headerphoto


Emory University Professor Says We (Whites) Are All Racists




Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


Hat tip Campus Reform

Photo of
George Yancy
(Emory faculty profile photo)


Of all the "white privilege" screeds I have heard in recent years, this is about the silliest. It comes from an Emory University professor named George Yancy, and in this piece, he asks us white folks to admit that we are all racists. Campus Reform has the report.

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7115

"The letter, according to Yancy, was inspired by a series of 19 interviews he conducted with various public intellectuals on the topic of race, including well-known philosophers such as Peter Singer, Noam Chomsky, and Cornel West."


(Three dopes.)


I don't wish to rehash the same things I have said in the past about America's racial history except to say that we do acknowledge the evils of slavery and segregation and have taken major steps to correct those injustices and educate our youth about them. This guy Yancy, however, is trying to make a point about virtually all white people. To stereotype an entire people by applying  a fill-in-the-blank-"ist" to them is racist in itself. In addition, it is just plain silly. That it comes from a university educator is doubly troubling-but hardly surprising.

Maybe Professor Yancy should examine his own racial attitudes as he has his gende

"Cultural Appropriation" at Oberlin (Food)




Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


A food fight erupted at Oberlin College in Ohio last month. It seems that some students (mostly Asian or Asian-American) were not pleased at the campus cafeteria's attempt to serve Asian food. Not authentic, they claimed. (What else is new?) So now, we have a case of "cultural appropriation" to deal with-a micro-aggression, if you will.)

http://www.newsweek.com/oberlin-college-students-protest-culturally-appropriative-dining-hall-food-407466

First of all, at the risk of stereotyping (a micro-aggression in itself) , I am a little saddened to find that some Asian-American students are jumping on the political correctness bandwagon. At UC Irvine, where I teach part-time, about half of the student body is Asian-American. For the most part, they don't join in the silly reindeer games that go on. They are too busy studying and enjoying their campus experience with more traditional pursuits.

At any rate, as one who has lived and traveled extensively overseas, and as one who appreciates all kinds of foreign cuisines, I appreciate how hard is to get authentic food (and beer) outside of the country of origin. For example, if you happen to be in Europe, I do not recommend trying any Thai or Chinese restaurants even if you can find them. The same thing goes for the US. If you want really good Chinese food, I recommend Chinatown in San Francisco, Los Angeles or New York. Mexican food? East LA or Santa Ana, California. Authentic German beer? The only place I know is the Hofbrauhaus in Las Vegas. They ship it directly from the parent Hofbrauhaus in Munich in barrels. Having lived in Italy, I have yet to experience the real thing in any Italian restaurant in the US.

Matter of fact, we just returned from a week's vacation at a plush resort in Puerto Vallarta. (That's in Mexico for all you UC Santa Cruz  Community Studies and History of Consciousness majors.) One night the main dining room featured Asian night with Chinese and Japanese dishes. There were also two restaurants there that featured Continental fare. Too bad the poor students of Oberlin weren't there. They would have seen a true case of cultural appropriation gone horribly bad. (The Mexican food, on the other hand, was excellent.)

By the way: If you are an American traveling abroad, I don't recommend trying a hamburger. You will be very disappointed. You should not, however, complain you are a victim of cultural appropriation. You know where they will tell you to go.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: If you are in Ohio and expect authentic Chinese food, you are out of luck. But you are not a victim of anything.

Asylum seeker or murderous terrorist? It's impossible to tell says EU boss.

"THE hundreds of thousands of refugees making their way to Europe are posing a serious security risk, the boss of the European Union's (EU) border agency warned.

And both the fallout of the Syrian conflict and increasingly sophisticated passport forgeries are making it impossible to sort legitimate asylum seekers from economic migrants and even ISIS terrorists.

Fabrice Leggeri, head of Frontex the EU's border control agency said over the past year, hundreds of thousands of people have arrived in Europe as many flee war-torn countries such as Syria and Iraq.

He added: "The big inflows of people who are currently entering Europe unchecked are of course a security risk.""

Source: Daily Express



Tags: Trump, immigration, borders To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

1 in 4 Muslims in America under 30 say suicide bombing 'to defend Islam' can be justified - Trump was right!

Pew Research Center Figures
Ever since Donald Trump proposed to temporarily stop immigration to America from Islamic countries, the political elite and their lackeys in the old fashioned media have been attacking Trump personally rather than looking carefully at the argument he put forward in support of his conclusion.

A Pew Research Center study carried out in 2007 found that 26% of Musllims in America under 30 believed that suicide bombing on civilian targets 'to defend Islam' can be justified. 26%. One in four.

Guess the Donald had a point there ...

That premise of his argument appears to be true.


Source documents available here.



Tags: Trump, immigration, Pew Research, Muslims in America To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

Brunning Sunflower Blues Band





Tags: Peter Green, Fleetwood Mac To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

Trump is asking the right questions - and we need answers!

"Hereby it is manifest that, during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such a war as is of every man against every man. For ‘war’ consisteth not in battle only or the act of fighting, but in a tract of time wherein the will to contend by battle is sufficiently known, and therefore the notion of ‘time’ is to be considered in the nature of war, as it is in the nature of weather. For as the nature of foul weather lieth not in a shower or two of rain but in an inclination thereto of many days together, so the nature of war consisteth not in actual fighting but in the known disposition thereto during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is ‘peace.’

"Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time or war where every man is enemy to every man, the same is consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently no culture of the earth, no navigation nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and, which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." (Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Chapter 8.)


The political elite and their lackeys in the old-fashioned media almost lost their minds when Donald Trump reminded everyone in the world that the primary function of a state is to protect its own citizens so they can live their lives without being in 'continual fear and danger of violent death'.

In response to Trump's proposal to temporarily halt immigration from Islamic countries until the American authorities figure out what is going on with all these jihadist attacks - and remember, these have been going on for years now - we hear the tired old assertion that not all Muslims are jihadists. The people who keep repeating this appear to believe that they are saying something profound. They are not. In fact, the assertion that not all Muslims are jihadists is irrelevant.

It is possible to describe the relationship between members of one group and the members of another group. The assertion that all members of one group are also members of another group (All S are P) is known as an 'A proposition'. For example, if someone said that 'all Muslims are jihadists' then that would be an A proposition. But that is not what was said, by Trump or anyone else.

The assertion that some members of one group are also members of another group (Some S are P) is called an 'I proposition'. This is the assertion that is being made, and where the subject term is Muslims, and the predicate term is jihadists, the I proposition (Some S are P) is true.

Some S are P - the 'I proposition'.

One of the reasons we know that, where the subject term is Muslims and the predicate term is jihadists, the I proposition (Some S are P) is true, is because the current President of the USA is on record as saying that, “I think we all recognize that this is a particular problem that has roots in Muslim communities." The same individual has also said that, in his opinion, "the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject that interpretation of Islam.” So the current President of the USA has openly acknowledged that the ideology driving the terrorists is nothing less than an "interpretation of Islam", and that some of the people in "Muslim communities" - that is to say, some Muslims - believe in it.1

The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is also on record as saying, right after the latest terrorist attack in Paris, that "It doesn’t work to deny any connection between the religion of Islam and the extremists, not least because these extremists self-identify themselves as Muslims. There is no point denying that."2

So we know that there are some Muslims living in our countries who believe in an "interpretation of Islam" that justifies acts of extreme violence against innocent people. The question, which has not been asked by the old-fashioned media since Trump made his proposal about temporarily limiting immigration, is this: How many Muslims believe in that "interpretation of Islam"?

A survey carried out by the Pew Research Center in 2007 found that 47% of Muslims living in America see themselves as Muslims first and Americans second;3 32% of Muslims believe there is a natural conflict between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society;4 26% of Muslims believe that Muslims coming to America today should remain separate from American society,5 and 26% of Muslims under the age of 30 have said they believe suicide bombing against civilian targets can be justified if it is carried out in defense of Islam.

So according to the Pew Research Center, one in four young adult Muslims living in America believe in an "interpretation of Islam" that justifies acts of violence against innocent people. One of the primary reasons that a state exists is to protect its citizens from such a threat. If a state does not protect its own citizens, then it is no longer a legitimate political entity.

The interesting thing about Trump's comment was not that he proposed limiting immigration, it was that he challenged the American authorities to 'figure out' what was going on. That's what really put the wind up them. Because the truth is, the American and British authorities are not only failing to carry out their primary duty as representatives of so-called democratic states, they are actively creating a situation akin to that described long ago by Thomas Hobbes. A war of all against all, where anything that is worthwhile is destroyed or abandoned, and where everyone are in 'continuous fear of violent death'. They are deliberately creating the very conditions they are supposed to exist in order to prevent - like a doctor deliberately giving their patients poison. The question we all want an answer to is: Why are they doing this?

No wonder they don't want anyone to figure out what the hell is going on.




References

1. Boyer, D. Obama says terrorists not motivated by true Islam, The Washington Times, Feb 1st 2015;
Halper, D. Obama: 99.9% of Muslims Reject Radical Islam, The Daily Caller, Feb 2nd 2015.
2. Prime Minister's statement on Paris attacks and G20 Summit, 17th November 2015.
3. Muslim Americans, Middle Class And Mostly Mainstream, Pew Research Center, May 22nd 2007, pages 3 & 31, available at: Pew Research Religion & Public Life Project.
4. ibid., p. 32.
5. ibid., p. 33.
6. ibid., pp. 53-54.




Tags: ENTER TAGS HERE To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

It's the software, stupid!

There are a lot of people in the world who are so dim, it's a wonder they are able to tie their own shoelaces in the morning. It took me a long time to understand that, and to accept it. But there they are among us, saying and doing the stupidest things. And there really are people walking the earth who have given themselves over to evil. Every minute of my life I spent trying to figure out if someone was doing stupid things because they didn't know any better, or because they were in the service of the adversary, was wasted time. By their fruits we do know them, and that’s all that matters. They will have to answer to God and explain themselves one day, and that’ll be their problem.

We need to derail the irrational ideas and schemes of these people, because they are seldom content with living their own lives. No, in their unfounded arrogance they think that they are special, and that they can tell everyone else how to live their lives. We can start to do that by refuting their lies and sinking their arguments. One of the most common lies that we hear today is that anyone who criticises the belief system known as ‘Islam’ is a ‘racist’. This outrageous lie is long past its sell by date, so let’s make a start by doing that one in.

Point 1

Religious beliefs are not the same thing as the human beings who hold those religious beliefs.

To anyone capable of rational thought, this is an obvious fact. The former UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Frank La Rue, has stated that:

‘He [the Special Rapporteur] wishes to underscore once again that international human rights law protects individuals and not abstract concepts such as religion, belief systems or institutions …’

That position makes sense because human beings and religious beliefs are two entirely different things. Human beings are hardware: bones, blood and water. Religious beliefs are software, or as one of my old software engineering lecturers used to call it, ‘thought-stuff’.

Point 2

If human beings and religious beliefs are two different things, then it is possible to talk about one without referring to the other.

Therefore ...

It is possible to talk about religious beliefs without referring to a human being.


Every rational person understands perfectly well that it is possible to make an assertion about a religious belief without ever referring to a human being, just as it is possible to make a statement about software without ever mentioning hardware. If the subject of a sentence has to do with software, then the sentence is clearly not about hardware. It's about software. It really is as simple as that.

'Windows 10 has a start menu.'

Is that statement about the new Macbook Pro? Or HP laptops? Or encrypted memory sticks? No. It's about hardware. It's about software.


In fact, any assertion about a religious belief, by definition, says nothing about any human beings, anywhere on earth, who hold that the belief in question is true. (Nor does it say anything about any human beings who hold that the belief in question is false.)



Point 3

Religious beliefs are not protected under human rights legislation.

The clue is in the name. Human rights legislation protects human beings. It does not protect religious beliefs. (See point 1.) As the Special Rapporteur has stated:

‘Moreover, the right to freedom of religion or belief, as enshrined in relevant international legal standards, does not include the right to have a religion or belief that is free from criticism or ridicule.’

Point 4

Religious beliefs can, and should, be criticized.

As the Special Rapporteur has stated:

‘Indeed, the right to freedom of expression includes the right to scrutinize, debate openly, make statements that offend, shock and disturb, and criticize belief systems, opinions and institutions, including religious ones …’

‘As the Special Rapporteur has previously emphasized, for the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion to be fully realized, robust examination and criticism of religious doctrines and practices — even in a harsh manner — must also be allowed.’



So if you criticise the religion of Islam, and some wingnut calls you a ‘racist’ for doing so, you can tell them that you are not talking about hardware, you are talking about software.

And obviously, religious software can run on any human hardware. It doesn't matter what a person's 'race' is. Anyone on earth can believe that the truth claims made by the Islamic religion correspond to reality. You might want to mention the ‘ginger jihadi’ Abdullah Elmir and the ‘white widow’ Samantha Lewthwaite when you make this point, to make sure that the person before you gets it.

Try putting this to them: The only possible way that ‘race’ could be involved when someone was discussing Islam would be if that religion’s software was only designed to run on people of a particular ‘race’, so that only people of a particular ‘race’ could possibly become Muslims. Is that what they are saying? That Islam itself is ‘racist’, because if someone is the wrong ‘race’ they can’t become a Muslim? Is that true?

If they say yes, then you have them. If they say no, then you have them.

Obviously, it's not true. Anyone can choose to believe that the truth claims made by the Islamic religion, as opposed to the entirely different truth claims made by every other religion, correspond to reality. That would be why you reminded them about the 'ginger jihadi' and the 'white widow'. And that’s the point. That is the point.

It’s not about human hardware. It never has been.

It’s the software, stupid.


Sources

La Rue, F. Promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, UN General Assembly, 67th Session, A/67/357, September 7th 2012, paragraphs 35, 36 and 53, available at: Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights > English > Human Rights Bodies > Special Procedures > General Assembly 67th session (accessed 17th Dec 2015).



Tags: Islam, racism, hardware, software To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

The Red and The Black

General Heinz Guderian and Lieutenant Colonel Gustav-Adolf Reibel together with Brigadier Seymon Krivoshein, Commander of the Soviet 29th Tank Brigade, in Brest-Litovsk, September 1939.
IWM - HU 85900)

The neo-totalitarians who are destroying the world around us claim to have the final solution to the question of how human beings are to live together here on earth. That claim was also made by their ideological predecessors. The efforts of the Reds to enforce their final solution in eastern Poland during the first 21 months of the war were every bit as morally depraved as the measures being employed at the same time by the Nazis.1

As the philosopher Isaiah Berlin has argued, the belief that all human values and practices are compatible lies behind many of the evil acts that were perpetrated during the 20th Century.2 According to Berlin, it has long been assumed that questions about how human beings should live their lives in this world must have correct and meaningful answers, and since those answers must be true, those answers must be compatible.3 It is therefore possible, according to this way of thinking, for a final solution to the question of how human beings ought to live on this earth to be found. After reading Machiavelli, Berlin came to realise that this was wrong.4 In fact, a moment’s thought will reveal to any honest thinker that many human values contradict one another, and ‘the notion of the perfect whole, the ultimate solution, in which all good things coexist, [is] not merely unattainable - that is a truism - but conceptually incoherent.’5

Nevertheless, many people have chosen to believe otherwise, and many others have been forced to live as if they too believe in a final solution, on pain of death or imprisonment. The Reds’ invasion of Poland in September 1939 was carried out in accordance with their ideological beliefs.6 As the British ambassador in Moscow, Sir William Seeds, recognised, that meant that the Reds intended to ‘purge’ the newly occupied territory, so that it would be indistinguishable from the rest of the Soviet Union.7 Arrests of individuals with the potential to resist the new regime began almost immediately.8 Between September 1939 and June 1941, over a hundred thousand people were apprehended by the Soviet invaders. Many were fed into the gulag system.9

The Soviets also initiated several waves of deportations, the first of which took place in February 1940. Agents of the NKVD had spent the previous weeks masquerading as agricultural officials, visiting local farms and homes and asking about who lived there and what resources they had. In the early hours of the morning on 11th February, thousands of people were turfed out of their beds, loaded aboard freight cars, and sent by rail to logging camps in Siberia or collective farms in Kazakhstan. Many did not survive the journey. The NKVD perpetrated this crime again in April 1940, June 1940 and June 1941.10

The head of the NKVD at this time was Lavrenty Beria, a notorious sexual predator and sadist.11 In March 1940, Beria proposed that thousands of Polish officers who had been captured during the Soviet invasion, as well as thousands of people now labelled by Beria as ‘members of counter-revolutionary spy and sabotage organisations’, should be executed. Josef Stalin and Vyacheslav Molotov both signed off on this terrible proposal, and the following month, one of the most heinous war crimes in the history of mankind was committed by the Soviet Union.12

The NKVD interrogated the prisoners of war being held in Soviet camps at Starobelsk, Ostashkov and Kozelsk in order to establish their intellectual standing. Anyone who did not believe that the Soviets possessed the final solution to the question of how human beings are to live together was sentenced to a violent death.13 At Starobelsk and Ostashkov, the POWs were murdered using the same technique. A prisoner’s name would be checked off a list, then he would be taken into a room where two NKVD agents grabbed him by the arms. The murderer would approach from behind and, using a German pistol, shoot a bullet into the base of the prisoner’s neck. One of the NKVD’s most prolific killers, Vasily Blokhin, is said to have worn a leather apron, leather gauntlets and leather cap as he went about his bloody work. Josef Stalin awarded Blokhin the Order of the Red Banner that same month for his ‘skill and organisation in the effective carrying out of special tasks.’14

The POWs held at the camp in Kozelsk were murdered after being taken to the forest at Katyn, rather than being shot first then taken to the burial site on the back of a lorry.15 Approximately seven thousand people held in other camps were also executed by the NKVD at this time. In total, more than twenty one thousand human beings were sacrificed in the name of the Soviet totalitarian system, which Sir Max Hastings described as ‘the greatest edifice of repression, mass murder and human suffering the world has ever seen’.16

Rows of exhumed bodies of Polish officers by the mass graves at Katyn, 1943. (© IWM - HU 106212)

History has shown us what some people are capable of when they believe in a final solution. In the society that my generation was brought up in, the state was trusted to do what was right, so it might be difficult for some people to accept that we are travelling down that road again. Unfortunately, there is no longer any question of the state doing what is right. In a ‘politically correct’ society, the state decides what is right, and woe betide anyone who questions that. Citizens are already being sacrificed at random on the altar of the neo-totalitarians’ final solution. If you switch on the news, at any time of the day or night, you will see the latest victims lying in the street. Not only are innocent people being executed in public, a system of control is being established that is so evil, it uses those human sacrifices to accelerate their program. That system will end your life as a free human being, just as surely as if you were forced to your knees by an agent of the state and shot.



References


1. Moorhouse, R. (2014) The Devil’s Alliance: Hitler’s Pact with Stalin, 1939-1941, London: The Bodley Head, Kindle location 1173.
2. Berlin, I. (Quoted.) Two concepts of freedom: 3.5 The notion of a final solution, Open University. (Accessed 12th November 2015.)
3. Berlin, I. (2003) The Crooked Timber of Humanity: The Pursuit of the Ideal, London: Pimlico, pp. 5-6.
4. Berlin, I. ibid., p. 8.
5. Berlin, I. ibid., p. 13.
6. Rees, L. (2009) World War 2: Behind Closed Doors, London: Random House, Kindle locations 481, 485.
7. Seeds, W. (Quoted.) ibid., Kindle location 632.
8. Rees, L. ibid., Kindle Loc. 510; Moorhouse, R. op. cit., Kindle location 1076.
9. Rees, L. ibid., Kindle Location 728; Moorhouse, R. op. cit., Kindle location 1187.
10. Rees, L. ibid., Kindle locations 826, 865, 1021, 1113; Moorhouse, R. op. cit., Kindle locations 1297, 1364.
11. Rees, L. ibid., Kindle location 5579; Strauss, J. Stalin’s depraved executioner still has grip on Moscow, The Telegraph, 23 Dec 2003. (Accessed 15th November 2015.)
12. Rees, L. ibid., Kindle location 908; Excerpts: Beria letter to Stalin on Katyn, BBC News, 28 April 2010. (Accessed 15th November 2015.)
13. Rees, L. ibid., Kindle locations 929, 937. Moorhouse, R. op. cit., Kindle location 1195.
14. Rees, L. ibid., Kindle locations 983, 990, 996; Applebaum, A. (2012) Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe 1944-56, London: Penguin, Kindle location 2165. Vasili Blokhin, history’s most prolific executioner, Rare Historical Photos. (Accessed 15th November 2015.)
15. Rees, L. ibid., Kindle location 998.
16. Moorhouse, R. op. cit., Kindle location 1223; Hastings, M. (2011) Armageddon, London: Pan Books, Kindle location 2255.


Tags: neo-totalitarians, Stalin, Obama, Hitler, Communism, Poland, tyranny, Katyn, gulag To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

Living in a Little Ease

Victims of Communism Memorial Monument in Prague
Katatonia82|Dreamstime.com)

Freedom can be understood to be the range of opportunities that are available to you. To use Isaiah Berlin’s well-known metaphor, you can equate your liberty to the number of unlocked doors in front of you. The more doors there are, the more freedom you have. This is what is sometimes known as ‘negative’ freedom.1 There’s more to it than that though. As an individual, you must have it in you to get up and open one of those doors, and you have to be willing to do whatever it takes to go through it and reach the other side. When this aspect of our freedom is being considered, it’s important to remember that we all have the capacity to choose to do something we know is wrong. This can be illustrated using an example that everyone can relate to.

In the course of our lives, we have all had cause to visit a doctor. Medical professionals are in a position of authority over anyone who enters their office. A doctor is who we go to with a problem that we cannot understand or solve on our own, and we rely on these individuals to use their medical knowledge and good judgement to help us. A doctor has considerable ‘negative freedom’ because there are many doors before them each time a patient sits across from them in their office and opens up to them. They could act in a professional manner and choose the course of action that is best for the patient, regardless of cost, which is what they have taken an oath to do and what they are paid to do. Or they could choose to write the patient a prescription, and see how that goes. Or they could cast a lingering eye over an attractive young patient sitting before them, and choose instead to open the door with the big red ‘NO!’ stamped on it. The door that, as a medical professional, they have sworn never to go through.2 If any doctor in the UK chooses that course of action, then they will almost certainly face serious consequences.3

As citizens of Western European nation states, we have all had the good fortune to have had a significant amount of ‘negative’ freedom in years gone by. Our life experiences tell us that there are some good doors before us, there are plenty of bad ones, and we have to act rationally and choose between them. In the final analysis, that is what it means to be free. And we are all ‘endowed with reason and conscience’, we all have the right to access information about different religions and political systems, and we can all form our own opinions based on that information.4 So everyone is capable of making their own decisions about how to live their own lives.

The neo-totalitarians don’t want you to do that though. They don’t even want you to know that you can. Throughout history, the foundation of totalitarian systems has been the claims that the state, and no one else, knows which doors everyone must go through in order to create a utopian society here on earth, and if an individual will not do what the state tells them voluntarily, then the state should, and must, use force against them.

To rub salt in the wounds inflicted upon citizens like you, totalitarian systems claim that you would believe in their final solution if you were not so benighted. Apparently, the reason you do not believe in the state’s final solution is because you identify with your ‘lower’ self, and not with an occult entity within you which is the most important part of who you really are. This occult aspect of your self recognises the authority of the state and agrees with what it is trying to achieve. When the state uses force to make you accept their final solution, you are supposed to believe that the state is acting in your best interests and that this occult self, which self-identifies with the state, approves of your suffering. Forcing individuals who have the capacity to think rationally, and to assign meaning to their own lives, into that schizophrenic, self-hating position is one of the classic traits of a totalitarian regime.5

The neo-totalitarians claim that all cultural and moral values are compatible, so a final solution to the question of how human beings are to live together here on earth can exist. Therefore, the enemy wants us all to believe, a final solution must exist. Therefore it does exist. The neo-totalitarians call this final solution ‘multiculturalism’.

As anyone who lives in the real world can clearly see, and Isaiah Berlin pointed out many years ago, the claim that all cultural and moral values are compatible is false. Therefore, the notion that a final solution can exist is an absurdity. A final solution cannot exist, and it does not exist.6 The neo-totalitarians are deliberately destroying everything we stand for and everything we have ever believed in, all in the name of something that can never be realised.

The claim made by the neo-totalitarians is that the control system that is being established will somehow bring about a ‘multicultural’ utopia here on earth, where all cultural and moral values are in alignment and the final solution to the question of how human beings are to live on this earth will at last have been answered. In truth, the rise of the neo-totalitarians, the wars and rumours of even more wars, and the tribulation experienced by non-believers around the world, is going to have an altogether different end.


References

1. Berlin, I. (Quoted.) Two concepts of freedom: 3.2 Negative freedom, Open University. (Accessed 18th November 2015.)
2. GP allegedly had romantic rendezvous with vulnerable patient in a cemetery, Press and Journal, 22nd September 2015; Family GP 'fondled patient with mental health needs in secluded cemetery in cloak and dagger relationship', Daily Mail, 22nd September 2015; Fitness to practice hearings 30th November to 18th December, Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service. (Accessed 12th December 2015.)
3. North-east doctor who had affair with patient struck off, Press and Journal, 30th September 2015; Decision of the Fitness to Practise Panel concluding on 28 September 2015, Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service, 28th September 2015; Psychiatric patient sex doctor Arpad Adorjan struck off, BBC News, 10th December 2015; Churchill, L. Doctor at Bristol’s Priory Clinic struck off for sex with patient on sedatives and alcohol, Bristol Post, 10th December 2015. (Accessed 12th December 2015.)
4. Kaye, D. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Human Rights Council, 29th Session, A/HRD/19/32, paragraphs 19-22, May 22nd 2015. (Accessed 19th November 2015.)
5. Warburton, N. Two concepts of freedom: 3.4 The misuse of the concept of positive liberty, Open University. (Accessed 12th December 2015.)
6. Berlin, I. (Quoted.) Two concepts of freedom: 3.5 The notion of a final solution, Open University. (Accessed 19th November 2015.)


Tags: freedom, liberty, Isaiah Berlin, totalitarianism, Stalin, Obama, Hitler, tyranny To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

The Neo-Totalitarian Control System

New World Order (© Udra11|Dreamstime.com)

In Europe today, the neo-totalitarians are doing everything in their power to undermine our traditional values and destroy our personal liberty. They claim to have the final solution to the question of how human beings are to live here on earth, and in the name of that final solution, they embarked upon a radical social engineering program, secretly and without the consent of the voting public, more than a decade ago.1

That radical project has changed the social fabric of our countries, and those changes appear to be irreversible. A census carried out in 2011, for example, showed that the number of immigrants in England and Wales had increased by three million in the previous ten years.2 It is significant that, out of all the recent immigrants to the UK, one group is now considered to be more important than any other. That same group has also been given precedence over the indigenous population, who were abandoned long ago by the power elite.3

In order to understand how the neo-totalitarian control system works, we need to consider the essential difference between hardware and software. This is important because no matter how much the neo-totalitarians try to frame the consequences of their social engineering project as a hardware issue, this is a software problem, and it has been from the start.

All flesh and blood human beings have beliefs, and that naturally includes religious beliefs. There is an obvious distinction to be drawn between human beings and the religious beliefs they hold, just as there is an obvious, easily understood difference between hardware and software. Looking at this issue from a philosophical standpoint, we can say that religious beliefs are about things that have existed, do exist and will exist in the future. Such beliefs have what is known as intentionality. This distinguishes religious software from muscles and bones, because hardware isn't 'about' anything else.

If the software running within someone’s consciousness is compatible with our own, then it is possible for them to live in our country and integrate successfully. However, there are limits to cross-societal integration. In the final analysis, every human being has the ‘negative’ freedom to do pretty much anything they want. We all exercise our ‘positive’ freedom when we think about the consequences of our actions, then choose to go through one of the doors before us rather than another. In our society, there are certain doors which no one ought to be allowed to pass through, and every morally sane person agrees that this is how it should be. However, in Islamic countries, an entirely different arrangement of opportunities are available, and each individual must perform a different cost/benefit analysis whenever they think about which course of action to take. If anyone doubts this, they need to spend a few evenings reading through the USCIRF reports on the different Islamic countries around the world. So it is that individuals with Islamic software running in their minds can commit acts which the indigenous people of Britain find immoral or illegal.

A week before the Soviets invaded Poland, Vyacheslav Molotov told the German ambassador that he intended to take a leaf out of the Nazis’ book and portray the invasion as an enterprise that was intended to help minorities who were being oppressed. In a radio broadcast on 17th September 1939, a black day if there ever was one, Molotov used that lie to justify the invasion.4 The Soviet occupation of Poland was never about helping oppressed minorities. As the British ambassador in Moscow at the time, Sir William Seeds, recognised, the Reds intended to ‘purge’ the newly occupied territory so that it would be indistinguishable from the rest of the Soviet Union.5 In occupied Poland, the Reds adopted a policy of societal decapitation, targeting prominent individuals with the potential to resist their occupation at some point in the future. The Soviets even went so far as to murder thousands of Polish army officers, in what is now known as the Katyn forest massacre.6

As the Soviets claimed to be acting to protect oppressed minorities, when in reality they were constructing an ideologically driven control system, so the neo-totalitarians have developed an Orwellian system of thought control in our countries. As that system was being developed, the neo-totalitarians claimed that they were merely acting out of necessity, in order to prevent the alleged oppression of minority groups. This is the same lie that Molotov used on 17th September 1939. The minority groups that are being used by the neo-totalitarians to substantiate their lies are comprised of individuals who only became part of a minority group in a European country after they chose to leave their homelands to go and live in another part of the world. Any rational person who exercises their ‘positive’ freedom and decides to emigrate to another country understands that they will be in the minority there. The problem we have today is that some individuals from one of those minority groups have software running within their consciousnesses that is incompatible with our own.

The people who want to emigrate to a European country are nothing more than ambulatory hardware. From our perspective, what is important is the software they have on board. And the question to be asked is not whether the software running in their consciousnesses is different from ours. If the code was written in another culture, then it’s bound to be different in some way. The question is whether that software is compatible with ours. That’s the core issue here.

As part of their radical social engineering project, the neo-totalitarians have downloaded a copy of 7th century Islamic software that they don’t own, don’t have a licence for and don’t understand, then installed that pirated software on an entirely different platform: 21st Century Europe. That was never going to work. But they keep telling us that it will work. And the neo-totalitarians are absolutely intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them. If anyone recognises the inevitable software issues for what they are, then that individual is forcibly bound, laid out on the altar of the neo-totalitarians’ final solution and ritually sacrificed, pour encourager les autres.

As Isaiah Berlin pointed out, and as any rational person understands, there can never be a final solution to the question of how all human beings are to live here on earth. Not only is there no evidence to suggest that such a thing is practicable, the concept itself is internally incoherent. The neo-totalitarians can never cross a finishing line and say their work is done, because that finishing line cannot exist. In this regard, the neo-totalitarian control system is the same as the one constructed by the Nazis.

The National Socialist regime was not controlled from the top, in the sense that explicit commands were issued by the Fuehrer which had to be followed to the letter by whoever was tasked with carrying them out. Instead, Hitler described the world he wanted to create, then left it up to Nazis further down the chain of command to turn his vision into reality.7 The system also forced the Nazis to compete with one another for power and influence.8 A gang of ruthless beasts had taken charge of Germany, and they deliberately set the lesser animals at each other’s throats. Nazi policies that evolved in that environment were not an expression of genetic attributes that caused the owners to live, but of moral choices that caused other people to die. If a devout follower did something that met with the leader’s approval, then his rivals would have to be even more radical if they wanted to gain the leader’s attention. If that worked, any subsequent actions or proposals would have to be more radical still. The Nazi system evolved in one direction, and it had no way of slowing itself down.

If the neo-totalitarians can never reach a position where they can say that their utopia has become a reality, then they will just keep going. And just like the Nazis, their policies and practices will become more radical. The world that my generation grew up in is being taken apart and systematically destroyed. All we can do is try to figure out a way to stay alive amidst the wreckage.

In The Prince, Machiavelli advised his readers that fortune can turn against you at any time. The result can be like a river flooding its banks, washing everything in its path away. In the meantime, Machiavelli wrote, we would be well advised to build some dykes and dams, so that we have some protection when that day comes.9 This attitude to life still has much to recommend it. The residual existence of our moral and societal values are currently holding the neo-totalitarians in check, but as these erode over time, the neo-totalitarians will become even more open in their corruption. Inevitably, a day will arrive when a great evil is going to burst out into the world unchecked. If we have not done everything we can to get ourselves ready for that day, then all will be lost.



References

1. Slack, J. How Labour threw open doors to mass migration in secret plot to make a multicultural UK, Daily Mail, February 10th 2010. (Accessed 16th December 2015); Green, Sir A. Paying the price for a decade of deception, Daily Mail, February 12th 2010. (Accessed 16th December 2015); Migration and a legacy of deceit, Daily Mail, February 10th 2012. (Accessed 16th December 2015); Swinford, S. Migrants add 5.8m to bulging Britain, The Telegraph, 6th November 2013. (Accessed 16th December 2015); Ethnic minorities to make up third of UK by 2050: study, Yahoo News, 6th May 2014. (Accessed 16th December 2015).
2. Murray, D. The 2011 census proves why politicians are distrusted, The Spectator, December 12th 2012. (Accessed 16th December 2015); Labour has no right to lecture on immigration, The Telegraph, December 14th 2012. (Accessed 16th December 2015); So the Left lied and lied again about immigration, Daily Express, May 2nd 2013. (Accessed 16th December 2015); Hitchens, P. A Rough Guide to 2112 - the Abolition of Britain complete, Daily Mail, December 16th 2012. (Accessed 16th December 2015); Doughty, S. One in four in our biggest cities is a migrant: And 9% of homes don't use English as first language, Daily Mail, July 2nd 2013. (Accessed 16th December 2015); More foreigners claiming benefits, Daily Express, August 29th 2013. (Accessed 16th December 2015); Doyle, J. A spectacular mistake on immigration: Straw finally admits Labour 'messed up' by letting in one million East Europeans, Daily Mail, November 12th 2013. (Accessed 16th December 2015).
3. Beider, H. Are they the last in line? Listening to white working class views of neighbourhood, cohesion and change, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, November 28th 2011. (Accessed 16th December 2015); Hastings, M. Broken borders, broken promises and the anger of a public betrayed, Daily Mail, November 9th 2011. (Accessed 16th December 2015); Hastings, M. Moldovan squatters and a week that showed how good citizens suffer while parasites flourish, Daily Mail, January 19th 2012. (Accessed 16th December 2015); Goodhart, D. Saturday Essay: Why we on the Left made an epic mistake on immigration, Daily Mail, March 22nd 2013. (Accessed 16th December 2015); Hastings, M. As the first plane-loads of Syrian refugees arrive, Max Hastings reveals the deadly threat of Britain's enemy within, Daily Mail, November 15th 2015. (Accessed 16th December 2015).
4. Rees, L. (2009) World War 2: Behind Closed Doors, London: Random House, Kindle locations 411, 417.
5. Seeds, W. (Quoted.) Rees, L. (2009) World War 2: Behind Closed Doors, London: Random House, Kindle location 632.
6. Apocalypse: World War II S1:E1 ‘Aggression’, Smithsonian Channel, 30m01s - 30m48s.
7. Rees, L. (2005) The Nazis: A Warning from History, London: Random House, Kindle locations 721, 736.
8. ibid., Kindle location 445.
9. Machiavelli, N. trans. Bondanella, P. (2005) The Prince, Oxford: OUP, Kindle location 2308.


Tags: Soviet Union, Stalin, Obama, Nazis, tyranny, control system, neo-totalitarians, censorship, freedom, liberty, Molotov, Poland, Machiavelli To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

San Bernardino:Did Obama Tell NSC and FBI to Downplay Terror Angle?




Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


Hat tip Daily Caller


A source has told Daily Caller that when the San Bernardino shooting took place, President Obama instructed the National Security Council and the FBI to downplay the Islamic terrorist angle.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/10/report-obama-told-nsc-to-downplay-terrorist-angle-of-san-bernadino/#ixzz3tzBU0qXg

This is hardly surprising if true. It is part of the pattern Obama has set for 7 years ever since he entered the White House.

Once police entered the site of the San Bernadino massacre they got enough information to set their sights on the Redlands address where Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik resided. By the time the two killers were both shot to death in a police shootout, it was clear to law enforcement what this was. Farook's name was picked up by someone monitoring a police scanner and eventually, he was officially identified. The FBI subsequently announced that this was a terrorism case. Meanwhile, Attorney General Loretta Lynch has been stressing her concern over Islamophobia. As far as she, Obama and White House press spokesman Josh Earnest are concerned, the talking points are that there is no evidence that they were part of a larger terrorist cell-whatever that means. Oh yes. Obama is screaming for more gun control.

I have a lot of faith in the FBI and its director, James Comey. They are over-stretched and doing yeoman work under impossible circumstances, Yet, they are hampered by a president who acts like he doesn't care how many Americans are killed by Islamic terrorists right here in the US. As for the new attorney general, the book is still out on her. She was respected during her tenure as US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn). She is certainly an improvement over the corrupt Eric Holder. Yet, we will have to see how she performs under the direction of Obama.

The next year cannot pass quickly enough until Barack Obama is out of office. I believe the correct term would be criminal negligence.

Obama's Address to the Nation: Nothing New




Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


It was fitting that President Obama said something to the nation after the San Bernardino attacks. This was the worst Islamic attack since 9-11  in terms of deaths. After virtually years of disengagement, he had to come out and say something. The problem is he said nothing new.

Obama told us of all the things we are doing in concert with the mysterious coalition of 65 countries. The problem is that what he is doing has proved ineffectual. He talked about taking out ISIS oil tankers. The fact of the matter is that we have refrained from attacking oil wells and trucks controlled by ISIS due to-get this- environmental concerns. After all, if we blow up an oil well, it might contribute to (gasp) Climate Change.

Obama also mentioned getting the Turks to close their border with Syria. Really? The Turkish-Syrian border is wide open because Turkey wants to buy oil controlled by ISIS, and of course, Western fighters heading to Iraq or Syria to join ISIS transit through Turkey-a country that is supposed to be a NATO ally.

So what it all comes down to is business as usual. We are conducting air strikes-except that most of our bombers return to base without dropping their bombs due to the Commander in Chief's insistence that there be no civilian casualties.

Of course, the President wants to crack down on gun sales so that the next victims will be unarmed when terror strikes in an American city. He asked why should people on a no-fly list be allowed to buy guns. Fair enough except I would ask why people on a no-fly list are walking around our country to begin with, and what about those reports that DHS actually has a couple of dozen employees who are on the no-fly list?

Go figure.

Finally, it was right and proper that the President warned Americans not to react against innocent American Muslims, but it should be noted that since 9-11, the American people have shown remarkable restraint with a few minor exceptions. We know how not to blame innocent people for the crimes of others.

That notwithstanding, the President needs to understand that there are threats roaming around in our country, and those threats will increase dramatically if he goes through with his plans to admit refugees from the Syrian war. We simply do not know who these people are. Though Tashfeen Malik was not a refugee, her admittance into the US shows that our immigration system is not functioning.

All in all, it was a disappointing speech by the President, but it was totally expected. He is driven by a radical leftist ideology that is hurting this country greatly.

Climate Change Trumps Terror in Paris




Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com



How's this for a high carbon footprint?


The atmosphere in Paris this week must be absolutely surreal. Two weeks after the deadly attacks by ISIS in Paris, the city is now host to world leaders discussing the REAL THREAT to life as we know it-Climate Change. After all, can't they see the leaves turning brown in the Tuileries?

And no surreal atmosphere would be complete without the presence of President Obama, who repeated his mantra that there could be no greater rebuke to terrorism than to go ahead with this inane conference of world leaders, some promising to turn over billions of dollars to the other world leaders who came with their hands out.

And not to be outdone, the anarchists of the world showed up to trample all over the candles set out on the Place de la Republique to honor the dead, get themselves sprayed by water cannons, and get arrested.

ISIS must be laughing.

Meanwhile, the US media is reporting opinions as facts as they trumpet Climate Change. The Orange County Register is devoting virtually all of page three today to articles about the conference that should be in their opinion section.

"World Leaders Gather to Try to Save Earth"

http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2015/11/30/leaders-of-warming-earth-meet-in-paris-to-cut-emissions

"I've come here personally, as the leader of the world's largest economy and the second-largest emitter, to say that the United States of America not only recognizes our role in creating this problem, we embrace our responsibility to do something about it," Obama told the conference."

Imagine, our president (not the leader of the world's largest economy) PERSONALLY went to Paris to once again apologize for America. And don't think that the leader of the world's largest emitter (China) is promising anybody in Paris anything.

And of course, the same evening Obama emitted those now-famous words, he and his colleagues were seen dining in one of Paris' most expensive eateries. ( I didn't know there was more than one way to mash peas.)  But what about the rest of us at home who will have to foot the bill for all these agreements while trying to defend ourselves from Islamic terrorists?

We can always eat cake, right Michelle?