The future costs of politically correct cultism

July 19, 2015

From HERE:

crackedflagI rarely touch on the subject of political correctness as a focus in my writings, partially because the entire issue is so awash in pundits on either side that the scrambling clatter of voices tends to drown out the liberty movement perspective. Also, I don’t really see PC cultism as separate from the problems I am always battling against: collectivism and the erasure of the individual in the name of pleasing society. Political correctness is nothing more than a tool that collectivists and statists exploit in order to better achieve their endgame, which is conning the masses into believing that the group mind is real and that the individual mind is fiction.

Last year, I covered the PC issue in my article “The twisted motives behind political correctness.” I believe I analyzed the bulk of the issue extensively. However, the times are changing at a pace that boggles the mind; and this is by design. So, it may be necessary to square off against this monstrosity once again.

In order to better examine the true insanity of what many people now term “social justice warriors,” I must study a few aspects separately. First, let’s take a brief look at the mindset of your average social justice circus clown so that we might better understand what makes him/her/it tick.

Rebel without a legitimate cause

I spent several years (up until 2004, when I woke up from the false paradigm madness) as a Democrat. And before anyone judges that particular decision, I would suggest they keep in mind the outright fascist brothel for the military-industrial complex the Republican Party had become at that point and remains to this day. Almost every stepping stone that Barack Obama is using today to eradicate the Constitution was set in place by the Bush dynasty, including the Authorization Of Military Force, which was the foundation for the National Defence Authorization Act and the legal precedence for indefinite detention without trial of any person (including an American citizen) accused of terrorism by the president of the U.S., as well as the use of assassination by executive order.

But, hell, these are real issues — issues that many of my fellow Democrats at the time claimed they actually cared about. Today, though, liberal concerns about unconstitutional actions by the federal government have all but vanished. Today, the left fights the good fight against flags on the hoods of cars from long-canceled television shows and battles tooth and nail for the “right” of boys wearing wigs and skirts to use the girl’s bathroom. Today, the left even fights to remove the words “boy” and “girl” from our vocabulary. Yes, such noble pursuits as these will surely be remembered as a pinnacle in the annals of societal reform.

Maybe I realize the ideological goals of the social justice machine are meaningless on a surface level; and maybe you realize this, too. But these people live in their own little universe, which doesn’t extend far beyond the borders of their college campuses, the various Web forums they have hijacked and a trendy Marxist wine-and-swinger party here and there in New York or Hollywood. They actually think that they are on some great social crusade on par with the civil rights movements of the mid-1900s. They think they are the next Martin Luther King Jr. or the next Gandhi. The underlying banality and pointlessness of their cause completely escapes them. The PC cult is, in many respects, the antithesis of the liberty movement. We fight legitimate threats against legitimate freedoms; they fight mostly imaginary threats and seek to eradicate freedoms.

Don’t get me wrong; sometimes our concerns do align. For instance, liberty proponents fight back against the militarization of police just as avidly as leftists do, if not more so. But our movements handle the problem in very different ways. Look at Ferguson, Missouri, where anyone with any sense should be able to admit that the government response to protests was absolutely a step toward tyranny, ignoring violent looters while attacking peaceful activists. Leftists and PC cultists decided to follow the Saul Alinsky/communist playbook, busing in provocateurs from Chicago to further loot and burn down businesses even if they belonged to ethnic minorities. In the meantime, the liberty movement and Oath Keepers sent armed and trained men to defend those businesses regardless of who owned them and defied police and federal agents who tried to stop them.

The left gave the police and government a rationale for being draconian, while we removed the need for police and government entirely by providing security for the neighborhood (killing two birds with one stone). Either their methods are purely ignorant and do not work, or their methods are meant to achieve the opposite of their claims. In the end, the PC movement only serves establishment goals toward a fully collectivist and centralized society.

Your average PC drone does not understand the grander plan at work, nor does he want to. All he cares about is that he has found a “purpose” — a fabricated purpose as a useful idiot for power brokers, but a purpose nonetheless.

People must be forced to bake gay cakes

I personally do not care if two people of the same gender want to be in a relationship, but I do find the issue of gay marriage (and marriage in general) a rather odd conflict that misses the whole point. Marriage has been and always will be a religious institution, not federal; and I find government involvement in this institution to be rather despicable. When the Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage came down, I felt a little sorry for all the joyfully hopping homosexuals on the marbled steps of the hallowed building, primarily because they essentially were fighting for the state to provide recognition and legitimacy for their relationships. Frankly, who gives a rip what the state has to say in terms of your relationships or mine? The state is an arbitrary edifice, a facade wielding illusory power. If a relationship is based on true and enduring connection, then that is a marriage of sorts, whether the Supreme Court says so or not.

The only advantage to solidifying gay marriage in the eyes of the state is the advantage of being able to then use the state as an attack dog in order to force religious institutions to accept the status of gays in the same way the government does. And unfortunately, this is exactly what the PC cult is doing.

Should an individual, organization or business be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason? Should the state be allowed to force people into servitude to one group or another even if it is against their core values?

PC champions desperately try to make these questions a matter of “discrimination” alone. But they are more about personal rights and property and less about “hate speech.” Under natural law, as well as under the constitution, an individual has every right to refuse association with any other person for any reason. If I do not like you, the government does not have the authority to force me to be around you or to work for you. But this line has been consistently blurred over the years. As I’m sure most readers are familiar, the issue of gay cakes seems to arise over and over, as in cases in Colorado and Oregon in which religiously oriented business owners were punished for refusing to provide service for gay customers.

Punishments have included crippling fines designed to put store owners out of business and have even included gag orders restricting the freedom of businesses to continue speaking out against the orientation of customers they have refused.

In order to validate such actions, leftists will invariably bring up segregation as a backdrop for the gay cake debate. “What if the customers were black,” they ask. “Is it OK for a business to be whites only?”

My response? First, to be clear, I am talking specifically about private individuals and businesses, not public institutions as in the argument explored during Brown v. Board of Education. Private and public spaces are different issues with different nuances. I personally believe it is ignorant to judge someone solely on the color of his skin, and sexual orientation is not necessarily an issue to me. But it is equally ignorant for someone to think that the state exists to protect his feelings from being hurt. I’m sorry, but discrimination is a fact of life and always will be as long as individualism exists. The PC cultists don’t just want government recognition of their status; they want to homogenize individualism, erase it and force the rest of us to vehemently approve of that status without question. This is unacceptable.

Your feelings do not matter. They are not superior in importance to the fundamental freedom of each individual to choose his associations.

If a business refuses to serve blacks, or gays, or Tibetans, then, hey, it probably just lost a lot of potential profit. But that should absolutely be the business’s choice and not up to government to dictate. And in the case of “gay discrimination,” I think it is clear that the PC crowd is using the newfound legal victim group status of gays as a weapon to attack religiously based organizations. Make no mistake, this will not end with gay cakes. It is only a matter of time before pressure is brought to bear against churches as well for “discrimination.” And at the very least, I foresee many churches abandoning their 501(c)(3) tax exempt status.

If a group wants fair treatment in this world, that is one thing. I believe a gay person has every right to open his own bakery and bake gay marriage cakes to his little heart’s content. I believe a black person has every right to dislike white people, as some do, and refuse to associate with them or serve them if that’s what he/she wants. I also believe that under natural and constitutional law, a religious business owner is an independent and free individual with the right to choose who he will work for or accept money from. If he finds a customer’s behavior to be against his principles, he should not be forced to serve that person, their feelings be damned.

This is fair.

What is not fair is the use of government by some to gain an advantage over others based on the legal illusion of victim group status. PC cultists want us to think that choice of association is immoral and damaging to the group. I have to say I find them to be far more intolerant and dangerous than the people they claim to be fighting against, and this attitude is quickly devolving into full bore tyranny under the guise of “humanitarianism.”

Gender bending does not make you special

A man shaves his head and eyebrows, straps a plastic bottle to his face, and has his feet surgically modified to resemble flippers: Does this make him a dolphin, and should he be given victim group status as trans-species? I’m going to be brief here because I covered this issue in a previous article, but let’s lay everything on the table, as it were.

PC cultists are clamoring to redefine the fact of gender as an “undefinable” and even discriminatory social perception. No one, no matter how dedicated, will ever be able to redefine gender, unless they have the ability to change their very chromosomes. Nature defines gender, not man; and a man who undergoes numerous surgeries and body-changing steroid treatments will always have the genetics of a man even if he gives the appearance of a woman. Take away the drugs, and no amount of make-up will hide the chest hair growth and deepening voice.

This might be deemed a “narrow” view of gender, and I don’t care. Nature’s view of gender is the only one that counts. Psychological orientations are irrelevant to biological definitions. Are you a man trapped in a woman’s body? Irrelevant. A woman trapped in a man’s body? Doesn’t matter. If we are talking about legal bearings, then biological definitions are the only scale that makes sense. I realize that gender bending is very trendy right now, and Hollywood sure seems to want everyone to jump on that freaky disco bandwagon, but there is no such thing as gender-neutral people. They are not a group, let alone a victim group. There are men, and there are women; these are the only gender groups that count. Whether they would like to be the opposite does not change the inherent genetic definition. Period. To make such foolishness into an ideology is to attempt to bewilder man’s relationship to nature, and this will only lead to disaster.

There is no such thing as ‘white privilege’

A person determines his success in life by his character and his choices. Color does not define success, as there are many people of every color who are indeed successful. Do you have to work harder to gain success because you are brown, or black, or neon green? I’ve seen no concrete evidence that this is the case. I know that people who identify as “white” are still around 70 of the American population, thus there are more white people in successful positions due to sheer numbers.

I know that I personally grew up in a low-wage household and had little to no financial help as I entered the working world. Everything I have accomplished in my life to this point was done alongside people of color, some of whom had far more advantages than I did. I cannot speak for other people’s experiences, but I can say that being white was never more important in my life than being stubborn and dedicated.

I also find it a little absurd that most PC cultists who harp about so-called white privilege are often white themselves and haven’t the slightest experience or insight on what it is to be a person of color anyway. White privilege seems to be the PC cult’s answer to the argument that racism is a universal construct. Only whites can be racist, they claim, because only whites benefit from racism. I defy these jokers to show any tangible proof that an individual white person has more of a chance at success than a person of color due to predominant racism. Or are we just supposed to have blind faith in the high priests of PC academia and their morally relative roots?

The cost of social Marxism

Marxism (collectivism) uses many vehicles or Trojan horses to gain access to political and cultural spaces. Once present, it gestates like cancer. Younger generations are highly susceptible to social trends and are often easily manipulated by popular culture and academic authority, which is why we are seeing PC cultism explode with the millennials and post-millennials. In my brief participation on the left side of the false paradigm, political correctness was only beginning to take hold. A decade later, we have a bewildering manure storm on our hands. The result is a vast division within American society that cannot be mended. Those of us on the side of liberty are so different in our philosophies and solutions to social Marxists that the whole carnival can end only one way: a fight. And perhaps this is exactly what the elites want: left against right, black against white, gay against religious and straight, etc. As long as the PC movement continues to do the bidding of power brokers in their efforts toward the destruction of individual liberty, I see no other alternative but utter conflict.

–Brandon Smith

=======

Re: “their endgame … is conning the masses into believing that the group mind is real and that the individual mind is fiction.”

Yes, endorsing group rights is all about avoiding individual responsibility.

BUT THERE WON’T BE A FIGHT – BECAUSE PC GANGSTER TAKERS ARE BUSY FIGHTING TRYING TO PROVE “I’M BETTER THAN YOU!!!” BUT MAKERS ARE TOO BUSY MINDING THEIR OWN BUSINESSES!

I doubt there will be a fight, because the Makers, by our very natures, CAN NOT RESIST EVIL MEN, simply because we’re trying to hope to collaborate to objectively solve universal problems, while the Takers – the PC (Psychopathic Criminal) negligent, delinquent libertine “liberals” are all focused on their fears, and obsessively “PMS“ing about it all the time – since they don’t believe in winning, they spend all their time trying to not-lose, to prove “I’m better than you!” all the time, by attacking innocent others first.

They are Paranoids (“They’re all out to get me!”) Masochists (“I’d better focus on my fears AS pain, lest I forget to defend myself, since hope is a trick!”) and Slanderers (“Since they’re all out to get me, I’d better get all of them, first!”).

Political correctness (i.e: factual incorrectness) is extortion – fraud and slander – in that it pretends a civil ‘probable’ test applies, based on group-might-made-rights scenarios, to all aspects of life: white males are always to be ‘legally’ and ‘defensively’ pre-judged as “guilty until never proven innocent,” for instance. It’s extortion, and extortion is always a crime!

What sane people call “the slippery slope,” liberals call “progress!”

Political correctness (slanderous victim-blaming factual incorrectness) is both fraud (crime) and extortion – pretending that, either you lie along with the majority, or you’ll be replaced with a better liar by that same majority; group might makes right! Exact same as communazism.

It extorts people to “Go Along” (with criminal lies) “To Get Along” (with criminal liars).

PC pretends one is responsible to other people for their (possibly mistaken) reactions to one’s new ideas, or to ideas which *might* offend them.

And the offense taken, is always subjective.

Since the deliberate use of PC implicitly slanders people AS being offensive, it attacks first, and therefore also inherently defends first-attackers (criminals).

PC implies one can and so should manage or avoid others’ inevitable reactions of denial (automatic ‘offense’) to one’s exchange of ideas, as if one somehow ‘should,’ even if one could, always try to defuse all of their normal psychologically procedural reaction stages (i.e: basic thinking) as summed up by Elizabeth Kubler-Ross.

Normal people WILL REACT to new ideas BY a well-established process of denial to acceptance, so it’s literally outrageous to posit that any one person is responsible for monitoring, or has a duty to actively prevent this common thought process occurring in others.

This thought, or “thesis” (previously “Theosis,” of “knowledge of God”) process, prioritizing focus on the ‘BAD’ (the anti-thesis) in order to avoid it and ultimately test a hypo-thesis, to prove it good (as the final “syn-thesis”) has been historically referred to as “Greek Logic” and called “Hegelian Dialectics,” before Kubler-Ross added her modern speculations to it, but it’s obviously nothing more than basic
“thinking.”

So obviously, “Political Correctness” is only an extortion attempt at THOUGHT CONTROL, designed to shield criminals’ crimes, and to prevent everyone from thinking at all, beyond the most shallow and banal trivialities. It defines the willfully ignorant and irresponsible, criminally negligent “victimology” process.

It is to insist (as all authoritarian extortions do) that one must ALWAYS Submit one’s self to the greater (gang’s “might-makes-right”) good.

What is currently misconceived as ‘altruism’ and ‘Hegelian dialectics’ is really only a lie: a slanderous fraud designed to induce perpetual guilt in the victim, by way of the same, ages-old “carrot-and-stick,” fear-and-greed behavioural conditioning binary.

It’s proponents sadistically advocate for perpetual, self-sacrificing masochism in others, demanding they pacifistically agree with the predatory criminal aggressor’s militaristic notion that they have no right to self-defense, nor even to think about planning for it.

To them, if their victims even THINK about planning to defend them selves, it’s “slandering” the criminals AS the aggressors, (which they in fact already ARE, just by dint of their PC extortion-attempts).

Bottom line: criminals hate other people (potential victims and/or potential opponents) thinking about their crimes, just as they hate the admitting to them selves of being criminals.

And hating thinking has always had a perfectly valid label: “Psycho-Path” (literal translation: “Thought-Killer”).

;-(

Like I said:

“PC” (Psychotic Criminal) “Liberals” are all about the “PMS” (Paranoid Masochistic Slander).

;-)

More European Integration: The Exact Opposite of a Solution

July 19, 2015

From HERE:

While debtors, creditors, and economists focused on the Greek debt crisis, a report by European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker with the heads of four other EU institutions went almost entirely unnoticed. Juncker proposes a predictably awful strategy for solving economic problems, greater centralization of power over the currency union’s economies. It recommended “quick fix” steps that could be introduced in the next two years, such as setting up a common bank deposit insurance system and promoting competitiveness, as well as longer term ideas, such as a common eurozone treasury.

You can see how one might reach such a conclusion. If one entity is going to control the money supply, an economic manipulation tactic often used by governments to smooth over economic problems, then one can see the reason in having that entity exercising greater economic controls over the economic policies that lead to such problems. It doesn’t make a great deal of sense for example, to have Greece spend without regard for consequences, while French and German taxpayers end up on the hook for their irresponsibility.

More European Integration: The Exact Opposite of a Solution

The flaw in this line of thinking however is that it begins with the assumption that the centralization which has already occurred is a good thing. It ignores the fact that said centralization is the only reason French and German taxpayers are on the hook for Greek debt to begin with. If other European countries are unhappy with their being bound to a nation irresponsible enough to address a debt crisis by electing communists, then ceding more control over their economies to a central authority hardly seems like a sound solution.

The proposal is entirely predictable however. “Never let a good crisis go to waste” as they say in Washington. Governments have this terrible habit of rewarding failure. “Oh, you completely failed to accomplish the purpose for which your bureaucracy was created? You must need more money and power”.

Forget the fact that Greek GDP growth was cut roughly in half since entering the Euro. That little piece of evidence would dissuade people from favoring greater centralization. Definitely pay no attention to the fact that the same can be said for Italy, Spain, and Portugal, that would not favor Juncker’s proposal. By the EU’s reasoning, an institution which fails to centrally plan the economies of a single political unit, will somehow be able to centrally plan the economies for an entire continent and beyond.

The search continues for a one-handed economist. Some know-it-all guru who can figure out how a policy change from a single city will impact the economic behaviors of hundreds of millions of people with diverse interests over millions of miles of territory. The problem with such a strategy should seem obvious. There are just too many variables for any man or group of men to even attempt to contemplate.

We all have to make economic decisions every day. Everything from investment strategies to what we eat for dinner. Contemplating the variables for all of these things in each of our own individual lives is very complex, to the point that many of us will hire experts to handle them, and even then there are failures. How one comes to the conclusion that multiplying that complexity by hundreds of millions of times over will somehow simplify the equation, or lead to greater prosperity, simply escapes reason.

In the United States, we often see the deleterious effects of such flawed thinking. It is bad enough when your local government creates some economic policy that might negatively impact your business or favor some competitor. Luckily, you have the option to leave that place. This becomes more difficult when that policy is implemented at the state level, and damn near impossible when it is tackled by the federal government. Let the federal government go and enter into economic treaties with foreign nations, and the problem becomes even more difficult to escape.

This trend toward centralization is fueled at best by ignorance, and at worst by malice. Far from creating greater prosperity, centralization only makes bad policy more difficult to escape. One of two things is true. Either that is the goal of such policies, or the people who claim to be uniquely qualified to dictate the economic behaviors of hundreds of millions of people over millions of miles of territory, are so incompetent that they can’t even see the obviousness of that fact.

Tom Woods gave a great talk about secession earlier this year in Houston. The talk was not specific to economics, but the overall results of large centralized States, versus that of smaller autonomous ones. Unsurprisingly, large centralized states have a terrible habit of bringing immeasurable misery, poverty, and death, while smaller autonomous ones tend to thrive.

The further removed from the individual responsibility becomes, the greater the tragedy that follows. If smaller autonomous nations fare better than large centralized States, how much better off would we all be, if States went away altogether, and individuals were free to make their own choices?

2012 Defense Intelligence Agency document: West will facilitate rise of Islamic State, sees terror group as a “U.S. strategic asset”

May 25, 2015
isis cage

 From here:

This makes my blood run cold.

It ought to make the hair on the back of every American’s neck stand up.
When I wrote as early as 2011 that it was al Qaeda and their proxies that Obama was aiding and abetting in Libya and Syria, it did not occur to me that he considered those bloody savages a ‘strategic asset’ — an ally.
On what planet would the United States of America share an espirit de corp with these monsters?

dia-2012-syria-islamic-state2

According to Judicial Watch: ”The document shows that as early as 2012, U.S. intelligence predicted the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), but instead of clearly delineating the group as an enemy, the report envisions the terror group as a U.S. strategic asset.”

This is catastrophic consequence of a foreign (and domestic) policy void of acknowledging and/or understanding the jihad threat. The denial of jihad religious and ideological motivation behind this terrible holy war on the West and secular or ‘heretical’ Muslims, has allowed to metastasize at breaking speed.

Look at what Obama and his party of treason has unleashed on the world.

1406971549-christians-march-in-sydney-against-killings-by-isis-in-iraq-and-syria_Obama_ISIS

2012 Defense Intelligence Agency document: West will facilitate rise of Islamic State “in order to isolate the Syrian regime” The Levant report, By Brad Hoff, May 19, 2015

On Monday, May 18, the conservative government watchdog group Judicial Watch published a selection of formerly classified documents obtained from the U.S. Department of Defense and State Department through a federal lawsuit.

While initial mainstream media reporting is focused on the White House’s handling of the Benghazi consulate attack, a much “bigger picture” admission and confirmation is contained in one of the Defense Intelligence Agency documents circulated in 2012: that an ‘Islamic State’ is desired in Eastern Syria to effect the West’s policies in the region.

Astoundingly, the newly declassified report states that for “THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION… THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME…”.

The DIA report, formerly classified “SECRET//NOFORN” and dated August 12, 2012, was circulated widely among various government agencies, including CENTCOM, the CIA, FBI, DHS, NGA, State Dept., and many others.

The document shows that as early as 2012, U.S. intelligence predicted the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), but instead of clearly delineating the group as an enemy, the report envisions the terror group as a U.S. strategic asset.

While a number of analysts and journalists have documented long ago the role of western intelligence agencies in the formation and training of the armed opposition in Syria, this is the highest level internal U.S. intelligence confirmation of the theory that western governments fundamentally see ISIS as their own tool for regime change in Syria. The document matter-of-factly states just that scenario.

Forensic evidence, video evidence, as well as recent admissions of high-level officials involved (see former Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford’s admissions here and here), have since proven the State Department and CIA’s material support of ISIS terrorists on the Syrian battlefield going back to at least 2012 and 2013 (for a clear example of “forensic evidence”: see UK-based Conflict Armament Research’s report which traced the origins of Croatian anti-tank rockets recovered from ISIS fighters back to a Saudi/CIA joint program via identifiable serial numbers).

The newly released DIA report makes the following summary points concerning “ISI” (in 2012 “Islamic State in Iraq,”) and the soon to emerge ISIS:

  • Al-Qaeda drives the opposition in Syria
  • The West identifies with the opposition
  • The establishment of a nascent Islamic State became a reality only with the rise of the Syrian insurgency (there is no mention of U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq as a catalyst for Islamic State’s rise, which is the contention of innumerable politicians and pundits; see section 4.D. below)
  • The establishment of a “Salafist Principality” in Eastern Syria is “exactly” what the external powers  supporting the opposition want (identified as “the West, Gulf Countries, and Turkey”) in order to weaken the Assad government
  • “Safe havens” are suggested in areas conquered by Islamic insurgents along the lines of the Libyan model (which translates to so-called no-fly zones as a first act of ‘humanitarian war’; see 7.B.)
  • Iraq is identified with “Shia expansion” (8.C)
  • A Sunni “Islamic State” could be devastating to “unifying Iraq” and could lead to “the renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi Arena.” (see last non-redacted line in full PDF view.)

MOTOONS!

May 20, 2015

1Moecomics5 2MoeComics0 3MoeComics1 4MeComics7 6MoeComics 7MoeComics6

Watch Innocence of Muslims and verify its content

May 19, 2015

From here:

Critical Update 05/18/’15: 9th Circus heard arguments Dec. 15 and ruled today, disolving the injunction. “Innocence Of Muslims” has been uploaded to YouTube, about six hours ago.

I will now attempt to embed the video here, followed by J. Smith’s excellent essay on the sources of the conceptual content.

https://youtu.be/yEzycz0fdIo

https://youtu.be/N5DGzmsQ470

I learned today that the 9th Circus has begun the appelate process and interrogated the lawyers. While we wait for their decision, we can review the video, just not on YouTube.

I am trying an embed and a link, with a risk that the result will be two links. I could not get proper embed code at metacafe.

The Liveleak version has been edited to remove Garcia’s portrayal of UmmQirfa. The video quality leaves much to be desired. Mercifully, it is short.

In reviewing the trailer, I discover an error which I previously overlooked. The Profit’s given name was Kauthar, not Muhammad, an undeserved honorific title he bestowed upon himself later.

http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/9109487/innocence_of_muslims/#

Its International Judge Muhammad Day revisited, and you are on the bench; I am presenting the evidence
which will empower you to assess the veracity of the concepts presented by the video clip entitled “Innocence of Muslims”.  Herein you will find quotes from the Qur’an, hadith, Shari’ah & tafsir linked to source for easy confirmation.  You will also find quotes from Tabari’s Tahrik and Guillaume’s translation of Ishaq’s Sira.  To verify them, go to the topical quotes appendix of http://www.prophetofdoom.net/ . Please review the video, then examine the evidence. Note that I have added emphasis, with yellow highlights to bring out the most important clauses.

Moe is portrayed as a demon possessed lunatic, suicidal, terrorist, pederast, lecher and genocidal, barbarian warlord.  If he was, he blessed sure was not a Messenger of God because God would not hire and retain an unrepentant sinner.  God did not allow King David to build his Temple because of David’s adultery & murder. How could he tolerate a close relationship with a child molester, lecher, murderer and genocidal warlord?

If the central concepts conveyed by “Innocence of Muslims” are valid, then Islam is not of God, it is demonic; a horrific fraud and war crime perpetrated against Muslims and the whole human race.

The video begins with a statement that goes against the grain of every U.N. resolution condemning “defamation of Islam”: “Islam = terrorism.  The statement is either true or false. Are men terrorists with Islam and normal humans without it?  Is Islam the cause of terrorism?  The Qur’an and hadith hold evidence which must be examined to find the answer to this crucial question.

Allah said:

I will cast terror

  • 3:151.
    We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allâh, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong­doers).
  • 3:152.
    And Allâh did indeed fulfil His Promise to you when you were killing them (your enemy) with His Permission; until (the moment) you lost your courage and fell to disputing about the order, and disobeyed after He showed
    you (of the booty) which you love. Among you are some that desire this world and some that desire the Hereafter. Then He made you flee from them (your enemy), that He might test you. But surely, He forgave you,
    and Allâh is Most Gracious to the believers.
  • 8:12.
    (Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, “Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes.”

strike terror

  • 8:57.
    So if you interlock (yourself) with them in War — then by (routing) them strike terror
    in those that are behind them per chance they get admonition.
  • 8:60.
    Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into
    (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.

Allah cast terror

  • 33:26.
    And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.
  • 33:27.
  • And He caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their riches, and a land which you had not trodden (before). And Allâh is Able to do all things
  • 59:2.
    He it is Who drove out the disbelievers among the people of the Scripture (i.e. the Jews of the tribe of Banî An-Nadîr) from their homes at the first gathering. You did not think that they would get out. And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allâh! But Allâh’s (Torment) reached them from a place whereof they
    expected it not, and He cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their own dwellings with their own hands and the hands of the believers. Then take admonition, O you with eyes (to see).

You scare them more…

  •  59:13.
    Indeed, you strike more terror in their hearts than their fear of God. This is because they are people who do not comprehend.

Allah rewards terrorists

  • 9:120.
    It was not becoming of the people of Al-Madinah and the bedouins of the neighbourhood to remain behind Allâh’s Messenger (Muhammad  when fighting in Allâh’s Cause) and (it was not becoming of them) to prefer
    their own lives to his life. That is because they suffer neither thirst nor fatigue, nor hunger in the Cause of Allâh, nor they take any step to raise the anger of disbelievers nor inflict any injury upon an enemy but is written to their credit as a deed of righteousness. Surely, Allâh wastes not the reward of the Muhsinûn9:121.
    Nor do they spend anything (in Allâh’s Cause) – small or great – nor cross a valley, but is written to their credit, that Allâh may recompense them with the best of what they used to do (i.e. Allâh will reward their good deeds according to the reward of their best deeds which they did in the most perfect manner).

Moe said:

victorious with terror

  • Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331:Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:The Prophet said, “I have been given five things which were not given to any one else before me.

    1. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month’s journey.

    2. The earth has been made for me (and for my followers) a place for praying and a thing to perform Tayammum, therefore anyone of my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due.

    3. The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me.

    4. I have been given the right of intercession (on the Day of Resurrection).

    5. Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation only but I have been sent to all mankind.

  • Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:Narrated Abu Huraira:Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while
    I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand.” Abu Huraira added: Allah’s Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).

Allah would cast terror and did cast terror so that people were killed, enslaved and dispossessed. Allah commanded Muslims to strike terror by harsh treatment of defeated victims and by maximizing their military strength.  Allah told Moe that the Jews were more afraid of Moe than of him.  Moe said that he was made victorious by terror.   Allah promised Muslims extra credit towards an upgrade in their seat in his celestial bordello for any act of terrorism.

Moe deliberately constructed a reputation of barbarian rapine so as to terrify his intended victims, compelling them
to surrender without a fight or making them disorganized, scattered, easy prey.  Terrorism is an
intrinsic sacrament of Islam.

Violence against Copts

impunity & complicity

I will leave this matter to an expert: Bill Warner, who compiles the evidence: Bulletin of Christian Persecution July 30 – Aug. 31, 2012.

Demon possession

Did Moe really run home to his wife and hide under her skirt, scared witless?  Sahih Bukhari has the answer to this
question.

  • Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 111

    Narrated ‘Aisha:

    The commencement of the Divine Inspiration to Allah’s Apostle was in the form of good righteous (true) dreams in his sleep. He never had a dream but that it came true like bright day light. He used to go in seclusion (the cave of) Hira where he used to worship(Allah Alone) continuously for many (days) nights. He used to take with him the journey food for that (stay) and then come
    back to (his wife) Khadija to take his food like-wise again for another period to stay, till suddenly the Truth descended upon him while he was in the cave of Hira. The angel came to him in it and asked him to read. The Prophet replied, “I do not know how to read.” (The Prophet added), “The angel caught me (forcefully) and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it anymore.
    He then released me and again asked me to read, and I replied, “I do not know how to read,” whereupon he caught me again and pressed me a second time till I could not bear it anymore. He then released me and asked me again to read, but again I replied, “I do not know how to read
    (or, what shall I read?).” Thereupon he caught me for the third time and pressed me and then released me and said, “Read: In the Name of your Lord, Who has created (all that exists). Has created man from a clot. Read and Your Lord is Most Generous…up to….. ..that which he
    knew not.” (96.15)

    Then Allah’s Apostle returned with the Inspiration, his neck muscles twitching with terror till he entered upon Khadija and said, “Cover me! Cover me!“ They covered him till his fear was over and then he said, “O Khadija, what is wrong with me?” Then he told her everything that had happened and said, ‘I fear that something may happen to me.” Khadija said, ‘Never! But have the
    glad tidings, for by Allah, Allah will never disgrace you as you keep good reactions with your Kith and kin, speak the truth, help the poor and the destitute, serve your guest generously and assist the deserving, calamity-afflicted ones.” Khadija then accompanied him to (her cousin) Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin ‘Abdul ‘Uzza bin Qusai. Waraqa was the son of her paternal uncle, i.e., her father’s brother, who during the Pre-Islamic Period became a Christian and used to write the Arabic writing and used to write of the Gospels in Arabic as much as Allah wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. Khadija said to him, “O my cousin! Listen to the story of
    your nephew.” Waraqa asked, “O my nephew! What have you seen?” The Prophet described whatever he had seen.

    Waraqa said, “This is the same Namus (i.e., Gabriel, the Angel who keeps the secrets) whom Allah had sent to Moses. I wish I were young and could live up to the time when your people would turn you out.” Allah’s Apostle asked, “Will they turn me out?” Waraqa replied in the affirmative and  said: “Never did a man come with something similar to what you have brought but was treated with hostility. If I should remain alive till the day when you will be turned out then I would support you strongly.” But after a few days Waraqa died and the Divine Inspiration was also paused for a while and the Prophet became so sad as we have heard that he intended several times to throw himself from the tops of high mountains and every time he went up the top of a mountain in order to throw himself down, Gabriel would appear before him and say, “O Muhammad! You are indeed Allah’s Apostle in truth” whereupon his heart would become quiet and he would calm down
    and would return home. And whenever the period of the coming of the inspiration used to become long, he would do as before, but when he used to reach the top of a mountain, Gabriel would appear before him and say to him what he had said before. (Ibn ‘Abbas said regarding the meaning of: ‘He it is that Cleaves the daybreak (from the darkness)’ (6.96) that Al-Asbah. means the light of the sun during the day and the light of the moon at night).

  • Ibn Sa’d Volume 1, Parts 1.51.1Muhammad Ibn `Umar informed us; he said: Yunus Ibn Muhammad Ibn Fudalahal-Zafari related to me on the authority of his father; (second chain) he (Ibn Sa’d)

    said: Kathir Ibn Zayd related to me on the authority of al-Muttalib Ibn ‘Abd Allah Ibn Hantab; they said:

    The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, had seen his people departing from him.

    He was one day sitting alone when he expressed a desire: I wish, Allah had not revealed to me
    anything distasteful to them. Then the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, approached them (Quraysh) and got close to them, and they also came near to him. One day he was sitting in their assembly near the Ka`bah, and he recited: “By the Star when it setteth”, (Qur’an, 53:1) till he reached, “Have ye thought upon

    Al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the other”. (Qur’an, 53:19-20) Satan made him repeat these two phrases: These idols are high and their intercession is expected. The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, repeated them, and he went on reciting the whole surah and then fell in prostration, and the people also fell in prostration with him. Al-Walid Ibn al-Mughirah, who was an old man and could not prostrate, took a handful of dust to his forehead and prostrated on it.

    It is said: Abu Uhayhah Sa’id Ibn al-‘As, being an old man, took dust and prostrated on it. Some people say: It was al-Walid who took the dust; others say: It was Abu Uhayhah; while others say: Both did it. They were pleased with what the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, had uttered. They said: We know that Allah gives life and causes death. He creates and gives us provisions, but our deities will intercede with Him, and in what you have assigned to them, we are with you. These words pricked the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him. He was sitting in his house and when it was evening, Gabriel, may peace be on him, came to him and revised the surah. Then Gabriel said: Did I bring these two phrases. The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, said: I ascribed to Allah, what He had not said.

    Then Allah revealed to him: “And they indeed strove hard to beguile thee (Muhammad) away from that
    wherewith We have inspired thee, that thou shouldst invent other than it against Us; and then would they have accepted thee as a friend.

    And if We had not made thee wholly firm thou mightest almost have inclined unto them a little.

    Then had We made thee taste a double (punishment) of living and a double (punishment) of dying then hadst thou found no helper against Us. (Al-Qur’an, 17:73-75. This narration is not acceptable, because none of the first narrators is a Companion. For a detailed discussion see Shibli, Sirat al-Nabi, 1st edition, p. 176)

  • 22:52.
    Never did We send a Messenger or a Prophet before you, but; when he did recite the revelation or
    narrated or spoke, Shaitân (Satan) threw (some falsehood) in it.
    But Allâh abolishes that which Shaitân (Satan) throws in. Then Allâh establishes His Revelations. And Allâh is All-Knower, All-Wise:

Great Slaughter

Does God desire great slaughter, or does genocide come from Satan’s corner?  Allah made great slaughter Moe’s price of admission to his celestial bordello.

  • 8:67.
    It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allâh desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise.

Insanity

  • Ibn Sa’d Volume 1, Parts 1.45.4‘Affan Ibn Muslim informed us: Hammad Ibn Salamah informed us on the
    authority of Hisham Ibn ‘Urwah, he on the authority of ‘Urwah: Verily, the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, said:O Khadijah, I see light and hear sounds and I fear I shall be a sooth-sayer.

    Verily, Allah will not do it with you, 0 son of `Abd Allah. Verily, you
    speak the truth,

    return things entrusted to you and fulfil (obligations of) relationship.

  • She said:
  • Ibn Sa’d Volume 1, Parts 1.45.5 Yahya 1bn Abbad and `Affan Ibn Muslim informed us; they said: Hammad Ibn Salamah informed us; he said: Ammar Ibn Abi `Ammar informed us; (variation)Yahya Ibn `Abbád (only) said: Hammad Ibn Salamah said: I think (he narrated) on the authority of Ibn `Abbas:

    Verily, the Prophet, may Allah bless him, said: O Khadijah I hear sounds and see light and I fear I am mad.

    She said: O son of `Abd Allah ! Allah will not do it with you. Then she approached Waraqah Ibn Nawfal and related (the incident) to him.

    He said: If he is true, then he is nomos as in the case of Moses. If I am alive, when he is commissioned (to prophethood) I shall support him, help him and believe in him.

Pederasty

The story of Moe’s child bride is well represented in the authentic hadith collections, compiled in this pdf file:http://www.scribd.com/doc/100910355/Aisha-s-Age,
I will reproduce one of them here, linked to the source; you can easily find the others by reading the surrounding ahadith and using your favorite hadith search engine to find the rest.

  • Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64

    Narrated ‘Aisha:

    that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his
    marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with
    him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

  • The Life of Muhammad, page 311 [Image #180 in the on line archive]. In the riwaya of Yunus I. I. recorded
    that the apostle saw her (Ummu’I-Fadl when she was a baby crawling before him and said, ‘If she grows up and
    I am still alive I will marry her.’ But he died 
    before she grew up and Sufyan b. al-Aswad b. ‘ Abdu’I-Asad al-Makhzumi married her and she bore him Rizq and Lubaba. . . .

Donkey interview

Yeah, right, Moe asked questions of a donkey and got answers.  This story is one measure of his insanity and the
credulity of Muslims.  For the full story, see: http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/yafoor.htm.
This OCR result from the Encyclopedia of Canonical Hadith  is a bit rough, but you can get the gist of the story. The story is on page 76 of the pdf file, page 41 of the text.

  • http://ifile.it/xebl6dp/9004156747_encyclopedia_of_canonical.rarBey, Hydera bad 1970, II, pp. 302 f.In one version it was the Prophet who asked the donkey: ‘What is your name?’ ‘ Ya zd b. Shihb’, the don key is said to have answered. Thereupon the Prophet said: ‘But I shall call you Ya fr.’ When it was offered a
    she-ass, it declined. In an other version it was the donkey that began the conversation, telling the Prophet that it was once owned by a Jew.

    Since it made a habit of stumbling on purpose, so that its master fell off, it was refused food and it was regularly given the stick. As the last surviving donkey of his grandfather’s sixty off spring, which had all been
    used in the past by prophets as riding animals, it was now prepared to serve him, the Prophet of Islam, the seal of the prophets. Muhammad used to ride it, and when he was in need of supplies, he used to release it and send it away to the shop of a merchant on whose door it would knock with its head. In a variant: ‘… and when the owner of the store came outside, the donkey would give him a token with its head that he was to love the Messenger of God: ‘A ibba rasla ’llh!’ In a variant we read here: ‘Ajib rasla ’llh!, respond to the Messenger of God!’ When the Prophet died, the donkey went to the well of Ab ’l-Hay tham b. at-Tayyihn and threw itself down there in out of grief, and thus that well became its grave. But, as all versions assert, there was no truth in the story of course and its isnad strand was no good anyhow.

    In Ij., Li sn, ibidem, Ibn al-Jawz is quoted as saying laana ’llhu w iahu!, i.e. may God curse the fabricator of this tradition! For a very detailed study of the asses and mules which are associated with the Prophet, see H. Eisenstein’s paper in Der Is lam, LXII, 1985, pp. 98-107.

  • Tabari Volume VIII, Page 131In this year Hatib b. Abi Balta’ah came back from al-Muqawqisbringing Mariyah and her sister Sirin, his female mule Duldul, his donkey Ya’fur, and sets of garments. With the two women al-Muqawqis had sent a eunuch, and the latter stayed with them.

    Hatib had invited them to become Muslims before he arrived with them, and Mariyah and her sister did so. The Messenger of God lodged them with Umm Sulaym bt. Milhan. Mariyah was beautiful.

    The Prophet sent her sister Sirin to Hassan b. Thabit, and she bore him ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Hassan.

A provincial ruler whom Moe intimidated gave Moe two Christian slaves, the talking donkey and other goods in tribute to appease him and stave off conquest.  Moe gave one slave away and kept the other, assigning her to Hafsa, one of his wives.

Lechery

It would seem that, after Jesus brought a new dispensation, with celibacy instead of lechery, celibacy would be the model for future prophets.  But not for our hero, Moe.  Moe had nine wives at once and used to divide his time between them. You saw a dramatization of his tryst with Mariyah, a slave who was given to him as tribute, in Hafsa’s bed, on her turn.  Did that really happen?  Would I bring it up here if it did not? Sunan an-Nasa’i holds a clue for you.

  • # 3411 It
    was narrated from Anas,that the Messenger of Alllah had a female slave with whom he had intercourse, but ‘Aisha and Hafsa would not leave him alone until he said that she was forbidden for him. Then Allah, the Mighty and Sublime. revealed: “O Prophet!Why do you forbid (for yourself) that which Allah has allowed to until the end of .the Verse. (sahih)
  • 66:1. O Prophet! Why do you ban (for yourself) that which Allâh has made lawful to you, seeking to please your wives?
    And Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.66:2. Allâh has already ordained for you (O men), the dissolution of your oaths. And Allâh is your Maula (Lord, or Master, or Protector, etc.) and He is the All-Knower, the All-Wise.66:3. And (remember) when the Prophet (PBUH) disclosed a matter in confidence to one of his wives (Hafsah), so when she told it (to another i.e. ‘Aishah), and Allâh made it known to him, he informed part thereof and left a part. Then when he told her (Hafsah) thereof, she said: “Who told you this?” He said: “The All-Knower, the All-Aware (Allâh) has told me”.

    66:4. If you two (wives of the Prophet , namely ‘Aishah and Hafsah) turn in repentance to Allâh, (it will be better for you), your hearts are indeed so inclined (to oppose what the Prophet  likes), but if you help one another against him (Muhammad ), then verily, Allâh is his Maula (Lord, or Master, or Protector, etc.), and Jibrael (Gabriel), and the righteous among the believers, and furthermore, the angels are his helpers.

    66:5. It may be if he divorced you (all) that his Lord will give him instead of you, wives better than you, Muslims (who submit to Allâh), believers, obedient to Allâh, turning to Allâh in repentance, worshipping Allâh sincerely, fasting or emigrants (for Allâh’s sake), previously married and virgins.

On  pages 88 & 89 of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, we learn a little more about Hafsa and her slave, Moe and Zeinab.  Lechery?  Is it possible?

  • http://archive.org/download/declinefallofrom09gibb/declinefallofrom09gibb.pdf#page=88
  • In his adventures with Zeineb, the wife of Zeid, and with Mary, an Egyptian captive, the amorous prophet forgot
  • the interest of his reputation. At the house of Zeid, his frcedman and adopted son, he beheld, in a loose undress, the beauty of Zeineb, and burst forth into an ejaculation of devotion and desire. The servile or grateful freedman
    understood the hint, and yielded, without hesitation, to the love of his benefactor. But, as the filial relation had excited some doubt and scandal, the angel Gabriel descended from heaven to ratify the deed, to annul the adoption, and gently to reprove the apostle for distrusting the indulgence of his God. One of his wives, Hafsa,174 the daughter of Omar, surprised him on her own bed in the embraces of his Egyptian captive; she promised secrecy and forgiveness; he swore that he would renounce the possession of Mary. Both parties forgot their engagements; and Gabriel again descended with a chapter of the Koran, to absolve him from his oath, and to exhort him freely to enjoy his captives and concubines without listening to the clamours of his wives. In a sohtary retreat of thirty days, he laboured, alone with Mary, to fulfil the commands of the angel. When his love and revenge were satiated, he summoned to his presence his eleven wives, reproached their disobedience and indiscretion, and threatened them with a sentence of divorce both in this world and in the next: a dreadful sentence, since those who had ascended the bed of the prophet were for ever excluded from the hope of a second marriage. Perhaps the incontinence of Mahomet may be palliated by the tradition of his natural or preternatural gifts :173 he united the manly virtue of thirty of the children of Adam; and the apostle might rival the thirteenth labour 176 of the Grecian Hercules.177

The marriage: Tabari Vol VIII, pg 134, tells us more about how Moe got Zayd’s wife and issued situational scripture to sanction the deal.

  • Then the Messenger of God married Zaynab bt. Jahsh b. Ri’ab b. Ya’mur b. Sabirah. 895 Previously, she was married to Zayd b. Harithah b. Sharabil, freedman of the Messenger of God, but she did not bear any children with him. (It was) about her that God[1773]

    revealed: “When you said to him whom God had blessed and you had favored, ‘Keep your wife to yourself and fear God,’ you concealed within yourself that which God was about to reveal. You feared other
    men, but it is more fitting that you should fear God.

    When Zayd had accomplished the necessary (formality of Divorce) from her, We gave her in marriage to you, so that there should not be any fault for the believers in respect to the wives of their adopted sons,
    after they have performed the necessary formality [of Divorce] from them. And God’s command must be fulfilled.”896 God married her to him and sent Gabriel concerning that matter. She used to boast to the other wives of the Prophet, saying, “I am the most honored among you because of the One who gave me in marriage and the one who was my intermediary  (i. e., Gabriel) (*akramukunna waliyy’an wa  kramukunna safir’an*).”897

  • 33:37.
    And (remember) when you said to him (Zaid bin Hârithah; the freed­ slave of the Prophet ) on whom Allâh has bestowed Grace (by guiding him to Islâm) and you (O Muhammad  too) have done favour (by manumitting him) “Keep your wife to yourself, and fear Allâh.” But you did hide in yourself (i.e. what Allâh has already made known to you that He will give her to you in marriage) that which Allâh will make manifest, you did fear the people (i.e., Muhammad  married the divorced wife of his manumitted slave) whereas Allâh had a better right that you should fear Him. So when Zaid had accomplished his desire from her (i.e. divorced her), We gave her to you in marriage, so that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the believers in respect of (the marriage of) the wives of their adopted sons when the latter have no desire to keep them (i.e. they have divorced them). And Allâh’s Command must be fulfilled.33:38. There is no blame on the Prophet () in that which Allâh has made legal for him.That has been Allâh’s Way with those who have passed away of (the Prophets of) old. And the Command of Allâh is a decree determined.
  • 33:39. Those who convey the Message of Allâh and fear Him, and fear none save Allâh. And Sufficient is Allâh as a Reckoner.
  • 33:40. Muhammad (PBUH) is not the father of any man among you, but he is the Messenger of Allâh and the last (end) of the Prophets. And Allâh is Ever All­Aware of everything.

Murder

Did God have as his last and best messenger an unrepentant murderer?  Moe commissioned hits on critics. He would
have my head for uttering and publishing this blog post which exposes the truth about Moe to public view.  You watched the dramatization of the murder of Um Qirfa, was that for real?  Turn to page 664 of Guillaume’s The Life of Muhammad to find out.

  • . Qays b. al-Musahl,1ar al- Ya’muri killed Mas’ada b.Hakamab. Malik b.Hudhayfa b. Badr, and Umm Qirfa Fatima d. Rabi’a b. Badr was taken prisoner.She was a very old woman, wife of Malik. Her daughter and  ‘Abdullah b. Mas’ada were also taken. Zayd  ordered Qays b. al-Musal,1l,1ar to kill Umm Qirfa and he killed her cruelly (T. by putting a rope to her two legs and to two camels and driving them until they rent her in two). Then they brought Umm Qirfa’s daughter and Mas’ada’s son to the apostle. The daughter of Umm Qirfa belonged to Salama b. ‘Amr b.

    al-Akwa’ who had taken her. She held a position of honour among her people, and the Arabs used to say, ‘Had you been more powerful than Umm Qirfa you could have done no more.’ Salama asked the apostle to let him have her and he gave her to him and he presented her to his uncle Hazn b. Abu Wahb and she bare him’ Abdu’I-Ral,1man b. Hazn.

The story of the murder of Kab Ashraf is told in Ishaq on page 367.

  • The apostle said-according to what’ Abdullah b.al-Mughith b. Abu Burda told me-‘Who will rid me of Ibnu’I-Ashraf?‘IMuhammad b. Maslama, brother of the B. ‘Abdu’I-Ashhal, said, ‘I will deal with him for you, O apostle of God, I will kill him.’ He said, ‘Do so if you can.’ So Muhammad b. Maslama returned and waited for three days without food or drink, apart from what was absolutely necessary. When the apostle was told of this he summoned him and asked him why he had given up eating and drinking. He replied that he had given hi.m an undertaking and he did not know whether he could fulfil it. The apostle said, ‘AIl that is incumbent upon you is that you should try.’ He said, ‘O apostle of God, we shall have to tell lies.’ He answered, ‘Say what you like, for 551 you are free in the matter.’

    Thereupon he and Silkan b. Salama b. Waqsh who was Abu Na’ila one of the B. ‘Abdu’I-Ashhal, foster-brother of Ka’b, and ‘Abbad b. Bishr b. Waqsh, and al-Harith b. Aus b. Mu’adh of the B. ‘Abdu’l-Ashhal and Abu’ Abs b. Jabr of the B.Haritha conspired together and sent Silkan to the enemy of God, Ka’b b. Ashraf, before they came to him. He talked to him some time and they recited poetry one to the other, for Silkan was fond of poetry. Then he said, ‘O Ibn Ashraf, I have come to you about a matter which I want to tell you of and wish you to keep secret.’

    ‘Very well,’ he replied. He went on, ‘The coming of this man is a great trial to us. It has provoked the hostility of the Arabs, and they are all in league against us. The roads have become impassable so that our families are in want and privation, and we and our families are in great distress.’

    Ka’b answered, ‘By God, I kept telling you, O Ibn Salama, that the things t warned you of would happen.’ Silkan said to him, ‘I want you to sell us food and we will give you a pledge of security and you deal generously in the matter.’ He replied, ‘Will you giv~ me your sons as a pledge?’ He said, YOU want to Insult us. I have fnends who share my opinion and I want to bring them to you so that you may sell to them and act generously and we will give you enough weapons for a good pledge.’ Silkan’s objection was that he should not take alarm at the sight of weapons when they brought them. Ka’b answered, ‘Weapons are a good pledge.’ Thereupon Silkan returned to his companions, told them what had happened and ordered them to take their arms. Then they went away and assembled with him and met the apostle…. Then after a space he did it for the third time, and cried, ‘Smite the enemy of God!’ So they smote him, and their swords

    clashed over him with no effect. Muhammad b. Maslama said, ‘I remembered my dagger when I saw that our swords were useless, and I seized it. Meanwhile the enemy of God had made such a noise that every fort
    around us was showing a light. I thrust it into the lower part of his body, then I bore down upon it until I reached his genitals, and the enemy of God fell to the ground. Al-Harith had been hurt, being wounded either in his head or in his foot, one of our swords having struck hitn. We went away, passing by the B. Umayya b. Zayd and then the B. Quray~a and then Bu’ath until we went up the lJarra of al-‘Urayg.1 Our friend al-Harith had lagged behind, weakened by loss of blood, so we waited for him for some time until he came up, following our tracks. We carried him and brought him to the apostle at the end of the night. We saluted him as he stood praying, and he came out to us, and we told him that we had killed God’s enemy. He spat upon our comrade’s wounds, and both he and we returned to our families. Our attack upon  God’s enemy cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life.’2

The Murder of Marwan’s daughter is detailed on page 997.

  • When the apostle heard what she had said he said, ‘Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?‘ ‘Umayr b. ‘Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he said, ‘You have helped God and His apostle, 0 ‘Umayr! When he asked if he  would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, ‘Two goats won’t butt their heads about her,’ so ‘Umayr went back to his people.

Torture & rape of captives

You saw a dramatization of the torture death of Kinana and seizure of his widow. What is the reality?  Did that
really happen?  For the answer, we turn to Tabari, Vol. VIII, page 122.

  • When Safiyyah became the bride of Kinanah b. al-Rabi’ b. AbiHuqayq, she dreamt that a moon had fallen into her lap. She told her vision to her husband, and he said, “That is only because you are wishing for the king of the Hijaz, Muhammad” – and he gave her face a slap that blackened her eye. She was brought to the Messenger of God with the traces of it still there; he asked her what it was, and she told him this story.According to Ibn Ishaq: Kinanah b. al-Rabi’ b. Ab al-Huqayq, who had the treasure of the Banu al-Nadir,508 was brought to the Messenger of God, who questioned him; but he denied knowing where it was. Then the Messenger of God was brought a Jew who said to him, “I have seen Kinanah walk around this ruin every morning.” The Messenger of God said to Kinanah: “What do you say? If we find it in your possession, I will kill you.”509 “All right,” he answered. The Messenger of God commanded that the ruin should be dug up, and some of the treasure was extracted from it. Then he asked him for the rest of it. Kinanah refused to surrender it; so the Messenger of God gave orders concerning him to al-Zubayr  b. al-‘Awwam, saying, “Torture him until you root out what he has.”
    Al-Zubayr kept twirling his fires tick in his breast 510 until Kinanah almost expired; then the Messenger of God gave him to Muhammad b. Maslamah, who beheaded him to avenge his brother Mahmud b.Maslamah.

Did Moe really seize the widow of the man he tortured and add her to his harem?

  •   Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 143

    Narrated Anas bin Malik:

    The Prophet said to Abu Talha,
    “Choose one of your boy servants to serve me in my expedition to Khaibar.” So, Abu Talha took me letting me ride behind him while I was a boy nearing the age of puberty. I used to serve Allah’s Apostle when he stopped to rest. I heard him saying repeatedly, “O Allah! I seek refuge with You from distress and sorrow, from helplessness and laziness, from miserliness and cowardice, from being heavily in debt and from being overcome by men.” Then we reached Khaibar; and when Allah enabled him to conquer the Fort (of Khaibar), the beauty of Safiya bint Huyai bin Akhtab was described to him. Her husband had been killed while she was a bride. So Allah’s Apostle selected
    her for himself and took her along with him till we reached a place called Sad-AsSahba,’ where her menses were over and he took her for his wife. Haris (a kind of dish) was served on a small
    leather sheet. Then Allah’s Apostle told me to call those who were around me. So, that was the marriage banquet of Allah’s Apostle and Safiya. Then we left for Medina. I saw Allah’s Apostle folding a cloak round the hump of the camel so as to make a wide space for Safiya (to sit on behind him) He sat beside his camel letting his knees for Safiya to put her feet on so as to mount the camel. Then, we proceeded till we approached Medina; he looked at Uhud (mountain) and said, “This is a mountain which loves us and is loved by us.” Then he looked at Medina and said, “O Allah! I make the area between its (i.e. Medina’s) two mountains a sanctuary as Abraham made Mecca a sanctuary. O Allah! Bless them (i.e. the people of Medina) in their Mudd and Sa (i.e. measures).”

Barbarian rapine

Go back and re-read 33:26 & 27 by clicking this link; use your Backspace key to return here.. Moe attacked the settlement, killed the men, raped the women and enslaved the children, seizing their property.  Allah facilitated it.  Was that a singularity?  Is jihad exclusively defensive?  Or is it a regular pattern, part of Moe’s mission?  Examine the evidence carefully before making a decision.

  • Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:Narrated Anas bin Malik:Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’
    And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.” Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, “O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?” He replied, “Whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’, faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims
    have.”
  • Hedaya Vol II, Book IX, Ch. 1 Pg. 141  PDF 154 Islamic law
    codified by the Hanifi school of fiqh.http://www.archive.org/stream/hedaysorguide00hamigoog#page/n154/mode/1up

    • Text
    •     The destruction of the sword  is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as
      appears from various passages in the  sacred writings which are generally received this effect.
    • Marginal Note: Infidels may be attacked without provocation.

Extortion

Moe dictated and dispatched extortion letters to intended victims. I include this one because it is extremely clear,
leaving nothing to the imagination.

  • In the name of ALLAH the compassionate, the MercifulFrom Muhammad, Prophet of AllahTo the People of Aqaba

    May peace be on you. I praise Allah who is one and except whom there is nobody else to be worshipped.

    I do not intend to wage war against you till you receive my written reason for it. It is better for you, either to accept Islam or agree to pay Jiziya and consent to remain obedient to Allah, His prophet and his messengers.
    My messengers deserve honour. Treat them with respect. Whatever pleases my messengers, will also please me.

    These people have been informed of the orders about Jiziya. If you desire that there should be peace and security in the world, obey Allah and His Prophet. Thereafter none in Arabia and Ajam (Iran) shall dare
    cast an evil eye on you. But the rights of Allah and His Prophet can at no time be waived.

    If you do not accept these terms and set them aside, I do not need your presents and gifts. In that case, I shall have to wage war (to establish peace and security). Its result would be that the big ones shall be killed in war and the commoners shall be taken prisoners.

    I assure you that I am a true Prophet of Allah. I believe in Allah, and His Books, and His Prophets and am of the faith that Maseeh (Messiah) son of Mariam (Mary), is a Prophet of Allah and His word.

    Hurmala (Raziallah AnhoA.) who brought to me 3 wasaq (about 6 quintals) of barley, recommended your case. Had it not been in compliance of the command of Allah and the good opinion of Hurmala for you, it would not have been necessary for me to correspond with you and instead of it, there would have been a
    war. If you will obey my messengers, you shall immediately have my support and the help and support of everyone who is attached to me.

    My messengers are Shuraih-beel, Obaiy, Hurmala and Hurais (Raziallah AnhoA.) and whatever decision they take in respect of you, shall be acceptable to me.

    Your people are under the protection and responsibility of Allah and His Prophet.

    Supply provisions to the Jews of Maqna, for their journey to their country.

    If you accept obedience, may peace be on you.’

    Seal: Allah’s Prophet Muhammad .

    http://alquraan.net/letters/letters_3.html#LETTER%20TO%20THE%20CHIEFS%20OF%20AQABA

Predator

From page 289 of  Guillaume’s The Life of Muhammad:

  • They said that when the apostle heard about Abu Sufyancoming from Syria, he summoned the Muslims and said, ‘This is the Quraysh caravan containing their property. Go out to attack it, perhaps God will give it as a prey.’

On page 512 we find another example.

  • ‘Abdullah b. Abu Bakr told me that one of Aslam told him thatB. Sahm of Aslam came to the apostle and complained that they had fought and got nothing and found nothing with the apostle which he could give them. He said: ~O God, You know their condition and that they have no strength, and that I have nothing togive them, so conquer for them the wealthiest of the enemy’s forts with the richest food.’ The following day God conquered the fort of al-Sa’b b. Mu’adh which contained the richest food in Khaybar

You have been told, by bloggers that this is a “crappy” video; by the U.N., President, Secretary of State & Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that it is a ‘disgusting” video.  Now you have seen the evidence of the veracity of the main themes of the video.  Retire to chambers, contemplate the evidence and render your verdict in a comment.

Real solutions to the inevitable economic implosion

April 22, 2015

From here:

economy tsunamiThis is the sixth installment of a series. Read the first installment, <a “nofollow”=”” href=”http://personalliberty.com/one-last-look-real-economy-implodes/&#8221; target=”_blank”>“One last look at the real economy before it implodes,”  the second installment, <a “nofollow”=”” href=”http://personalliberty.com/steady-derailment-u-s-financial-system/”>“<a “nofollow”=”” href=”http://personalliberty.com/steady-derailment-u-s-financial-system/&#8221; target=”_blank”>The steady derailment of the U.S. financial system,” the third installment, <a “nofollow”=”” href=”http://personalliberty.com/magic-establishment-economics/%20&#8243; target=”_blank”>“The magic of establishment economics,” the fourth, <a “nofollow”=”” href=”http://personalliberty.com/the-u-s-is-being-made-economically-irrelevant/&#8221; target=”_blank”>“The U.S. is being made economically irrelevant,” and the fifth, <a “nofollow”=”” href=”http://personalliberty.com/endgame-arrived/&#8221; target=”_blank”>“The endgame has arrived.” 

All problems, all crises, have at least one solution, if not many solutions. There is no such thing as an unwinnable scenario. Some people may not be smart enough or courageous enough to see it, but the solution is always there, waiting to be discovered. The only fight that cannot be won is the fight in which the enemy makes all the rules and we foolishly abide by those rules. Life is not a game of chess, and a man can choose to be more than a pawn anytime he has the guts to do so.

In the past, I have likened the liberty movement to a rebellion against the game itself, a group of people willing to walk away from the chess board and make their own rules. I stand by that assertion. However, walking away is not enough by itself; we must also be willing to take actions that will destroy the game entirely.

In order to accomplish this task, any rebellion against corruption of power must be self-critical — more self-critical of its own weaknesses than opposing propagandists could ever be. Most of our problems as a society are being caused by a relatively small number of elitists, but we will never be able to undo these problems without understanding our weaknesses as much as the enemy’s weaknesses. In this final installment of my six-part series, I will talk about real solutions to the inevitable economic implosion in front of us, but I will also discuss the shortcomings of the liberty movement as an obstacle to any success.

As noted in the fifth installment of this series, segments of the liberty movement have fallen into a trap of biased assumption when it comes to their gullible embrace of the false East/West paradigm. I find it a little sad at times when I come across freedom activists who worship the footsteps of Henry Kissinger/International Monetary Fund puppet Vladimir Putin, or those who cheer for a globalist petri dish like China, all because they hate American imperialism so much they have decided to cheerlead for the “lesser of two evils.” There is no difference between those who buy into the false East/West paradigm and those who buy into the false left/right political paradigm. There is no “good guy” in the world of geopolitical maneuvering. East or West, it is all irrelevant because both sides serve the same international interests. Those who refuse to recognize this fact will be utterly incompetent in terms of presenting practical solutions because they will still be caught inside the elitist game.

Another issue within the liberty movement is an inability by some to consider where the endgame will actually lead. I know very well that there are 1,001 theories out there as to what the globalists actually want to achieve, which is why I look at the evidence at hand. The best evidence is to look at what the globalists say they plan to do, as they are apt to do in random fits of arrogance. It is important to understand that the elites often cannot help themselves and are desperate to boast of their activities before said activities are a forgone conclusion. Some analysts in recent history have presented undeniable admission by the elites, yet some activists still bicker about the enemy’s intent.

Whether it be the surprising words of insiders like Carroll Quigley, or the in-depth investigations of Antony Sutton, or the quotable quotes of frothing Fabian socialists, there is indeed a distinct strategy in play, namely the strategy of order out of chaos. And in terms of economics, there is a distinct goal, namely the integration of national currencies into a single global basket system (the special drawing rights, or SDR) controlled by the IMF and the Bank for International Settlements. I do not “believe” this is the goal; I know this is the goal because the elites have for decades openly admitted to it in articles like “Get Ready For The Phoenix” published by the Rothschild-owned The Economist in 1988, which stated that a global currency system will be established under the auspices of the SDR by 2018.

Further information on this plan can be found in my article <a “nofollow”=”” href=”http://personalliberty.com/economic-endgame-explained/&#8221; target=”_blank”>“The economic endgame explained.”

As I have shown with ample evidence throughout this series, the U.S. is on the verge of fiscal collapse, the dollar is already in the process of losing its world reserve status, the East is just as subservient to the reset plan as the West, and all of this is in preparation for an engineered disaster that will anesthetize the masses and prepare them for a shift toward total centralization.

Solutions require us to first grasp the fundamental nature of the greater threat. The cold, hard truth is that we as a movement for freedom are alone in the fight against globalization. There are no nation states to fall back on. There is no safe region on the planet to run away to. No white knight is coming to our rescue, and any embrace of the East will end only in co-option and defeat for liberty activists.

Believe it or not, though, I am still an optimist.

Knowing the scale of the threat gives clarity to our response. The movement stands alone, therefore, we must act without naively waiting for outside aid. We must take on an attitude of self-reliance.

The gravity of our situation also reveals to us what solutions actually have merit and those that present false hopes. I have seen numerous attempts at silver-bullet solutions in the movement over the past decade, from useless and intangible crypto-currencies to pyramid schemes designed to generate enough revenue to “sue” the Federal Reserve to blind armed marches on Washington planned by tactically retarded spokesman to even more national election drives wasting even more money and more energy on candidates that may mean well but have no chance at defusing the economic time bomb already ticking away.

If the solution presented seems too easy, then it is probably nonsense. If someone is trying to sell you on the idea that no sacrifice, no struggle and no pain will be required to defeat globalism, then they are probably a con man trying to take something from you, whether it be your money or your common sense. Throughout history, the only real solutions to real problems — economic, social or political — require much pain and sacrifice. To change the world for the better, to fight for the truth, you must be willing to take risks up to an including risking your life, otherwise failure is guaranteed.

I do not believe in silver-bullet solutions. I do not believe there is a path of “least resistance.” The following methods are not academic. They are not philosophical. They will not appeal to egghead libertarians obsessed with theory rather than practice. And they will not appeal to self-proclaimed pacifists terrified of consequence and public perception. These are difficult actions, and I expect only the bravest people will implement them.

Localism

If you want to undermine a concerted campaign of globalization, you must generate an opposing system. The opposite of tyranny is voluntarism. The opposite of collectivism is individualism. The opposite of globalism is localism.

Localism is economic organization based upon the methodology of self-reliance. While globalism forces people, cities, states and countries to become interdependent and unable to survive or prosper without each other, localism brings internal economic stability and removes dependency. If all communities were based on localism and independent fiscal strength, such redundancy would make widespread financial collapse a thing of the past.

While globalism is a top down model in which all decisions and power bottleneck at the peak of the pyramid, localism is a bottom up grass-roots initiative in which no one has power over the lives of others. But in order for localism to become a reality, these things must be accomplished.

Real preparedness

Self-reliance requires preparedness. There is no way around it. There is no such thing as crisis for those who are prepared. This means placing oneself in a position to provide the necessities of life so that one does not become a slave to need. Desperation often leads to moral relativism, and tyrants thrive on the moral weakness of a population. The more prepared an individual is, the more likely he is to fight back against despotism. The more prepared a community is, the less that community will feel inclined to request aid from those who might leverage such aid to oppress that community.

Preparedness can also include commodity investment by individuals and networks of individuals. While beans, bullets and Band-Aids are a priority, no one can deny the trend of foreign central banks stockpiling precious metals. And this stockpiling is clearly being done as a parallel measure to de-dollarization. Metals are useful during windows of time just before collapse and after rebuilding has begun. They are a back-up. They are not a solution by themselves.

Real production

Americans, in particular, will have to become producers again. And by production I mean useful items, useful skills and useful ideas, rather than frivolous attempts to sustain our avarice and empty materialism. Do you have the skills to produce food, clean water, shelter, warmth or energy? Are you able to invent or reimagine useful tools? Can you repair useful items? Do you have any experience with hard labor whatsoever? If you have answered in the negative to these questions, then you have a lot of work ahead of you to learn what you can in the time we have left. If you were to approach a group of people today and try to convince them of your value as a producer, what would you tell them? If you were thrust into an economic system in which barter was the primary means of wealth circulation, what would you trade that people would actually want?

This is not necessarily a call for Americans to revert back to 18th century living; it is a call for Americans to reclaim their heritage of entrepreneurship and adaptability. Globalism is merely feudal mercantilism wearing a modernized mask. It is globalism that is taking us back to the Dark Ages. And only localism can bring us into a future where technical achievement works for the common man rather than against him.

Real community

At this stage in our society, collectivism has nearly decimated all vestiges of true community. Today, people have no clue who their neighbors are and most of them do not want to know. They have little to no interaction with their surroundings beyond superficial consumerism, and they see every other person around them as a competitor rather than an ally. Their idea of the “greater good” is a mentally deranged one. For them, the state is the root source of safety and communal coherency rather than the citizenry, and their neighbors are not to be trusted.

Collectivism isolates people from each other to the point that their only means of feeling a connection with their fellow man is to do so through support of the establishment control grid. Participation in the totalitarian framework becomes a shallow replacement for participation in the world around us. By paying taxes, blindly supporting a war, giving to international charities and voting once every two to four years, we fool ourselves into believing we are a part of a “team” and that our civic duty has been fulfilled.

This terrible cycle can be broken, but it takes the effort of individuals going out and actively building relationships with others of like mind. The liberty movement in particular should be forming groups and associations all over the country — not just to complain about the condition of the nation, but to take tangible actions. Mutual aid and barter groups, neighborhood watches and community preparedness teams, business ventures and engineering projects are all useful means of organization. These organizations will not form themselves. You must make them happen.

Real self-defense

As I discussed in my article “If you are not thinking tactically you are not a survivalist,” self-defense is an imperative that simply cannot be denied. This defense must include preparation for all enemies, foreign and domestic, and corrupt government is not excluded.

Economic collapse is very often followed by an increase in oppressive state power. And in the end, the establishment does not relinquish power over the citizenry unless it is forced to do so. All honorable people should endeavor to become dangerous people, the more dangerous the better.

Voices expressing nihilism and futility are rarely constructive and should be ignored. Frankly, I find such cowardice stomach churning. There may very well come a day in which you will have to decide between freedom or absolute slavery. The size, strength and technological advancement of the enemy should have no bearing whatsoever on the choice to fight for freedom. Again, there is no problem without a solution if you have the courage to seek it. I hope that my joint project with Oath Keepers on how to build a working thermal evasion suit, due to be released in the next few weeks, will provide a good example as to why a technologically advanced tyranny is still vulnerable to a resourceful citizenry.

Real grass-roots expansion

There has always been a lot of talk within the liberty movement of “nullification.” But ultimately, the philosophy of nullification is useless unless it comes from a position of strength. Federal overreach will not stop simply because a state happens to pass a bill denying the establishment full access. In Montana, medical marijuana legalization was crushed by the Feds despite state recognition. They simply marched in and arrested on drug charges anyone who dared open up shop, and the state did nothing to stop it. This is just one example of many in which nullification failed because people refused to accept that written law is meaningless unless it is backed by a vigilant public.

I suspect that as the overall economic implosion becomes more obvious to average people, there will be some counties and states that develop a desire for nullification on a grand scale. Americans will want resource implementation to provide wealth protection. And some states have more than enough resources to offset a national financial disaster, or at least stop that disaster at their borders. This would require the complete dissolution of numerous federal laws prohibiting resource development.

Such dissolution will not be successful unless counties and states have enough strong grass-roots communities in place to defend against federal intrusion — or at least make the idea so costly and prohibitive that they have second thoughts. Each smaller liberty group linking with other liberty groups can eventually create this kind of expansion. This is, of course, a best-case scenario. County and state organization should take a backseat to neighborhood and town organization until wider expansion becomes realistic.

The collapse itself could easily be prolonged through a series of smaller catastrophes; or it could happen in a matter of days, depending on the trigger. For now, it appears that the U.S. is to be worn down to nothing as the IMF works closely with the BRICS to promote the SDR basket system. All nations will be negatively affected by this shift, but some will be hurt far more than others. War is certainly a possibility and would make for great cover as the IMF’s global reset is enacted. I can’t speak much to this kind of event other than to say that regardless of what happens, the IMF and the BIS will remain neutral, waiting until the conflicts subside so that they can step in as “heroes” ready to rebuild the world.

The liberty movement must also be ready to rebuild, and our ideal must be fully formed if we are to compete with the globalists. The most difficult reality of all is the reality that economic implosion is the end of one era and the beginning of a new battle. Our fight will not only be against the machinations of elitists, but also to convince the world that the way of independence and freedom is more useful and preferable than the way of collectivist peasantry. Collapse is already upon us; now we must decide who will determine what happens next.

–Brandon Smith

The endgame has arrived

April 22, 2015

From here:

chess041315

This is the fourth installment of a series. Read the first installment, <a “nofollow”=”” href=”http://personalliberty.com/one-last-look-real-economy-implodes/&#8221; target=”_blank”>“One last look at the real economy before it implodes,”  the second installment, <a “nofollow”=”” href=”http://personalliberty.com/steady-derailment-u-s-financial-system/”>“<a “nofollow”=”” href=”http://personalliberty.com/steady-derailment-u-s-financial-system/&#8221; target=”_blank”>The steady derailment of the U.S. financial system,” the third installment, <a “nofollow”=”” href=”http://personalliberty.com/magic-establishment-economics/%20&#8243; target=”_blank”>“The magic of establishment economics,” and the fourth, <a “nofollow”=”” href=”http://personalliberty.com/the-u-s-is-being-made-economically-irrelevant/&#8221; target=”_blank”>“The U.S. is being made economically irrelevant.”

Since I began writing analysis for the liberty movement more than eight years ago, I have always said that we will know when the endgame of the globalists is upon us when the criminals come out into the light of day and admit to their crimes. At that moment, it will be because they no longer fear either the repercussions or their plans being obstructed.

As I plan to show in this installment of my series on the hidden fiscal collapse of America, the endgame has indeed arrived. At the very least, the international elites seem to think success is within their grasp, for they now openly expose their own criminality. But they do so in a way that attempts to divert blame or to rationalize their actions as being for the “greater good.”

In “The U.S. is being made economically irrelevant,” I discussed the reality of the false East/West paradigm and the fact that the “conflict” between Eastern and Western interests is nothing more than Kabuki theater constructed by globalists and designed to mesmerize the masses. You see, the problem with most people is that they tend to let their innate sense of tribalism drive them to take sides in war without understanding the fundamental root of that war. In most cases, they believe one side must be “good” and one side must be “bad.” Globalists understand this weakness of human collectivism, and they exploit it as often as possible. They create conflicts from out of the void, conflict in which both sides are controlled. Then, they let the masses fumble like idiots trying to set the noose around the other guy’s neck.

The East/West paradigm is just another in a long line of false confrontations engineered by the elites, but it is one that is most dangerous to the liberty movement itself. In our rage over the destruction of freedom and prosperity within our country, some of us have come to assume that the source of all that is unholy bubbles at the heart of U.S. corporate and government activity and that the East is in the midst of some kind of rebellion. This is simply nonsense.

Recently, a reader sent me a link that reminded me of comments made by Rep. Louis T. McFadden, chairman of the House Banking Committee, on May 4, 1933. In the wake of his battle against the Federal Reserve, he said: “… the treacherous signing away of American rights at the 7-power conference at London in July 1931 … put the Federal Reserve System under the control of the Bank of International Settlements.”

Even in 1933, there were some people who could see that the Federal Reserve was just an errand boy, an economic hit man for a more powerful entity. Sadly, McFadden died in 1936 from coronary thrombosis before he could make any headway in his crusade. The truth he stamped into the public record, though, lives on; and it is a truth that many people just don’t want to hear. It is easier to quantify the threat of the Federal Reserve. It is easier to believe that the Fed either controls the game or (for the more sheep-minded citizenry) that the Fed is a harmless “quasi-governmental body.” Many of us in the movement want to believe it is the gateway to the seventh circle of hell because if the Fed dies, then we win. And the Fed appears to be killable, most notably in light of certain actions on the part of the East. Unfortunately, the problem is far more complex.

As McFadden exposed, the Fed is merely a tentacle, one of many slithering at the behest of a larger vampire squid. The Bank for International Settlements appears to be the eye of the leviathan. I have been happy to see that the BIS is gaining more and more attention from the alternative media as a primary threat to the stability of the world. Zero Hedge published a very interesting article on the BIS banking cabal recently, excerpted from a book by Adam LeBor and titled “Meet The Secretive Group That Runs The World.”

Of course, this is not the first exposé on the BIS. Even Harper’s published a surprisingly honest (though only half the story) piece on the bank, titled “Ruling The World Of Money,” back in 1983. In it, the magazine claims that “…the unabashed purpose of its elite monthly meetings is to coordinate and, if possible, to control all monetary activities in the industrialized world.”

Any central bank that ends up on the membership roster of the BIS should be for all intents and purposes considered controlled by the BIS. This includes the central banks of Eastern nations supposedly in opposition to Western power. The very beginning history of the BIS is stained with blood, since it financially played both sides of World War II and aided the funding of the Nazi apparatus. Keep in mind that Germany, Japan and the Allies were all members of the BIS from 1931 on and remained members through the war. Bankers have been pitting countries against each other for a very long time, and they have no loyalties to any particular nation.

The BIS had to fade into the background for a time after its partnership with fascists was made public after the war. So the elites formed yet another monstrosity, the International Monetary Fund, to take its place in the public eye. However, the BIS continues to this day to pull the strings of the world’s central banks and, by extension, the world’s governments.

The strategy of engineered conflict has not changed. I have written numerous articles on the undeniable collusion between Russia and the IMF, including the avid Russian support for the IMF’s new global reserve currency, the Special Drawing Rights. You can read those articles here, here and here.

Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin have continued their love affair with the IMF since 2009, when they called for the SDR to become the world reserve currency.

Last year, Putin reasserted the goal of the BRICS to become more involved (enveloped) in the IMF system:

In the BRICS case we see a whole set of coinciding strategic interests. First of all, this is the common intention to reform the international monetary and financial system. In the present form it is unjust to the BRICS countries and to new economies in general. We should take a more active part in the IMF and the World Bank’s decision-making system. The international monetary system itself depends a lot on the US dollar, or, to be precise, on the monetary and financial policy of the US authorities. The BRICS countries want to change this.

I also have been covering the Chinese shift away from the dollar and into the arms of the IMF’s currency basket for years.

The great lie today is that China and Russia are anti-New World Order. Yet as I discussed in my last article, China (and Russia) have consistently called for a global conversion into the SDR basket system, and they want this system to be run by the IMF. The IMF, in turn, has consistently called for the end of the dollar as the world reserve currency and has openly embraced institutions like the new Asian regional bank, the AIIB, which is dominated by China, despite the fact that many people wrongly believe that the AIIB is somehow “competition” to the IMF or World Bank.

This excerpt comes from the International Business Times:

World Bank managing director Mulyani Indrawati told Xinhua in an interview.

“We will definitely open for cooperation with AIIB [sic]. Even now, we are working very closely in the beginning and looking at the setting, principle and framework of this institution.”

She also dismissed worries that the AIIB will compete against the World Bank or existing regional development banks and noted the global need for infrastructure is huge to accommodate multiple organisations.

Speaking at the opening of the China Development Forum in Beijing, IMF chief Christine Lagarde said the IMF would be “delighted” to co-operate with AIIB, and the institutions have “massive” room for cooperation.

More on the history of China and its partnership with the New World Order can be found in James Corbett’s excellent video analysis here.

At the level of international banking and monetary policy, there is absolutely no indication of any legitimate conflict between the East and the West. Again, such battles are only theater for the masses. But what purpose does this theater serve?

The fake economic war between East and West provides cover and rationale for the true goal of the internationalists: the destruction of the dollar as the world reserve currency and the ascendency of the SDR global monetary system. The endgame of the bankers is, of course, global government. It has been the longtime dream of the Fabian socialists permeating the central banking universe. A global currency system and centralized economic management are first-step psychological weapons against the public. If the world operates on a singular currency mechanism and a singular economic authority, why not have a singular governmental system as well?

The mistake many liberty movement analysts make is the assumption that the internationalists are somehow dedicated to U.S. interests. The idea that globalists have any loyalties to any sovereign government is a ridiculous notion. Fabians hate sovereign separations between nations (as much as they hate individual liberties), and they seek to ultimately destroy all boundaries for the sake of a singular global fiscal-political edifice.

But the elites cannot simply kill the dollar and replace it outright. They need a magic trick, a smoke-and-mirrors hologram, a sexy assistant in a sequined bathing suit and fireworks galore while they pull their global basket reserve out of a top hat. The false East/West paradigm is the perfect distraction. What better way to destroy the dollar and conjure a new world reserve than to pit one block of nations you dominate against the other block of nations you dominate and blame the resulting economic catastrophe on “sovereign nationalism,” which you also plan to erase in due course?

The elites are preparing for this event, and they are not content only to trigger it then sit back and watch it happen. They also hope to construct a new image for themselves as the prophets who tried to warn the world — the financial “sages” who would be our rescuers.

The criminals are coming into the light, and they are wearing the masks of saviors.

Alan Greenspan is now suddenly a staunch promoter of economic caution, warning that “something big … a significant market event …” is about to happen, and that gold is now a good investment as opposed to the dollar.

Janet Yellen has openly conceded that cash is not a convenient store of value.

Jamie Dimon is getting in on the prognosticator action, asserting that another financial crisis is coming.

The IMF now consistently warns of “shadow banking risks” bringing disaster to the economic environment.

The World Bank has been polite enough to warn the public that “now is the time to prepare for the next crisis.”

The BIS now produces statements on a regular basis predicting a possible “violent reversal of global markets,” just as it conveniently alerted the public to the possibility of credit collapse in 2007 right before the derivatives crisis.

Literally every elitist and his drunken uncle publicly discuss the danger of another market crash. That’s a rather stark reversal from a few years ago when recovery was a mainstream absolute, Bernanke was being called a hero and fiat stimulus was the fountain of youth. How would they know that such an event is coming? They built the conditions by which a collapse is inevitable, and now they want to purify themselves in the waters of Lake Minnetonka and absolve their institutions of all future ugliness.

I would like to point out, though, that banker warnings of volatility and crisis are generally given far too late for average people to act accordingly. I would also like to point out that the rising chorus of mainstream voices giving predictions of destabilization are also marginalizing and isolating the U.S. and the Federal Reserve as the root cause. The U.S. is nothing more than a storefront for elitist activities. And the Federal Reserve is a tentacle that can be sacrificed if it means achieving total centralization. All signs and evidence point to what the IMF calls the “great global economic reset.” The plans for this reset do not include U.S. prosperity or a thriving dollar.

–Brandon Smith

The U.S. is being made economically irrelevant

April 22, 2015

From here:

dollar bubble about to burstThis is the fourth installment of a series. Read the first installment, <a “nofollow”=”” href=”http://personalliberty.com/one-last-look-real-economy-implodes/&#8221; target=”_blank”>“One last look at the real economy before it implodes,”  the second installment, <a “nofollow”=”” href=”http://personalliberty.com/steady-derailment-u-s-financial-system/”>“<a “nofollow”=”” href=”http://personalliberty.com/steady-derailment-u-s-financial-system/&#8221; target=”_blank”>The steady derailment of the U.S. financial system,” and the third installment, <a “nofollow”=”” href=”http://personalliberty.com/magic-establishment-economics/%20&#8243; target=”_blank”>“The magic of establishment economics.”

In the first three installments of this series, we examined the realities behind supply and demand, unemployment and personal debt, and national debt. As has been proven in each consecutive article with ample evidence, mainstream establishment numbers are, for the most part, utter garbage. They are not legitimate. They are meaningless.

The figures and stats that do have some truth to them are so obscured from the public view and unreported by the media that they may as well be state secrets. The average person has no clue of their existence because his primary sources of information are establishment-dominated. Even MSM talking heads and economic “analysts” are so mesmerized by the false version of the economic world that they have no point of reference when suddenly confronted with singular facts. Some people call this catastrophic behavior a “positive feedback loop.” It is a mainstream echo chamber that has become a financial tomb.

Now that I have covered the lies within our economy that I can prove absolutely, it is time to move on to the lies that are more difficult to pin down. These lies often slip through our fingers because the hard data that could be used to expose them is simply not available to the general public. In fact, much of the data is not even available to government officials. I am, of course, talking about the hard data behind the activities of central banks across the globe — the International Monetary Fund, the Bank for International Settlements and the Federal Reserve in particular. In this installment, we will explore the imminent destruction of our currency — by hook, by crook and by fiat.

In “The magic of establishment economics,” real U.S. liabilities were revealed to far exceed official stats given by the Treasury Department (upward of $200 trillion currently owed, not owed in some distant future where none of us will be alive to worry about it). The debt singularity most responsible for this problem has been created through entitlement programs, as well as a Social Security program that the government uses as its own personal slush fund, triggering a debt accumulation of more than $8 trillion per year.

How does our government (or any government with a central bank) continue to function monetarily if it is generating far more debt than it will ever be able to pay off in tax revenues? Well, our system does not “function.” It just refuses to fully die. And it does this through fiat money creation.

The quantitative easing programs, which allowed the Federal Reserve to conjure massive stores of fiat money out of thin air and purchase U.S. Treasury bonds (among other things), were a blatantly open admission by bureaucrats and central bankers alike that the government has not been capable of sustaining its own operations without fiat aid.

I’ll say it again: QE programs are in and of themselves hard evidence of government insolvency.

One might argue, though, that since the finalization of the taper and the end of QE3 and the bailout programs overall, our system must be amply flush with cash yet again. Why else would the taper have been instituted? I would argue and have argued in the past that the taper was instituted not in preparation for economic recovery, but in preparation for economic collapse. The bailouts have stopped because they no longer serve any purpose in propping up the false economy.

For instance, the inspector general for the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is now suggesting yet another bailout for socialist New Deal failures Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, after the Obama administration reserved the right to take all profits from the conservatorship beginning in 2012. Yes, all that money that Fannie and Freddie supposedly made and paid back didn’t make an ounce of difference, as the federal government now steals profits in order to pay off other debts. In the meantime, companies like Blackstone reap the benefits as they purchase and bid on hundreds of thousands of homes for pennies on the dollar, turn them into rentals and artificially support the illusion of a housing recovery in the United States. (I would also note that Blackstone has conveniently served as an “adviser” to the U.S. Treasury throughout the Fannie/Freddie bailouts.)

As referenced in “One last look at the real economy before it implodes,” stimulus measures have absolutely failed to inspire any semblance of recovery in consumer demand, and global demand for goods is imploding.

As referenced in “The steady derailment of the U.S. financial system,” real employment has not improved throughout the duration of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, quantitative easing and zero interest-rate policy. In fact, it only seems to have stalled unemployment at about 23 percent.

As referenced in “The magic of establishment economics,” stimulus actions have only served to create even more unmitigated debt while producing no tangible results other than a massive bubble in stock markets.

Poverty is at record levels. Welfare demand is at record levels. Average wages are falling, and prices on essential goods (except oil at this time) are rising. Global demand is visibly sliding into the same territory as in 2008. Housing markets have become a corporately boosted feudalistic farce. And unemployment continues at a depressing level; meanwhile, people aren’t even counted as unemployed anymore because they’ve been jobless for so long.

At this point, at the onset of spring 2015, I think it is safe to say that alternative economic analysts have been right all along in our assertions that central bank stimulus measures are completely useless. Though some of the slimier day traders like to argue that they “tripled their profits” during the stimulus period and our “doom and gloom” means nothing to them, in their naivety they would be missing the bigger picture. You don’t play the collapse. In the end, the collapse will play you.

Now, it would seem as though the Federal Reserve has failed in every aspect of its bailout quest. But what are the consequences of this debacle? It’s the displacement of U.S. economic standing. The U.S. is being made economically irrelevant.

China has surpassed the U.S. as the world’s largest exporter/importer and has long been far superior to the U.S. in manufacturing capability, making China the most valuable economic partner in the world. According to the IMF, China is now superior to the U.S. and is the largest economy on the planet.

China has now launched its regional Asian Development Bank, a kind of Asian World Bank. And nearly 50 countries, including numerous European allies to the U.S., have rushed to sign on.

The talk is even growing within mainstream circles that China is about to decouple from the U.S. economy and, along with the BRICS nations, structure a new Asian-centric financial system that will “stick it” to the Western financial elites. This, however, is too simplistic a notion.

We are talking about the real economy in this series; and in the real economy, no nation with a central bank actually “breaks” from the New World Order. In fact, all conflicts between the East and West are only serving to further the cause of globalists and Fabian socialists.

China alone does not have the capacity to replace the U.S. as a primary driver for the global economy, nor does it have the capacity to replace the dollar as a world reserve currency. This is not China’s goal. It never has been China’s goal. China’s only purpose in its historic fiscal expansion has been to achieve inclusion in what the IMF calls the “global economic reset.” Part of this reset is the introduction of the IMF global currency basket system, or Special Drawing Rights (SDR), as a kind of centralized control mechanism for all currencies around the world. The IMF and China have continuously called for the SDR basket system to replace the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency.

Despite the hopes of some alternative writers that China will somehow break the chains of the central banking monopoly, every Chinese action since at least 2008 has been in preparation to become a full slave nation under the control of IMF policy. China has now officially submitted its currency (the Yuan) for inclusion as a reserve currency in the SDR basket.

The IMF conference on the SDR, which takes place every five years, is set to begin preliminaries in May and finish in October or November. It is widely expected that China’s currency will indeed be included in the SDR this year and that the U.S. will have little capacity to stop such a development. That’s because American veto power within the IMF is likely to be removed, due to a lack of approval on funding measures and policy changes put to Congress in 2010.

Avid enthusiasm for China’s new regional bank has put the U.S. on the defensive, as supposed allies are joining the chorus calling for China to join the SDR.

This would make the Yuan the first currency not fully convertible to join the SDR basket. Meaning, it is difficult to directly invest in Yuan compared to investing in dollars. But this is exactly what the IMF wants.

The Asian Times put it rather bluntly but honestly:

Currently, central banks can’t include yuan holdings in their foreign exchange reserves. However, via inclusion in the SDR basket, the currency will effectively enjoy a “back door” where convertibility is concerned. The upshot, according to Citibank, means increased yuan demand from central banks and further integration of the currency into global capital market flows.

Importantly, China has espoused an “internationalisation” of reserve currencies away from U.S. dollar hegemony and dependencies on local economic fluctuations on exchange rates and stability. The yuan inclusion in the basket would be a step towards a more multi-lateral currency world. While full convertibility may still be far away, China’s ability to have a global reserve currency may soon be upon us.

Yes, that’s right. The SDR is being pushed as a reserve alternative to the dollar, and the dollar is being marginalized. China’s inclusion in the SDR will help this process. And as China becomes a currency powerhouse in its role as the No. 1 economy in the world, the only way central banks around the planet can benefit or “invest” in the Yuan is by stockpiling SDRs. This is how a global currency cycle begins. The beneficiaries are the IMF and those elites who desperately want a totally centralized global economic system.

In the meantime, as the dollar loses its world reserve status, it loses the only pillar of support keeping its value somewhat stable. As the dollar falls, U.S. citizens will be reduced to Second World and Third World economic expectations. Employment and wages will continue to dissolve, while the margins between the “haves” and “have nots” will continue to grow. In the worst-case scenario, total chaos would result followed by international intervention to “save us” from ourselves. Our currency would likely be permanently pegged to the SDR basket, just as Argentina’s was pegged to our dollar after its collapse. And the IMF would own the U.S. rather than the U.S. owning the IMF, as is the common delusion.

As stated earlier, Federal Reserve stimulus actions “seem” to have failed miserably. Now our nation is facing a firestorm. But the Federal Reserve has not failed in its mission. The Fed’s purpose is not to defend the stability of the U.S. economy and the dollar; the Fed’s purpose is to destroy the stability of the U.S. economy and the dollar. Thus, the Fed has succeeded in its mission. And I believe a full audit of Fed policies and actions would prove this fact beyond a doubt.

I will continue to outline the endgame for globalization that is under way in the next installment of this series, including how central banks in foreign nations collude with each other and are managed by supranational entities like the IMF and the BIS. The implosion of America serves a very particular purpose. It is not a product of blind coincidence, fate, political stupidity or corporate greed. It is an engineered event meant to clear the way for an even more sinister economic environment designed to enslave us all.

–Brandon Smith

Why the Left Wants Iran to Get the Bomb

April 12, 2015

From here:

Before Global Warming posters hung on the dingy walls of American classrooms, the atomic bomb was the original Great Bogeyman of the left. Nothing quite so demonstrated the madness of our war machine as our willingness to deploy weapons of mass destruction to stop Communism in its tracks.

The self-righteous antics over nuclear weapons in literature, art, film, at protests and in papers are far too numerous to document. But you can still spot the occasional clunker with “One nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day” or “You can’t hug a child with nuclear arms” peeling off one lopsided bumper.

Just don’t expect its owner to oppose Iran’s nuclear program over its day-ruining hug-denying nature.

What made nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants bad was not that they killed children, mutated fish or doomed mankind. There was nothing wrong with Plutonium or Uranium. In Iranian or Soviet hands they are perfectly good substances. It’s when Uncle Sam gets his hands on them that they go bad.

Soviet nuclear weapons were never the problem. Now anti-nuclear activists are defending Iran’s nuclear program because they were never really opposed to nuclear weapons; they were opposed to America.

The anti-nuclear crowd isn’t against nuclear power plants or even nuclear missiles; otherwise it would be on the front lines campaigning against Obama’s nuclear sellout to Iran, instead of supporting it.

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which claims to be against everything from nuclear power to depleted uranium, cheered the Iran deal. Ploughshares campaigns against WMDs while linking up with Iran’s lobby. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is on the same page. The organization’s motto, “70 Years Speaking Knowledge to Power”, communicates that it isn’t against nukes. It is against “Power”.

The United States is defined as possessing that intangible quality of “Power”. Not Iran, which is a victim of American “Power”.  In his New York Timesinterview with Thomas Friedman, Obama said that he had told his team to be sensitive to the “defensive Iran that feels vulnerable”. That’s the Iranian inner child that, according to Obama, was scarred by the United States in the past. Nukes are just its radioactive security blanket against American imperialism. Our power is the problem. Not their nukes.

There is a long history of such reasoning dating back to spy-scientists like Ted Hall and Alan Nunn May passing along nuclear secrets to the USSR to prevent a US nuclear monopoly. And the May case was very nearly covered up because it would have interfered with a plan to demilitarize the bomb and bring the USSR into the club. As would so often be the case, the distinction between traitors and Democrats was that the former acted unilaterally while the latter put the stamp of considered policy on their treason.

Having created an atomic crisis by helping the USSR get the bomb, the left would then spend the bulk of the Cold War denouncing the “madmen” in the Pentagon for a mass destructive stalemate that the left had sought. It was not the Pentagon which wanted to see the world balanced on the brink of destruction. It was the left which had broken the “American monopoly” that had wanted it to happen.

And once it did, the left turned a crisis that it caused into its own pet cause by promoting unilateral disarmament. Having destroyed the American monopoly, it sought to leave America utterly helpless.

There has never been a credible plan for a world without nuclear weapons. The only plan that has ever existed is a plan for a world without American nuclear weapons. Nuclear proliferation was one of the means of realizing that goal. A nuclear crisis brings disarmament talk to the forefront.

The best possible way to promote the agenda of American disarmament is by helping Iran get the bomb.

After his original inauguration, Obama talked of a “world without nuclear weapons”. But what he really meant was a world without American weapons.

“As the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act,” Obama said in that same speech. “We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it.”

The only American Exceptionalism that Obama has ever believed in is an exceptional American guilt. As the first country to have used a nuclear weapon, against an empire that was engaged in genocide and cannibalism, America has to give up its weapons first. American nuclear weapons are tainted in ways that no other weapons are. Our nukes are bad nukes. Everyone else’s nukes are good nukes.

The credibility of the other side doesn’t matter. As a dog returns to its vomit, Obama and the left eagerly tried to wrap up disarmament in a deal with Moscow despite a long history of nuclear treaty fraud. When Putin decided to take advantage of Obama’s flexibility by invading Ukraine, there was always Iran. And there has even been talk of renewing negotiations with North Korea. And why shouldn’t there be?

The Iran deal is just a replay of the terrible ideas that the Clintons used to let Kim Jong-Il go nuclear.

Disarmament is never the objective. Instead the negotiations invariably allow the other side to increase its arsenal and capabilities. That is what they are designed to do.

The left does not believe that nuclear weapons are evil. It did not believe that Soviet nuclear weapons were evil. It does not believe that Iran’s nuclear program is evil. It believes that American power is evil.

Iranian nuclear weapons are good because they weaken America. Like Soviet nuclear weapons, they undermine American power. They force the United States to “negotiate” and submit to international law. The more nuclear weapons spread, the more the “hawks” will have to realize that they have no option but to disarm the United States and put their faith in some international order to achieve peace.

That has always been the endgame.

The Council on Foreign Relations’ Foreign Affairs magazine had already run a piece promising that an Iranian nuclear bomb would bring stability to the region. As usual the word does not mean what you think it might. Stability is yet another euphemism for weakening the American coalition to create a new balance of power through Iranian power.

The same arguments now being deployed in favor of the Iran deal will later be redeployed to argue that Iran’s nuclear weapons will actually create stability. And as a bonus, Iran will be able to drive up the price of oil which means more Green Energy subsidies. For the left, that’s a win-win scenario.

The spy-scientists claimed to be concerned with the “safety of mankind” rather than such petty trifles as the security and freedom of the United States and its allies. Today men and women who think like them run the United States. And they are not concerned with the United States, but with “mankind”.

Obama intends to cut a nuclear deal with Iran on any terms and even on no terms at all. He intends to do it for the same old reasons. It’s not just about Israel, though as with regime change in Egypt, undermining the Jewish State is a nice bonus because it further weakens America.

A stronger Iran means a weaker America. And the left believes that a weaker America means a better world.

================

“SO, VLADDI – WHAT’S YOUR TAKE ON THIS?” YOU ASK?

“Multicultural martyrdom” = “Muslicultural MASOCHISM.”

Masochists pretend to “control” their fears (in stead of trying to learn to recognize and fix mistakes and solve problems by paying attention to their fears) BY causing the pains they fear.

(Hence libertine liberalism, where they pretend that it’s noble to pretend that fear doesn’t exist, and so always want to “progress” to “freedom” from the feaful pain of self-restraint).

It’s why they admire the “noble savage” ideal (muslims) propensity for mindless innocent-attacking and victim-blaming violence… libs wish they could just cut loose, attacking everyone around them every time reality frustrates them.

This masochism syndrome is also used to pretend they have the so-called “moral high ground:”

“If and when (I PRETEND TO AGREE WITH YOU THAT) you say you’re better than me, then it’s all YOUR fault. And, since it’s all your fault, then NONE of it’s MY fault (so I’m still better than you)! Whee!”

This also sums up their inherent criminal negligence: “Screw you – I MEANT to do that!”

In this way, they can pretend that they’re never wrong.

The difference between normal, healthy fear and cowardice, is that cowards fear (and so, focus on) their Fear (which is, after all, only the generalized memories of specific pains, projected to the future) AS being just as painful as the initial pains they feared.

It also explains their Sadism:

They always invite their most feared and painful counter-attacks BY attacking innocent others first.

This allows them to perpetually ‘risk’ embracing their worst-case scenarios and triumph (‘who dares wins’) because in doing so, they are always putitng their victims on the defensive, always playing catch-up to the criminal’s masochistic irrational and destructive fantasy schemes… always looking for the non-existent causes of the criminals’ alleged grievances, never quite realizing the atacks are doctrine-driven, not grievance driven (except in the most generalized slanderous terms) at all!

It almost gives them the same guilty thrill and reliefs from specific pains as normal people get from their own generalized memories of specific reliefs from pains (aka ‘Hope’) but where hope is a static ideal, the reliefs the criminals feel don’t last, because their fear-focus prioritizing triage is self-inflicted and dynamic; they create their own worst-case paranoia scenarios all the time, and so can never relax. Hence that “the evil are filled with a dark intensity” etc. observational quote. It explains their ‘depression’ and ‘bi-polar’ manic depression, and accounts for why liberals (criminals) have a higher rate of suicide than the innocent: eventually, they come to believe their own fatalistic lies as they try to perfect them to fool others. It’s a form of ongoing evolution, which unfortunately (or not LOL)! also affects their own children’s lives.

This self-inflicted slavery also allows them their perpetual defeatist and covertly sadistic “passive aggression” habit, and fake ennui, which also allows them to “fail upwards” (particularly in politics, which has been described as “the art of avoiding making decisions until the original reasons for having to make them have become irrelevant”)!

After all, if, with great power comes great responsibility, then the concommitant corrollary which comes with is can be summed up as “With no power comes NO responsibility!”

And liberals (like their muslim brethren) being criminals, ALWAYS want rights (like, to our stuff) without having any responsibilities (like, having to earn or otherwise pay for it)!

Facebook Plans to Crack Down on ‘Hate Speech’ Directed at Unspecified ‘Protected Groups’

March 18, 2015

From Breitbart:

Social-media giant Facebook has revised their Community Standards, whose violation can lead to action by the site’s administrations, including the termination of offending pages.  In the course of introducing the updated standards, global policy management chief Monika Bickert and deputy general counsel Chris Sonderby explain that the objective is to help users more clearly understand what they’re not allowed to share on their pages:

We have a set of Community Standards that are designed to help people understand what is acceptable to share on Facebook. These standards are designed to create an environment where people feel motivated and empowered to treat each other with empathy and respect.

Today we are providing more detail and clarity on what is and is not allowed. For example, what exactly do we mean by nudity, or what do we mean by hate speech? While our policies and standards themselves are not changing, we have heard from people that it would be helpful to provide more clarity and examples, so we are doing so with today’s update.

There are also times when we may have to remove or restrict access to content because it violates a law in a particular country, even though it doesn’t violate our Community Standards. We report the number of government requests to restrict content for contravening local law in our Global Government Requests Report, which we are also releasing today. We challenge requests that appear to be unreasonable or overbroad. And if a country requests that we remove content because it is illegal in that country, we will not necessarily remove it from Facebook entirely, but may restrict access to it in the country where it is illegal.

That bit about suppressing content based on complaints from various governments is where the business of content restriction gets stuck, especially when it comes to “hate speech.”  As a global service of immense popularity, Facebook deals daily with a reality many Americans have not directly experienced: the rest of the world — including the nicer, America-friendly parts — doesn’t understand “freedom of speech” the way we do, or at least the way we used to.  Just about every government on Earth has speech controls that would be deemed unconstitutional here.  Then you’ve got the authoritarian regimes that flagrantly crush every word of speech they don’t like, with a zeal that suggests they perfectly well understand the dangerous power of mass communication to spread doubleplus ungood ideas through the minds of their subjects.

Generally speaking, Facebook leans toward accommodating these totalitarian regimes, with periodic objections, rather than telling them to file their speech codes where the sun doesn’t shine. They feel it’s better to have some presence in the benighted corners of the world than walk away.  Critics suggest this position is illuminated by a business appetite for revenue from massive speech-controlled markets, such as China or the combined Middle East, rather than an ideological dedication to shining the filtered light of social-media communication into every corner of the world.  The bottom line is that Facebook must deal with speech restrictions Americans would consider intolerable, or else they’ll be blocked completely from large potential audiences.

Which brings us to the part about “hate speech” in the revised Community Standards.  This is a considerably more difficult topic than nudity or graphic violence, with a great deal of room to impose eye-of-the-beholder subjective standards.  Certain groups and regimes have wide, bloodshot eyes that behold a great deal of speech they consider “hateful” and worthy of suppression.

The first part of Facebook’s hate speech standard forbids “content that directly attacks people based on their race; ethnicity; national origin; religious affiliation; sexual orientation; sex, gender, or gender identity; or serious disabilities or diseases.”  Something tells me we’re already getting into some tall grass with the “sex, gender, of gender identity” category, where “hatred” is a matter of such subjective judgment that even those who labor with exquisite care to be sensitive and supportive to every “gender identity” they can think of are denounced as “haters” by members of the identity groups they forgot to salute.  

Also, the very next line in the Facebook standards says that “organizations and people dedicated to promoting hatred against these protected groups are not allowed a presence on Facebook.”  

What “protected groups?”  Every person on Earth has a race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, etc. that could conceivably be attacked in a hateful manner.  Everyone would belong to a number of “protected groups” if these standards were enforced evenly.  If there’s a list of groups that will receive preferential treatment in a hierarchy of hurt feelings, Facebook needs to publish it.

Then comes the really tricky part, where Facebook tries to navigate the troubled waters of ideas labeled as “hateful” by oppressive groups and governments looking to drown them in censorship:

People can use Facebook to challenge ideas, institutions, and practices. Such discussion can promote debate and greater understanding. Sometimes people share content containing someone else’s hate speech for the purpose of raising awareness or educating others about that hate speech. When this is the case, we expect people to clearly indicate their purpose, which helps us better understand why they shared that content.

We allow humor, satire, or social commentary related to these topics, and we believe that when people use their authentic identity, they are more responsible when they share this kind of commentary. For that reason, we ask that Page owners associate their name and Facebook Profile with any content that is insensitive, even if that content does not violate our policies. As always, we urge people to be conscious of their audience when sharing this type of content.

Hmm… I can think of a number of audiences that would demand a particularly high level of “consciousness” on the part of potential offenders.  There are audiences that consider virtually all criticism to be “hateful,” long before we even get into tricky business of judging whether humor and satire are offensive.  If you happen to live in the shadow of such a thin-skinned government, you might not be eager to associate your name and Facebook profile with content they deem “insensitive.”  

“Hate speech” is difficult to come to terms with, even with the most well-intended efforts to establish a polite virtual community where everyone feels comfortable, because it’s highly subjective at the margins.  No doubt Facebook has shut down a number of pages, under every version of their community standards, that virtually every observer would agree were hateful and inappropriate, especially when they get into the business of explicit or implied threats.  

The more ambiguous cases would probably be a source of tension between Facebook users and administrators under any terms of service, not just because there are provocative souls looking to push the bounds of discourse outward, but because there are perpetually offended groups looking to draw them inward.  These community guidelines probably seem reassuring to users worried about getting harassed by vicious jerks, or stumbling into pits of online horror, particularly if those users have children.  They read as vague enough to be a bit ominous to those concerned about organized speech-suppression campaigns and totalitarian government crackdowns.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, facebook, free speech, Censorship, hate speech

SO: WHAT’S MY TAKE ON THIS, YOU ASK?
FASCBOOK – selling innocent victims out to totalitarian regimes for money.

HATE SPEECH is total nonsense anyway – we already have laws against inciting violence and against slander. But real laws against slander demand a bit of proof – evidence that the alleged defamation isn’t factually true.

Hate speech “laws” on the other hand, are nothing more or less than thought-control crimes in themselves, which target the basic and perfectly natural human emotion of “hate” – the reaction of perpetual anger towards ongoing injustices (like for instance, islam)!

In islam, it’s legally considered “slander” against Muhammad himself simply to refuse to believe in the Qur’an, because refusing to believe in his version of a god, “allah,” indicates one thinks Muhammad was stupid, crazy, or an evil liar (or all of the above)!

There is no freedom of speech or thought in islamic countries, which evil and repressive stance Mark Zuckerberg is now, for money, fully willing to embrace.

He’s adopting islam’s hard-line approach, that it’s “hateful” to think for one’s self!

But in reality, without ‘hate,’ nobody would ever bother to accuse any criminals of their crimes, and, by doing so, hope to end those crimes!

By making “hate” into a “crime,” all these fascists do is try to make it “illegal” to hate crimes and the criminals who commit them!!!


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 34 other followers