so awful in 1990 that minor access to better Western technology produced major gains. Also, Europe’s 2007 recession helped!

“The 2009 Copenhagen conference to hammer out a Kyoto sequel was an even bigger debacle. India and China participated — but only to play spoilsports. They rejected America’s proposed emission cuts as small potatoes that didn’t even come close to atoning for America’s historic role in causing the problem in the first place. The whole thing ended on a sour note with global leaders unable to muster anything beyond a statement noting the need to keep global temperatures 2 degrees centigrade below industrial levels.”

But as Ronald Bailey reports at Reasonthe atmosphere of this conference is a bit warmer than in the past:

“Paris, France – I’ve reported from so many U.N. climate change conferences that I’ve lost count (11 or 12, I think), but I have never before experienced what is happening in the slapped-together particle board hallways of the Le Bourget exposition site: Optimism. Even a bit of giddiness on the part of the diplomats, and even among the always dour environmentalist groups. At earlier meetings the set ritual has been for activists during the second week to issue a constant stream of urgent denunciations. Sure, one still hears here that there is only 24 hours to get this or that deal done, but the upbeat tone is nevertheless widespread…

“There is another reason for a feeling of serenity at the conference: the absence of mobs of protestors. The commotion produced by of masses of demonstrators inside and outside the climate conferences contributed significantly to the fraught atmosphere that pervaded previous meetings. The French government has used the terrorist atrocities in November as a justification to ban all public protests and marches. This seems to have taken the heart out of lot of would-be climate agitators. Yes, the occasional campaigner dressed in a polar bear costume does wander by, but participants are not being hectored by throngs of doomsters constantly crying climate calamity from their various soapboxes. The result is that the conference venue is imbued with an unaccustomed sense of orderly calm.”

That order and optimism should be worrying for the United States and anyone in any country who values free enterprise and national sovereignty.

One of the linchpins of the conference is funding for various climate change related initiatives, organized by the Obama administration at the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference, in which rich countries have pledged to contribute $100 billion a year by 2020. President Xi Jinping said in Paris, “Developed countries should honor their commitment of mobilizing $100 billion each year before 2020 and provide stronger support to developing countries afterward.”

G77 Chairwoman Nozipho Mxakato-Diseko said, “We repeatedly call on developed countries to provide the necessary support to enable the members of the Group to take on their fair share of the global effort…many of these INDCs [intended nationally determined contributions] include a component on adaptation and action which we have to take as a result mostly of the historical emissions by developed countries…This was done without any concrete reassurances from our partners that post-2020 support will be available.”

The G77 Chairwoman added that these climate initiatives must be “supported by finance, technology development and transfer and capacity-building by developed country parties…The outcome regarding finance must provide clarity on the level of financial support that will be provided by developed country parties to developing country parties to allow for enhanced implementation of the Convention in the post-2020 period, as well as existing commitment on pre-2020 finance,” she stressed.

India is also a wrench in the gears. Prime Minister Narendra Modi said that the threats posed by climate change are the result of “the prosperity and progress of an industrial age powered by fossil fuel. But we in India face its consequences today.” One of India’s negotiators proclaimed in a press conference that the financing is “not a donation, but is an obligation on the part of developed countries” and that there is “an entitlement to receive finance on part of developing countries.”

As Bailey also reports, “In Paris, poor countries are insisting that $100 billion is a floor and that climate finance should be substantially scaled up from there. The poor countries are also insisting that the accord adopt mechanisms that track and verify the amounts of climate finance flowing from rich countries.” (Italics mine.)

In other words, pay up or shut up.

Western leaders in those “developed” countries (as if development has an end) will play along because most of them believe in this guilt narrative. If you can stomach it, here’s Al Gore who “likened the fight against climate change to earlier great moral crusades such as the abolition of slavery and apartheid, the right of women to vote and civil rights for all. Just like them, Gore said, the climate change struggle has a simple ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer. ‘The right choice is to safeguard the future for the next generation and for the generations to come.’” President Francois Hollande struck a similar tone, “so many people and future generations will be very strict when they judge what was done by heads of state and government, especially when it comes to those who did not assume their responsibilities, who did not opt for a universal, legally binding, differentiated agreement.”

This is especially sad coming from the French president, when only a few weeks ago the ugly reality of the real global threat – radical Islamic terrorism – hit right in the face the very city where this conference to fight a highly questionable global threat is being held. As radio talk show host Dennis Prager often says, those who don’t fight evil hate those who do. Climate change is the one area where world leaders who have failed to deal with global jihad can feel like they are doing something good together.

***

In November 2014 during President Obama’s visit to Beijing, he announced alongside President Xi that the US and China had reached an agreement in which “The United States intends to achieve an economy-wide target of reducing its emissions by 26%-28% below its 2005 level in 2025 and to make best efforts to reduce its emissions by 28%. China intends to achieve the peaking of CO2 emissions around 2030 and to make best efforts to peak early and intends to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 20% by 2030.” That’s right, the US will commit to meeting these targets by 2025, and China will commit to start thinking about reducing carbon emissions, which is not pollution, by 2030. Classic Obamadeal.

The entire reason behind it was to signal to all the countries now gathered in Paris that the two biggest economies in the world were on the same page, therefore everyone else should get on board.

That China has gone from climate conference foil to enthusiastic cheerleader (or Bali to 巴黎 ) is touted by President Obama as a victory for the cause. But an examination of China’s domestic energy policy points to another conclusion: China is doing what it would be doing anyway because of internal public pressure to deal with air pollution, and they have repackaged that policy to fit with the UN climate change agenda.

The Communist Party truly does want to improve the pollution situation in China, but it’s because dealing with that problem has become an internal legitimacy question, not because they want to “combat climate change.” Such questions are above all others for the Party. And, with good historical reason, the Chinese are very wary of jeopardizing their sovereignty to Western led institutions. In a report released last month by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Patricia Adams examines China’s positions and opens with this insight:

“The apparent contradiction between what the West wants and what China’s leadership needs is easily resolved. China’s leadership knows that what China says to the West is more important than what China does, absolving it of the need to make any binding commitment to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions. China also knows that Western leaders’ have no firm expectation of concrete commitments in Paris. Rather, their paramount goal is to maintain face at the Paris talks, which would collapse without China’s presence.

“China is deftly preparing the stage in Paris to position itself as the Third World’s defender and also as a recipient of the billions in climate aid that it is demanding from the West. We can expect more announcements, agreements, and soaring rhetoric from global politicians at the Paris Conference, along with an agreement to meet again next year. What we cannot expect are reforms designed to reduce China’s carbon emissions.”

The Chinese have simply observed the scene and caught on to the game. They have also had more time since the last two climate conferences to observe the Obama administration and how willing it is to give away massive concessions, such as the November 2014 carbon emissions agreement and the Iran nuclear deal. Who can blame them really? They are just taking advantage of an opportunity to forward their national interests, an opportunity served on a silver platter by inept Western leadership making impossible demands on China. Adams puts it like this:

“The Chinese government communicates via slogans. Whether it is Premier Li’s ‘war on pollution’ or President Xi’s ‘energy revolution’, slogans represent the Communist Party’s operating principles. As such, they are both a signal to economic actors of how to justify their actions and a statement of best intentions that provides cover when the plan doesn’t work out. China’s Communist Party has realised that the UN war on global warming can legitimise its goals as well as extract concessions and cash from the West while establishing China as a ‘responsible world power’. Most of all, as a centralised, top-down mechanism that conditions investments globally, the UN climate negotiations speak the language of the Communist Party of China and entrench the Party’s role.”

Beijing is also bluntly calling Obama’s bluff. The Boston Herald reports,

“China’s chief negotiator at climate talks outside Paris says that any agreement adopted in the negotiations should be legally binding in its entirety, not just parts of it.

“Su Wei told reporters Saturday that if a treaty is adopted at the end of the Paris negotiations, then ‘all the provisions, starting from the preamble to the final clauses would be legally binding.’

“That contrasts with the U.S. position which is for some parts to be legally binding, but not countries’ pledges to limit the greenhouse gas emissions. Binding emissions cuts would likely require the Obama administration to send the deal to the Republican-controlled Congress, where it would likely be struck down.

“‘We cannot just identify one sentence or one provision or article as not legally binding,’ Su said. ‘That’s a general rule of international treaty laws. There’s no doubt about that.’

“After the news conference he indicated the issue was still up for negotiation.”

Beijing gets to claim “see, we’re all for this fighting climate change thing” knowing full well Obama can’t commit America to anything legally binding, absolving them from any such commitments as well. CNN quotes China’s vice-minister of the National Development and Reform Commission Xie Zhenhua, “As China gradually completes its industrialization, carbon emissions from industries may reach their peak earlier than expected — but the country still has a long way to go when it comes to urbanization. So emissions from construction, transportation and service sectors will keep rising. Looking at the broader picture, we feel the goal of having emissions peak around 2030 is a scientific one.”

Echoing Su Wei, Xie also said, “I’m actually worried that, after the next U.S. presidential election, if a Republican wins, will the United States keep its commitment to the climate change issue? You don’t have to worry about China’s commitment. It’s the United States that you should be concerned about — will it keep its current policy intact? That’s what worries me.”

***

France and the US, the two world leaders in nuclear power technology, could be selling that technology and know how to the developing world which would benefit their economies, help to keep the environment clean, and help poor countries advance all at the same time. Not to mention that being an incomparably easier and more accountable process than trying to get just under 200 countries to agree to emissions standards. Instead they are allowing themselves to be morally blackmailed into giving up the guilt money.

Progressivism is a luxury good, and “combating climate change” is the most expensive progressive luxury good. It’s one the Chinese can’t afford – the only luxury goods they are interested in are Gucci bags and Lamborghinis.

Blog at WordPress.com.