Hypocrisy, War, and “Islamophobia”

By Rubashov

The New York Times is the newspaper of record in America. So if you ever want to know which way the Establishment is blowing in the good old U.S. of A., consider this: The last time the New York Times endorsed a Republican for President was in 1956. His name was Dwight Eisenhower. If you voted for him then, you would be 84 years old today. That’s the American Establishment.

Of course, since 1956, the American Establishment – with the New York Times as its lead mouthpiece – has endorsed a whole series of wars which actually are not “official” wars because, per the Constitution, Congress did not declare them. Of course, the media doesn’t focus on the illegally of these seemingly endless wars, only the often made up justifications for them.

The same Establishment media that makes a show of displaying its morality – with fashionable admonishments like “how dare you be Islamophobic” – has for nearly two decades marched people off to wars in which they have been killed and maimed and left psychologically damaged by the Islamic combatants of the other side. And our own side has been asked to kill and maim and break the Islamic peoples against whom they have been cast. Ask any combat veteran. Killing is not an antiseptic business. It stirs the emotions. One cannot be fond of those you are asked to kill.

During and after the Great War (World War I) German-sounding place names across New Jersey were eliminated, changed to something else. Was it racism? Or was it in the nature of people who have been asked by their government to get angry enough to kill? Was it racism? Or was it the pain of a dead son or husband or father? Was it racism? Or the loss of a limb or limbs or eyes or psychological wholeness? Forty years after the end of the Second World War, there were still people who refused to buy Japanese automobiles. Racism or the residuals of a prescribed anger? Anger and loss…

The same Establishment media that decries “Anti-Muslim” thoughts or speech supports the wars in which actual Muslims are bombed, shot, starved, made homeless – and we are asked not to notice. They are our moral superiors, the arbiters of what is good and what is evil. Just do as they direct and know that to kill a man (as directed by government) is not as great a sin as to think an unsanctioned thought. Thought is the only real crime. Thought and its attendant, speech.

This is why Establishment media so hates the Ron Pauls and Tulsi Gabbards of the world. Anyone who questions war is job one on their hit list. The honest Left and the honest Right know this, which links them forever as “outsiders”.

Who is Tulsi Gabbard?

Tulsi Gabbard is a military combat veteran serving as the U.S. Representative for Hawaii's 2nd congressional district. She is a member of the Democratic Party. Elected in 2012, she became the first Samoan American and the first Hindu member of the United States Congress.

Gabbard served in the Hawaii House of Representatives from 2002 to 2004. When she was elected to the Hawaii House of Representatives at age 21, she was the youngest woman to be elected to a U.S. state legislature. Gabbard served in a field medical unit of the Hawaii Army National Guard in a combat zone in Iraq from 2004 to 2005 and was deployed to Kuwait from 2008 to 2009.

Gabbard was a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee from 2013 to 2016, when she resigned to endorse Senator Bernie Sanders for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

Gabbard opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership. She is critical of interventionism in Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, and Syria.

Gabbard is a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president of the United States in 2020.

Hey Democrats, quit minding other people’s business!

Katie Rotondi wants to be the Madame Defarge of Sussex County politics. Since becoming Chairwoman of the Sussex County Democrats, she has led stalking parties against her neighbors in Sussex County.

Like Charles Dickens’ villain in A Tale of Two Cities, Rotondi operates out of hatred towards those who disagree with her “revolution” and revenge on Sussex County for having voted for Donald Trump. As she can’t stalk everyone, Rotondi focuses on high profile figures in Sussex County as symbols of all of Sussex County.

Rotondi stalks them, finds something to be offended about, whips her mob into a frenzy, and then demands that her victim is removed. This metaphorical “beheading” was the ultimate fate of those victims of mass persecution during the French Revolution. Their only “crime” was to fail to think or speak in line with how the Katie Rotondies of the world want everyone to think and speak.

It is what Rowan Atkinson calls, “The creeping culture of censoriousness.” Others have called it, “The new intolerance.” It is an attempt to straight jacket thought and speech.

This loss of Freedom is happening all around the world. Indeed, for the first time in recent memory, there is an authoritarian, anti-freedom, economic success story to counter all those arguments put forward by the democracies that prosperity and liberty go hand in hand. There is another way for an economy to prosper, and that is the Chinese Communist way of social credit authoritarianism.

Do we, as Americans, want to go down that road?

Many countries have criminalized opinions that we all once took for granted. Think of our bullying laws run amok and you will have some idea of what it is like to live in a country in which giving “offense” has been criminalized. Some nations, like the United Kingdom, have started to break down those laws and restore freedoms that Americans, for the moment, still possess…

The question for Americans is this: Is the rise of our informal system of punishment really any better than the European criminalization of giving “offense”? Are extra-legal lynch mobs preferable to due process and formal adjudication?

Perhaps the way forward is as Rowan Atkinson prescribes: More speech.

If only the Star-Ledger had the moral mettle of the Atlantic City Press.

Once upon a time in America… newspapers provided a safe space for the exchange of ideas.  They kept the drama in check, maintained a rational balance, and never let their emotions get the better of them.

You need only read an editorial written by the Star-Ledger’s Julie O’Connor to know that those days are long gone.  Today’s media is all wrapped up in the moment and very, very emotional about it.  There is no civil exchange of ideas, just the daily line that the Establishment media is right… and the average working man and woman is wrong.  And if you disagree with them, they call you a “racist”. 

Once upon a time in America… newspapers didn’t tip their hand as to whose side they were on.  You couldn’t tell if they were leaning Democrat or Republican – and they tried not to give it away until their endorsement a few days before an election.  Now there’s no hiding who they support and what they are.  As the Star-Ledger’s Tom Moran wrote last year:  “Voters will be standing in the booth Tuesday, and our core mission is helping them decide which lever to pull.”

With a “core mission” like that, it sounds like the Star-Ledger needs to register itself as a political action committee.

Of course, there are still a few – very few – old style newspapers.  About the same time the Star-Ledger was publishing its “core mission”, the Atlantic City Press wrote: “Telling readers how to vote, however, is contrary to the mission of newspapers and other media, which is to extend the public’s experience and perspectives.  Newsgathering organizations give the public eyes, ears and memory beyond the capability of an individual.  People want them to be reliable and credible.  When the media start making judgments, their audiences wonder if they’re altering their content to support that judgment too.”

Once upon a time in America… colleges and universities were safe spaces for the exchange of ideas.  Freedom of thought and of speech was respected – even when disagreed with. 

Now look at them.  They threaten those they disagree with and – if they show up anyway – they get violent.  Who would have believed that students would one day get violent over the idea of being exposed to a different point of view?  The parallel to another time, and other students, is an exact one.  And that ended in book burning.

Recently a Sussex County Democrat wrote:   "Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state."  He went on to explain that Fox News should be banned because, in his view, it was “propaganda”.  The idea that this Democrat is aligned with an institution of higher learning – in this case the Sussex County Community College – is chilling. 

The safe space for civil discourse, the safe space for the exchange of ideas, is fast disappearing.  And when society’s “betters” behave irresponsibly – equating words with violence – what do we expect from the “unhinged” elements of society?  Who is teaching society how to hold a civil, rational discussion with someone with whom they disagree?

Instead, by equating words with violence, the editors, reporters, faculty, and administrators are telling society that they engage in violence (with words) and so it is okay for others to engage in violence (on their terms).

The problem with writers like Julie O’Connor, Tom Moran, Matt Arco, and Matt Friedman is their lack of humility and lack of intellectual curiosity.  Their moral certainty has closed the book on considering any viewpoint but their own.  They are good… everybody else is evil.  That makes for a pretty darn predictable writing style.  Pretty darn boring. 

There has been a lot of social change in America.  O’Connor-Moran-Arco-Freidman and the like are in a rush to make everyone conform to those changes.  They believe it to be a moral imperative that any diversity of opinion be labeled and then stamped out.  But they are acting out at a very dangerous time in the world. 

Democracy defeated the older models of totalitarianism because it produced both freedom and prosperity.  Totalitarianism failed to produce either freedom or prosperity.  Now there is a new model of totalitarianism – Chinese fascism – that is quite good at lifting people out of poverty and making them prosperous.  Prosperous… but not free. 

If we lose our safe spaces for civil, rational discussion.  If we lose the ability to exchange ideas.  If we convince our people that they must be “protected” from the freedoms in Bill of Rights – from being exposed to speech they disagree with, from the right to self-defense.  What will we be left with?  Will we embrace the Chinese model if it ensures prosperity and protects us from the “threat” of freedom?

We have been warned before about the inorganic imposition of new cultural ideas on society.  We have been warned about what happens when you are not patient, by that old-fashioned liberal, Mrs. Lillian Smith.  A Southern writer, she was a pioneer in the battle to end segregation. We recommend her book, The Winner Names the Age.  In it, you will find this passage she wrote when she accepted the Charles S. Johnson Award for her work:

“It is his millions of relationships that will give man his humanity… It is not our ideological rights that are important but the quality of our relationships with each other, with all men, with knowledge and art and God that count.

The civil rights movement has done a magnificent job but it is now faced with the ancient choice between good and evil, between love for all men and lust for a group’s power.”

“Every group on earth that has put ideology before human relations has failed; always disaster and bitterness and bloodshed have come.  This movement, too, may fail.  If it does, it will be because it aroused in men more hate than love, more concern for their own group than for all people, more lust for power than compassion for human need.”

“We must avoid the trap of totalism which lures a man into thinking there is only one way, one answer, one option, and that others must be forced into this One Way, and forced into it Now.”

SCCC Trustees need to explain where they stand on the Bill of Rights

By Rubashov

Remember the attacks on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo?  They published something that, in this case, militant Islamists found offensive.  The militants demanded they get their way and, when they didn’t, they killed 12 people.  The trustees at Charlie Hebdo stood up for free speech and against threats – and 12 people were martyred for it. 

At the very start of our American experiment, Benjamin Franklin said:  “You have a Republic, if you can keep it.”  The battles to preserve our Bill of Rights are fought in the pages of newspapers and on the Internet and on the lips of people, no less than on the battlefields of war.     

As in the case of Charlie Hebdo, some people have demanded that an image they deem “offensive” be removed and the “perpetrator” – in this case, it was merely “re-tweeted” – be punished.  Now they are equating what they call “hate speech” with acts of actual violence.

By the way, when is a crime of violence – any crime of violence – not hateful?

When is a sexual assault not hateful?  When is assault and battery a cheerful crime? When is murder done without malice?  When is the rape and murder of a child not hate?

Officially, the rape and the murder of a child is not an act of hate.  “It is about what was going on in your mind at the time of the crime,” they explain.  In other words, the crime is in the thought, not the act.  So now we have “thought crime”.  The actual rape and murder isn’t the bad part – what makes it really bad, what elevates it to a “hate crime,” is the thought.      

Go to the United States Justice Department’s compendium of “hate crimes” for 2001 and you will find that the attacks on September 11, 2001, are not counted as “hate crimes”.  Yeah, sure, those boys who flew those airliners into the Twin Towers did it out of benign affection for America.

The fact that the official compendium of “hate crimes” for 2001 is short 2,977 victims is a testament as to how deep the rot of political correctness has gone.

In politically correct parlance, hate is what they say it is. 

And who are “they”?  Anyone who sets themselves up as a “victim” or a “victims’ group” or a spokesperson for such.  In short… any old mob.

The Democrats asked Leslie Huhn, a supporter of Governor Phil Murphy and the former Chair of the Sussex County Democrat Committee, to dig up some dirt on Jerry Scanlan, the Chairman of the Sussex County Republicans and a member of the Board of Trustees of the Sussex County Community College (SCCC).  Murphy was concerned that his illegal Sanctuary scheme was getting bad press across the state – with a big part of the pushback coming from Sussex County.

On July 22, 2019, Leslie Huhn started “following” the Twitter page operated by Jerry Scanlan.  Huhn was looking for something to be offended by and she found it.  A mob was organized to storm the SCCC Board of Trustees meeting scheduled for later that same week.  Among its members was an outspoken, self-identified “anarchist”.  Sweet.

Initially, Scanlan drew attention to the timing of the Democrats’ carefully planned oppo-attack (which it clearly was).  Then the Sussex County GOP stepped in and took control of the Twitter account from Scanlan.  Scanlan issued an apology and said that the re-tweets were part of long twitter “trains” which he had not paid close attention to, but took responsibility for in his apology. 

In more “liberal” times, that would have been enough.  But this is not how today’s Left works. 

The way it works today is that a mob is formed, the mob calls for someone’s head, that person is taken out and publicly lynched by his colleagues, the head is ceremoniously removed and thrown to the mob, the mob beats it about and tattoos the forehead with words like the ubiquitous “racist” or the fast-becoming “Islamophobe,” and then, having been sexually satiated, the mob departs… until the next time.

There is no time allowed for rational discussion, legal due process, or civil deliberation.  The mob wants its head and there are always cowards who will give it someone’s head.  The cowards’ wish is only that it not be them.

Instead of succumbing to the mob.  Instead of participating in an act of extra-judicial punishment.  Perhaps this is a teachable moment?  

The mob fears rational discussion.  Maybe it is simply beyond people whose vocabulary is limited to a very few epithets?  But the Board of Trustees of the Sussex County Community College should not place itself at the disposal of a mob.  As an institution of higher learning, it should use this moment to broaden the discussion.  It should use this moment to teach the Bill of Rights, which are our greatest cultural, political, and legal inheritance. 

This is no longer about Jerry Scanlan.  He admitted he was in error and he apologized.  The calls for further punishment (and for physical violence against him) are superfluous.  They will not make him more in error or give further weight to his admission that he was in error. 

Curiously, these calls for further punishment (and violence against his person), come at a time when the Democrat Party is on record as supporting the decriminalization of actual criminal activity, the end of mandatory sentencing for actual crimes of violence, and the extension of rights (such a voting) to actual violent criminals.  The Democrats don’t wish to make anyone safer.  They just want to police your thoughts so that nobody is allowed to oppose what they say.

The Trustees of the SCCC have an opportunity to bring reason and knowledge to the table.  Let the Bill of Rights be their guide.  The SCCC can use this opportunity to teach.  And isn’t that what an institution of learning should do anyway?   

As in the past, the Democrats are now Racialists.

While science can explain that gender is real, “race” is a political construct.

What “race” is “Congresswoman of color” Alexandria Ocasio Cortez?

ANSWER: Caucasian

What “race” is Congresswoman of color” Rashida Tlaib?

ANSWER: Caucasian

So how did they become “women of color”? 

ANSWER: Politics.

Heck, even Senator Elizabeth Warren was once a “woman of color”. 

As “African American” civil rights leader Nkechi Amare Diallo (aka Rachel Anne Dolezal) taught us, if you say you are Black… and nobody says you aint Black… then you’re Black. 

Hey, if you want to find a pure bred somebody – go admire some Neanderthal fossils.  We are a world full of mutts.  What is an Englishman?  An Iceni diddled by a Roman, mated with a German (Anglo-Saxon), rogered by a Norseman (Viking), sired by a Frenchman (Norman), mixed up with Celts, married to a Jamaican, a Pole, a Pakistani…   

And what is a Jamaican, a Pole, or a Pakistani but a function of politics?  This army got so far, this group came to this place, the borders were drawn thusly, and so on.  Politics!  Not science. 

Nation-states matter because we derive protection and stability from them.  They are the artifice upon which we hang our lives.  Towns matter because it is where we live.  We have more in common with our neighbors than we do with some ethnic group we choose to “identify” with.  But race?  Race is a nonsense proposition.

Those who use race as their measurement for every human interaction – who think in terms of “people of color” – are called racialistsWikipedia notes that “Racialism is the belief that the human species is naturally divided into races, that are ostensibly distinct biological categories.”

The philosopher W.E.B. DuBois argued that racialism was merely the philosophical position that races existed, and that collective differences existed among such categories.  DuBois held that racialism was a value-neutral term and differed from racism in that the latter required advancing the argument that one race is superior to other races of human beings.

But science has largely erased such arguments.  Aside from some genetic correlations in the incidence of diseases in this subset or that, the idea of “racial identity” that is forced down every American child’s throat, that haunts our society in everything from census forms to employment applications, is entirely a political construct.  The American idea of “race” is nonsense and calling people “racist” is a nonsense game.  The actor Morgan Freeman got it right…

The Democrats’ insistence on the primacy of race is an inverted return to their past.  Like then, Democrats today are obsessed with what measure of blood from this group or that flows through someone’s veins.  They seem to forget that our blood – the blood of our common humanity – is categorized, not in terms like Black or White or “of color” or “not of color” – but as O, A, B, and AB.

The Democrats need to end their obsession… and embrace humanity.