Wednesday, December 30, 2015

Identity politics and the death of the individual.

Nothing speaks more profoundly to the crisis of character than the phrase, ‘I identify as…’. In the past, individuals were. ‘I am a builder.’ ‘I am a mother.’ ‘I am a Jew.’ There was a confidence, a certainty, to their sense of identity, and to their declaration of it. ‘I am.’ Today, individuals identify as something. ‘I identify as working class.’ ‘I identify as non-binary.’ Or, in the notorious case of Rachel Dolezal, the American white woman who effectively blacked-up as she rose up the ranks of the NAACP, ‘I identify as black’. The rise of the i-word in our definition of ourselves, the ascendancy of what is called ‘self-identification’, is one of the most notable developments of the 21st century so far. It speaks to a shift from being to passing through; from a clear sense of presence in the world to a feeling of transience; from identities that were rooted to identities that are tentative, insecure, questionable.
Those words ‘I identify as’ – whether they’re being uttered by Caitlyn Jenner as she unveils her newfound womanhood or by an eco-friendly New York Times writer who says ‘I identify as a mammal’ – feel strikingly contingent. They speak to changeability. The undertone is ‘I identify as such-and-such for now’. Indeed, these highly personalised ‘identifications as’ something sometimes come with an acknowledgment that the identification could change in time, and change dramatically. A gender non-binary writer tells us that he/she ‘identifies as both genders’, but then says: ‘I do not know… whom I will identify as in the future.’ The Daily Mail recently reported on the case of a trans activist who identifies as a different thing on a daily basis. One day he/she is Layla, who wears ‘a dress and heels to work’; the next he/she is Layton – ‘a man who dons baggy jeans and workmen boots’. ‘I am’ doesn’t work here, because the very basis of his/her being can change in the space of hours.

Saturday, December 26, 2015

Open Letter to President Obama about Christmas Bells Falling Silent in the Middle East

Dear President Obama,

in your recent  statement on persecuted Christians at Christmas you stated:
In some areas of the Middle East where church bells have rung for centuries on Christmas Day, this year they will be silent; this silence bears tragic witness to the brutal atrocities committed against these communities by ISIL. 
When you say that ‘church bells have rung for centuries’ you are not speaking the truth.  Bells have rung in Syria and Iraq for not much more than a hundred years, at most.

As determined by Islamic law, church bells did not sound throughout the middle East for more than a thousand years from the 7th century conquests until modern times (except under the Crusaders).  This was due to the conditions set by the Pact of the Caliph Umar, by which Christians of Syria surrendered to Islamic conquest in the 7th century AD.  In this pact the Christians agreed that “We will not sound the bells in our churches.”  Churches in regions controlled by Muslims used semantrons (also calls nakos) instead of the forbidden church bells.  Examples of these are still visible in Jerusalem to this day, e.g. see here.

http://blog.markdurie.com/2015/12/open-letter-to-president-obama-about.html

Friday, December 25, 2015

COUNTER-JIHAD: WE'RE ABOUT TRUTH, NOT HATE

On December 2, 2015, two Muslim terrorists massacred fourteen Americans at a Christmas party in San Bernardino, California. On December 6, President Obama delivered an Oval Office address. In it, he said, "We cannot turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam … It is the responsibility of all Americans to reject discrimination." Many listeners were disappointed that Obama focused so much passion on lecturing Americans.
Media reported that hostility against Muslims increased after the San Bernardino attack. Public figures including Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, filmmaker Michael Moore, and Wheaton college professor Larycia Hawkins insisted that Muslims must be protected against the bigotry, stereotyping, and violence of non-Muslim Americans.
President Obama, Zuckerberg, Moore, and Hawkins are acting on their own bigotry. In hostility and ignorance, they stereotype all Americans (except Muslims, of course) as an inherently ignorant lynch mob. That's not who we Americans are. If Americans had been hearing from their leaders what they need to hear – a passionate defense of Western Civilization and a ringing condemnation of jihad – average Americans would not feel that they themselves must take on both rhetorical tasks. Americans, as YouTube curmudgeon Pat Condell pointed out, are trying to fill a leadership vacuum and to speak and hear unspoken truths.

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Anyone Using The Phrase ‘Islam Is A Religion Of Peace’ Needs To Read This by Mark Durie

Days after the ISIS-inspired terrorist attack in San Bernardino, President Obama’s address to the nation concerning the threat of ISIS missed the mark. In fact, President Obama seemed at times to be more concerned with Americans ostracizing Muslim communities through “suspicion and hate,” than he was with protecting innocent American civilians from murder in the name of radical Islam.
It is high time for western political leaders to stop responding to terrorism by naming Islam as ‘the religion of peace’. It is time to have a hard conversation about Islam.
The West is in the throes of acute cognitive dissonance over Islam, whose brands are at war with each other. On the one hand we are told that Islam is the Religion of Peace. On the other hand we are confronted with an unending sequence of acts of terror committed in the name of the faith.
There is a depressing connection between the two brands: the louder one brand becomes, the more the volume is turned up on the other.

Sunday, December 13, 2015

Dhimmitude and Trump

Although this journalist has not been a fan of Donald Trump, the man’s latest idea of barring the entry of Muslims into America hit a bull’s eye.  The hysterical reaction by Americans of many stripes is evidence of that, but also of a terrifying reality: the growing triumph of dhimmitude in the United States.

This word was invented by scholar Bat Ye’or, a European Jew born and raised in Egypt who now lives in Switzerland and is an expert on Islam’s history of governing non-Muslims, Jews and Christians in particular.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/dhimmitude_and_trump.html

Saturday, December 12, 2015

Trump’s Muslim Immigration Ban Should Touch Off a Badly Needed Discussion

Donald Trump’s rhetorical excesses aside, he has a way of pushing us into important debates, particularly on immigration. He has done it again with his bracing proposal to force “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

 I have no idea what Mr. Trump knows about either immigration law or Islam. But it should be obvious to any objective person that Muslim immigration to the West is a vexing challenge.

 Some Muslims come to the United States to practice their religion peacefully, and assimilate into the Western tradition of tolerance of other people’s liberties, including religious liberty — a tradition alien to the theocratic societies in which they grew up. Others come here to champion sharia, Islam’s authoritarian societal framework and legal code, resisting assimilation into our pluralistic society.

Since we want to both honor religious liberty and preserve the Constitution that enshrines and protects it, we have a dilemma.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428201/donald-trump-muslim-immigration-policy-discussion

Thursday, December 10, 2015

Progressive "Lists" and Gun Ownership: Another Bit of Weirdness

Listening to the radio last night, I heard a very earnest progressive commentator talk about "sensible gun control." The number one item on his list was, of course, the mental health issue. Keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, but of course! I have dealt with that before, and you can go HERE to read my pearls of wisdom on the fallacy of that approach. This little excerpt from that piece sums it up pretty well, in my humble opinion,
If you think the science of global climate whatever is up in the air, wait until you delve into the looney world of mental health. The mental health profession is full of quack "therapists" and quack theories; few things there are settled science; and that profession is as subject to the vagaries of the winds and tides of fashion and politics as any other. Let us not forget the uses of psychiatry in the dead and unlamented Soviet bloc. Even, however, without going back to the USSR, I would point out that my father was a psychiatrist, and in his old Diagnostic and Statistical Manuals (DSM) homosexuality was listed as a disorder, "a sociopathic personality disturbance" to be precise. It was a disorder or mental disturbance until it just wasn't--you can read the account of how that change happened here
Would then those persons treated for homosexuality, and have that on their medical records, be denied their second amendment rights? This, in turn, leads to the raising of many other questions: What standards would be used to determine mental illness for the purpose of gun denial? Who would make those standards? How would authorities running a background check gain access to those medical records? How would we redefine the ancient notion of patient-doctor confidentiality? How would those mental health sessions be flagged in the Great Database? How would one prevent that information from leaking and from being used for political or blackmail purposes? How would this not dissuade people who need some help from getting it? I am sure you can think of dozens more questions.
 http://www.thediplomad.com/2015/12/progressive-lists-and-gun-ownership.html?m=1

Wednesday, December 9, 2015

Turnbull’s Islamic Howlers

It is disappointing that today history books are teaching a dhimmified version of history, according to which children are schooled in feeling grateful to Islam for rescuing Western and Christian culture from Islam itself. This is exactly the dhimmi condition, and the essential meaning of the jizya payment ritual: to render gratitude to Islam for being rescued by conquest...

Malcolm Turnbull’s comment on Q&A illustrates the hole the West is falling into.  It risks being buried alive by the weight of bad ideas about its own identity and history.
In the face of escalating Islamic terrorism, it is reasonable to inquire into the contribution schooling may or may not make to the ideological formation of jihadis.  However, the way to make that inquiry is by examining what people are saying and doing today, not by making grandiose appeals to a mythical history.
To learn from history is wisdom. To abuse it is folly indeed.

An Opinion on Gun Control

Everything I need to say about mass shootings has already been said in this post from December 2012. I wrote it in response to Sandy Hook. It went viral and was read by over a million people. I also did a segment on FOX News about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzyuvl5Ry4g I am reposting it here now because the original link has 2,600 comments, so the page often doesn’t load correctly. 
## 
I didn’t want to post about this, because frankly, it is exhausting. I’ve been having this exact same argument for my entire adult life. It is not an exaggeration when I say that I know pretty much exactly every single thing an anti-gun person can say. I’ve heard it over and over, the same old tired stuff, trotted out every single time there is a tragedy on the news that can be milked. Yet, I got sucked in, and I’ve spent the last few days arguing with people who either mean well but are uninformed about gun laws and how guns actually work (who I don’t mind at all), or the willfully ignorant (who I do mind), or the obnoxiously stupid who are completely incapable of any critical thinking deeper than a Facebook meme (them, I can’t stand).

Mark Steyn – One Way Multiculturalism and Discussion of Trump (video)…

The issue boils down to: 

….”Not all Muslims are Jihadists, but all Jihadists are Muslim”….

If the FBI, DHS and various national security apparatus cannot differentiate the dangerous Muslim from the non-dangerous Muslim, which every department head has recently admitted they cannot, then Trump’s position to pause all Muslim immigration is exponentially more reasonable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0GRbEgTbN0

Tuesday, December 8, 2015

Salafis and the Muslim Brotherhood: what is the difference?

For western lay people, it can be hard to distinguish one radical Muslim from another.  What is the difference between Salafis and the Muslim Brotherhood?  Are they really all that different?  And why do Western governments seem to favour and even partner with Brotherhood-backed groups, but denigrate Salafis?


The 2011 People’s Assembly elections in Egypt focused the world’s attention on the Salafis when they proved to be the ‘dark horse’ of that poll, winning 25% of the seats.  This, together with the Muslim Brotherhood’s 47%, gave Islamists  almost three quarters of the seats in the Assembly. How do these two powerful Islamic groups compare?

Today the Brotherhood and Salafis also figure prominently in reports from Syria.  Both brands of Islamists field rebel forces in Syria, and Brotherhood leaders dominate the Syrian National Council, which has been recognized by the Arab League and some UN states as the legitimate representative of Syria.

http://blog.markdurie.com/2013/06/salafis-and-muslim-brotherhood-what-is.html

Monday, December 7, 2015

Tet, Take Two: Islam’s 2016 European Offensive

More than a decade ago I wrote my first novel, Enemies Foreign and Domestic. Part of my motivation was to establish my bona fides at forecasting social, political and military trends. I didn’t like the direction America was heading, and I wanted to warn as many readers as possible about some of the dangers I saw coming. At the end of 2015, I hope that my past success at prognostication will encourage people to pay heed to this essay.
As we roll into the New Year, we are witnessing the prelude to the culmination of a titanic struggle between three great actors. Three great social forces are now set in motion for a 2016 showdown and collision that will, in historical terms, be on par with the First and Second World Wars.
Two of these great social forces are currently allied in a de facto coalition against the third. They have forged an unwritten agreement to jointly murder the weakest of the three forces while it is in their combined power to do so. One of these two social forces would be content to share totalitarian control over large swaths of the globe with the other remaining social force. One of these social forces will never be satisfied until it achieves complete domination of the entire planet. So what are these three great social forces? They are Islam, international socialism, and nationalism.
Allow me to explain the salient aspects of each, and how they relate to the coming 2016 cataclysm.

Pope Francis, ‘suffering fuels terror’? Look at the Jews

In the impassioned plea for social justice you made in an address to Kenyan lawmakers in Nairobi last week, you asserted that “violence, conflict and terrorism…are fueled by fear and desperation…born of poverty and frustration.”
Yet nothing, not even desperation, can justify terrorism. The roots of terrorism lie only in hatred-based education. We Jews have a lot of experience with desperation. But our history shows other more constructive ways out of it. Desperation has never been a justification for Jews to commit violent acts in the name of our religion.


Locked and Loaded Watch Donald Trump Spokeswoman Katrina Pierson DESTROY CNN Crank

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiNuqUEAVDU

Sunday, December 6, 2015

An Islam of Their Very Own

The day after the San Bernardino jihadist attack that left fourteen dead and even more wounded, my old boss, Rudy Giuliani, came out and said what most sane people are thinking. After hours of pained, halting, incoherent babbling by public officials from President Obama on down about whether the mass-killing by two heavily armed, obviously well-trained Muslims constituted a terrorist attack, Rudy exploded:
You can come to one clear conclusion with the information they have right now. This is an act of terror. The question was motivation. . . . The question here is not, is it an act of terror. We’re beyond that. When you got two assault weapons, two handguns, you’re in body armor, you got a home that’s booby-trapped. You’ve [ACM: meaning “they’ve”] been practicing to do this. . . . If you can’t come to a conclusion at this point that this was an act of terror, you should find something else to do for a living besides law enforcement. I mean, you’re a moron.
Hard to argue with that.
But look, if you actually speak with the police and federal agents conducting the investigation into the attack, you figure out pretty quickly that they are not morons. They are actually very good at what they do. So why is it that, upon seeing two-plus-two, they can’t call it four when Islam is involved?