Assorted

     Did I really just cite weekends as a time to relax? What on Earth was I thinking?

1. “It’s Islam.”

     Daniel Greenfield has compiled a record of serial brilliance for his essays, especially when he addresses matters in the Middle East. His most recent offering rips the false facade away from the issues surrounding Islamic violence toward non-Muslims. The Sunday punch:

     Islamic terrorism is not an American problem, a British problem, a French problem, a Russian problem, a Chinese problem or an Israeli problem. It’s an Islamic problem. The only way we will ever triumph against it is to stop treating it as someone else’s problem. If only India gave up Kashmir, Israel gave up more of the West Bank, if America stopped being involved in the Middle East, if France hadn’t banned the hijab and the Netherlands hadn’t allowed cartoons of Mohammed, there would be no Islamic terrorism are the kinds of lies that are killing us.

     We are not responsible for Islamic terrorism. None of us. Only Islam is responsible.

     Islamic violence is over 1,000 years old. It predates most modern countries and it is not caused by anything we do. The only thing we are guilty of is our failure to smash the Jihad.

     I’ve said it before: If Islam were not granted the status of a religion, it would be viewed – by non-Muslims conversant with its teachings, at least – as utterly vile, no better than Nazism and in some ways worse. Denial will merely perpetuate the problem, giving the cancer further time to grow.

2. Birds Of A Feather.

     Communism and Islam may not look much alike, but they do share an implacable hatred of freedom and the aim of subjugating the whole world. Dave Blount has the story:

     The Muslim–moonbat alliance may be the greatest threat civilization has ever faced. It has emerged into plain sight following the historic terror atrocities in Israel. Ivy League colleges are one example. Communist Cuba is another:

     Cuban official media spokespersons, Leticia Martinez, head of communications for Miguel Diaz-Canel, and “El Necio” posted statements celebrating a “Free Palestine” and justifying the terrorist attacks over their social media. He retweeted the People’s Forum’s genocidal call for the end of the Israeli State with the slogan: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!.”

     The “From the River” slogan calls for the eradication of Jews from the Jewish homeland.

     In the midst of this barbarism and evil, Castro Regime spokesman “El Necio” cites Che Guevara visit to Gaza as inflection point that turned Palestine into a world cause, and posts photos of the Argentine guerilla with Middle East leaders during a visit there at the start of the Cuban dictatorship.

     The totalitarian ideologies of leftism and Islam differ in the particulars, but the sadistic barbarism that characterizes Hamas and that was personified by Che Guevara provides them with common ground.

     Applause. Perhaps were Communism and Islam the only ideologies remaining on Earth, they’d fight one another for supreme dominance. Until then, know them for villains of a single character. To support one is to support the other, and conversely.

3. “You Say Your Welfare State Is Broke?”

     Well, then! Simply exterminate the clientele!

     Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party voted down a bill Wednesday that would have barred the state from euthanizing mentally ill Canadians, reports Blaze news. There is nothing now standing in the way of those who have mental disorders – including the depressed with suicidal ideation – from having the state put them down.

     The new liberal or progressive has little regard for human life.

     Conservative lawmaker Ed Fast put through bill C-314 in the hopes of controlling this, but he couldn’t get it through. His bill would have provided vulnerable citizens with suicide prevention counseling rather than extermination.

     The Canadian Liberal Party is the same party that lauded at least two Nazis within the last few years.

     Horrors of this sort become inevitable when “compassionate care” of any sort is made the province of the State. Besides reducing the workload on the Complaint Dept., this would also allow the transfer of the funds previously earmarked for mental-illness care to the employees of the bureaucracy. The irony of offering “medical assistance in dying” as a “treatment” for persons tormented by an impulse to suicide is only a grace note.

4. Can’t Attack The Message? Attack The Messenger!

     Few books have provided as penetrating a depiction of evil and its aims as George Orwell’s 1984. Given the Left’s attempt to make dissent from the “official line” legally punishable, it’s fantastically relevant to our time. For that reason, it must be dismissed, denigrated, destroyed.

     But that’s not possible. It’s been read by too many people. The majority of us “got the message:”

     “The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.”

     Orwell’s O’Brien character felt safe about stating it plainly. And why shouldn’t he? Everyone even marginally capable of independent thought was under continuous, inescapable surveillance. Any of them who dared to deviate from the Party’s dictates was treated to the regimen O’Brien inflicted on Winston Smith. Only the proles, who were kept pacified with “films, football, beer, and above all, gambling,” were allowed any latitude at all:

     In all questions of morals [the proles] were allowed to follow their ancestral code. The sexual puritanism of the Party was not imposed upon them. Promiscuity went unpunished, divorce was permitted. For that matter, even religious worship would have been permitted if the proles had shown any sign of needing or wanting it. They were beneath suspicion. As the Party slogan put it: ’Proles and animals are free.’

     Too plain; too open; too terrifying. So the creator of this nightmare must be demonized, that his insights and creations may be forgotten:

     George Orwell was a “sadistic, misogynistic, homophobic, sometimes violent” man who wrote women out of his story, according to a biographer of his wife.

     Anna Funder said that Orwell was a brilliant writer but a complicated man whose personal life was at odds with the “decency” of his writing.

     She has produced a biography of Eileen O’Shaugnessy, Orwell’s wife – highlighting the contributions O’Shaugnessy made to his work, including helping him to write Animal Farm.

     According to Funder, the darkness that runs through 1984 is a reflection of Orwell’s soul.

     “Decency is such a core Orwellian value. He writes about it. It’s the quality of the ‘proles’ in 1984 that is going to save us. He wanted to be decent, to be seen as decent, by which he meant a man of integrity, the same inside and out,” said Funder.

     “Also, he also used that word to refer to being heterosexual – he was enormously homophobic but deeply attracted to men, and I think not particularly interested in women sexually.

     The agenda here is undisguised.

     Remember also that various agencies, here and in the United Kingdom, have listed 1984 — along with The Lord of the Rings — as works conducive to “right-wing extremism.”

     That’s all for today, I think. It’s time for me to get to work . Have a nice day…if you can, after all that.