Monday, September 24, 2018

Is Donald Trump a Fascist?

Image result for frankfurt school
Herbert Marcuse                                                                  Angela Davis

Anyone just returned from a visit to Mars or recently awakened from a two-year coma will be shocked to discover that America teeters on the precipice of a Fascist dictatorship. That’s correct. Donald Trump is a Fascist or at least a close approximation. That would be the message emanating from the Illuminati, folks like New York Times columnist, Peter Beinart with the question inquiring minds have been anxiously pondering: Is Trump a Fascist?

The piece opens:  “The list of Trump-era jeremiads keeps growing: ‘The Road to Unfreedom,’ ‘Can It Happen Here?,’ ‘Fascism: A Warning’ and now ‘How Fascism Works,’ a slim volume by the Yale philosophy professor Jason Stanley that breezes across decades and continents to argue that Donald Trump resembles other purveyors of authoritarian ultranationalism.” I haven’t read Stanley’s slim and breezy book, but Beinart’s friendly review fails to convince me that it would be of much use in navigating the world of Fascism or be particularly enlightening about the nature of Trump’s plans for building an American Reich.  

Then there is Robin Wright writing for the New Yorker, “Madeleine Albright Warns of a New Fascism – and Trump.”   Fascism: A Warning” Albright wrote with the help of someone named Bill Woodward. The book, says Wright, is “both provocative and scary.” Provocative? I give up. Scary, though, is that someone of Albright’s supposed stature, a Georgetown University professor and a career diplomat who has toiled in the highest regions of world politics, would write something so embarrassingly juvenile and simple minded as the following.

“He [Trump] won the Presidency because he convinced enough voters in the right states that he was a teller of blunt truths, a masterful negotiator, and an effective champion of American interests. That he is none of those things should disturb our sleep, but there is a larger cause for unease. Trump is the first antidemocratic president in modern U.S. history.”

How is one to cope with the Trump-induced sleep disturbance? It is, of course, unprecedented that a politician would run for office, brag about how terrific he is at doing what he thinks the voters want him to do and then it is discovered that he is not quite up to it all. We know that pre-Trump, the guys who got themselves elected President were all straight arrows who did what they promised to do. Sure. At least Trump, unlike his immediate predecessor, confined himself to boasting about how great he would make America and did not promise to “heal the planet.” And, what is one to make of the howling non-sequitur, “Trump is the first antidemocratic president in modern U.S history”? Actually, I think there is a lot of competition for that distinction. FDR would be a top contender. When he ran for reelection in 1940 he promised the electorate, the voters that he knew wanted no part of the off-shore slaughter going on in Europe, to keep U.S. troops out of it, while secretly conniving with Churchill and British intelligence services to get America into the war. When it was over he and Winston gift-wrapped a big chunk of Europe for their comrade-in-arms, “Uncle Joe”, who we all know was a very democratic sort of fellow.

Albright’s “warning” gets even scarier: “He [Mussolini] used the term ‘drenare la palude,’ or ‘drain the swamp.’” Q.E.D. It’s settled: Trump is not only a Fascist but a shameless plagiarist as well. I’ll run the risk of ageism and suggest that Mrs. Albright at 80 years old should find a comfortable rocking chair, some knitting needles and send her ghost-writer, Bill Woodward off to do what he seems better equipped for – churning out term papers for lazy college kids.

The professors, the NYT scribblers, and Madeleine Albright clearly think they are on to something.   They have grasped what escaped the 62 million Americans who voted for Trump. Check that. Actually, Hillary Clinton realized that almost half the country was already flirting with Fascism. Late in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election campaign Clinton called Trump supporters “irredeemable … thankfully, not part of America.” Now, were someone to attempt to translate candidate Clinton’s slur into German it would not be too much of a stretch to use for “irredeemables” “Untermenschen,” supposedly a term favored by members of a political party in Germany of the 1930s to say of certain sorts of folks that they were “thankfully, not part of Germany.” So much for irony, apparently the grasp on which is not one of Mrs. Clinton’s strong suits.   

But back to the burning question: Is Trump a Fascist? Consider: Trump has never claimed to be a Fascist and most likely resents being called one. Remember that Mussolini (Fascism’s founder), Hitler (the German version), Oswald Mosley (the British version) – the original Fascists, the gold standard to which Trump is constantly compared – proudly announced themselves to the world as Fascists. They strutted around in black and brown uniforms, staged massive parades with banners, made the stiff-armed Roman salute every ten minutes, and bragged about how superior Fascists were to everyone else. While claiming superiority, mainly for himself, Trump has never called himself a Fascist. For a while he called himself a Democrat, rubbing shoulders with the Clintons, for a period he claimed to be an independent, and now he says he is a Republican. Moreover, why in the world would Trump, who worships success, “winners”, identify in any possible way with three colossal losers, guys whose careers terminated with suicide, a firing squad, and prison? Look how it turned out for George Lincoln Rockwell.

Perhaps Trump is secretly a Fascist. Times have changed. These days brandishing your Fascist bona fides is not a good career enhancement strategy, will not move you into many useful or sophisticated social circles and, not to mention, for guys a turnoff for most women. This doesn’t seem plausible either. One could not be a serious Fascist over a long period of time, even secretly, without giving some indications. Trump is 71 years old, and until he ran for President in 2015, no one seemed to have the slightest clue or fear that he was Mussolini redux, plotting the destruction of “our democracy.” And, that was after decades of being a high profile, New York City and media celebrity with a decadent playboy life style that invited national attention. That raises what seems to be an obvious question: after so many years with no indication, just when did Trump become a crypto-Black Shirt? People don’t typically, all of a sudden, become Fascists in their late 60s. Fascism is, or was, a young man’s sort of thing.  Mussolini, Hitler, and Mosley were all combat veterans from the WWI trenches, deeply disillusioned with the outcome, radicalized at relatively early ages in the aftermath and openly hostile to and alienated from their countries’ political establishment. Trump was an ambitious rich kid who skipped Viet Nam, became a workaholic hedonist, got even richer, then bored and turned to politics later in life, never alienated from American society, rather one of its more colorful jet-setters.  

Another possibility is that Trump is a Fascist but doesn’t know that he is one. Which would explain the son-in-law. So, whatever it is Trump thinks he is, he’s is confused, clueless or deluded and is acting like a Fascist without realizing it. Donald Trump doesn’t strike me be as a particularly introspective or self-reflective man, but I happen to opine that being a Fascist is a lot like being a Communist, a Socialist or a Feminist. You think and operate with a tightly (fanatically?) embraced set of priorities because you firmly believe the world is not currently the way it should be and you are determined to fix it. Many unflattering things can be said about Donald Trump, but “fanatic” is not one of them.

So, whatever President Trump is, rest assured, it is a safe bet that he is not a Fascist. He most certainly is a guy deeply unpopular with the smart set, those who best know how the current political fashion shows are supposed to unfold, who set the protocols and select those who get to call the shots. They are cultural snobs and professional moralists and virtue mongers whose favorite word is “democracy” but who actively despise the demos, the “irredeemables” who occasionally, as with Trump’s election, spoil the arranged outcome and defy their betters. “Fascist” is the worst the sophisticates can think of to call those who get in their way and crash their invitation-only parties, a word with powerful imagery connected to long dead men who now live timelessly as ontologized evil. There are many people to blame for getting us into this mess. At the top of my list are the Frankfurt boys who helped wreck the universities: Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, Erich Fromm, et al. Many of their disciples, unfortunately, are now running the show.  

Friday, July 13, 2018

Franciso Franco, Donald Trump and the Future of Fascism

The Socialist party in Spain is taking power and it appears that high on its agenda is to interrupt the eternal slumber of General Francisco Franco in his gothic mausoleum, Valle de los Caidos. With the shifting tectonic plates of Spanish politics his posthumous eviction appears to be on the near horizon, a savory morsel of venganza for the Spanish left over the Franquistas.

Forty-three years after his death and the restoration of the Spanish monarchy and almost eighty years since his civil war victory over the Spanish Republicans the hatred of the Spanish left for the dead Caudillo continues unabated. In the long run Franco abjectly failed in Spain to stem the modern, secularizing tides of change that were washing over the rest of Europe. Unforgettable and unforgiveable, however, is that he was on the wrong side of history, opposed by the “progressives” of his time, and thus, not supposed to win in 1939. That he did with the help of Hitler and Mussolini makes his memory an unrelenting abomination.

Whenever progressives lose they think and act as if they stand on the brink of an apocalypse, as was in stark evidence recently in the reaction of the American left to the improbable defeat of Hillary Clinton who sneered at Trump as a Fascist of sorts whose supporters were “irredeemable.” Trump, like Franco, was declared to be on the wrong side of history and not supposed to win. For the progeny of the communists, socialists and anarchists who succumbed to Franco’s Nationalists, his victory and subsequent dictatorship must be rendered a political and moral cataclysm fit only for execration.  Revenge is to be vented symbolically upon his tomb and his memory.    

A recent article in the New York Times on the planned demolition of Franco’s crypt quotes Paul Preston, who has written prolifically on Franco and the Spanish Civil War.

Paul Preston, a British historian and biographer of Franco, said that Spain was an anomaly in Europe in keeping a ‘place of pilgrimage for its fascist dictator’ — there are no monuments to Adolf Hitler in Germany or in Austria, nor to Benito Mussolini in Italy. Among the more than 250,000 visitors to the Valle de los Caídos each year, Mr. Preston said, many are devotees of Franco ‘brought up to believe that he was a benefactor for Spain.’”

Preston does not bother to speculate as to what sort of considerations might move these misguided “devotees” of the Generalissimo. Certainly, they would be nothing that would make any sense to the normal, rational sorts of people who read the New York Times and reflect thoughtfully on all matters of politics. You see, Preston, while nominally a historian, is really a high functioning, sophisticated member of that school of moralists whose theorizing is firmly anchored to the ghost of Adolf Hitler, the ne plus ultra of wickedness and depravity who seems to be always busy reincarnating himself as Trump, Putin, Bush II or whoever is the current menace of right-thinking people said to be “strangling democracy” somewhere. For moralizing purposes, this “Hitlerizing” approach works very well leaving no moral ambiguity to contend with; those who are good and those who are evil are clearly distinguishable. Those who are evil are supremely and unequivocally so, which by contrast makes those who are good paragons of virtue and moral rectitude. When a brand new Hitler comes to town, no need for further conversation, debate or compromise; taking to the streets, brandishing anti-Fascist bona fides, and active resistance is the only moral option. Franco, for Preston, was just an Iberian cutout of the Austrian Corporal, and so anyone who might even attempt to offer an attenuating perspective on his life and career, would have to be castigated as a Brownshirt apologist, drooling away on the fringes. (See: Fosterspeak: Santiago Carrillo, the Last Stalinist)

For historical understanding, however, Preston’s work will not be especially helpful. He remains invincibly oblivious to the reasons that explain why, unlike the absence of monuments for Hitler and Mussolini in contemporary Germany and Italy, there were and are monuments to Franco in Spain. Franco died of natural causes in his old age having prudently kept his country out of World War II (refusing Hitler’s entreaties to draw Spain into an alliance) and having prepared for a peaceful succession of power to a constitutional order. This was in stark contrast to the dramatic, violent exits of Hitler and Mussolini that capped the epic destruction and ruin that their reigns brought to large portions of the planet. The Germans after Hitler’s demise got the Nuremberg Trials; Spain upon Franco’s death got King Juan Carlos, a decent and benevolent man. Spain was never occupied by conquering foreign armies (no Spanish women by the tens of thousands raped and murdered by Red Army soldiers), its citizens never forced or bribed to behave in ways deemed “appropriate” by their Soviet, British, French and American occupiers. Finally, Spanish Catholics might well consider Franco a “benefactor” of sorts given the fate of religious people in communist governed lands throughout the twentieth century. Catholics fared better in mid-twentieth century Spain, then they did in, let us say, Poland.

The Socialists in Spain have been in the Franco decommissioning mode for some time. In 2007 they passed the Law of Historical Memory (Yes, that is not a parody) and commenced the renaming of streets and buildings and the removal of monuments and statues having anything to do with Franco. The Valle de los Caidos has, of course, always been their grand prize. Historical “memory” in contemporary western Europe is a state monopolized enterprise and incorrect thinking about touchy subjects is subject to punishment. To make certain Hitler reigns historically supreme and unchallenged as the Avatar of Evil, historians who depart from the officially sanctioned narratives about German iniquities and culpability are labeled as “holocaust deniers,” their morally opprobrious opinions deemed sufficient to subject them to criminal prosecution. When the state resorts to the criminalizing of unpopular opinions, however, one has to wonder what defects or limitations there might be with the orthodox version that require persecution of the sceptics. Since the dissenters are so obviously deluded and/or ignorant that no normal person would pay them attention, why do they need to be threatened with prison?

The American left has no Franco statues upon which to vent their anti-Fascist fury, but the 2016 Presidential surprise election of Donald Trump was immediately followed by his predictable Hitlerization. Statues and monuments signaling “white supremacy” are now the targets of our very own antifas and Black Lives Matters gangs who seem to resemble the church-burning, priest-murdering, nun-raping, anti-Fascist Spanish anarchists of the 1930s. The attempted mass-murder last year by Bernie Sanders supporter, James Hodgkinson, of dozens of Republican Congressmen and the encouragement by national Democrat leaders for their supporters to engage in the harassment and physical intimidation of Trump administration officials portends an escalation to unprecedented levels of violent political conflict.   

Just recently, the NAACP called for the sandblasting away of Confederate carvings on Stone Mountain GeorgiaThe north face of Stone Mountain depicts three Confederate figures — Confederacy President Jefferson Davis and generals Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. Work on the carving began in 1923, according to the park’s website. It is 400 feet above ground and the entire carved surface covers about three acres. It is larger than Mount Rushmore.  A protest march on July 4th included Black Panthers armed with AK-47s and AR-15s.

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams called for the removal of the giant carving that depicts three Confederate war leaders on the face of state-owned Stone Mountain, saying it “remains a blight on our state and should be removed.’”

The left in Spain and the U.S are set on destroying the symbols of a past that make them feel bad. In Spain the memory of Franco seems to poison their waking moments even though he has been long dead and widely forgotten in most of the world. In the U.S. the memory of slavery and Jim Crow, though ancient history, continues to arouses their resentment.

Purging Franco from public spaces and tearing down Confederate statues, however, is not going to make the moralists on the left feel better because feeling bad (angry, resentful, vengeful) is the high octane emotional fuel that runs the engines of cultural Marxism. Left-wing ideologues and activists gain political traction by leveraging the grievances of victim classes, by churning up their anger and turning it against the oppressor classes. Victims who don’t realize that they are victims and feel bad about it are of no use, and without self-conscious, agitated victims, cultural Marxism is like a fast car with no wheels; it goes nowhere.

What helps to keep the bad feelings fresh, invigorating and thus efficacious for members of the victim class is a demonizing vocabulary at their disposal that enables them to portray the oppressors as malignant cretins who have no place in a modern, progressive society. Which is why “Fascist” remains one of the favorites in the left’s lexicon of abuse and why Hitler keeps reappearing whenever progressives experience some resistance to their planned march to perfect equality. The logic is obvious and primitive. “Hitler would be against ‘x’ (‘x’ being the latest progressive fashion); therefore, your opposition to ‘x’ means you must be like Hitler.”  “Fascism” has the ideal, goose-stepping imagery and historical connotations from the 1930s that make it the perfect, all-purpose smear – the Gestapo, concentration camps, racial persecution, cult-worship of the leader. 

Real flesh and blood Fascists were extinguished by WWII Allied armies, and those few today who imitate the originals occupy the only the far reaches of the social fringe. Thus, the curious irony: while neo-Nazis and Klansmen are few and far between, and while no one in their right mind today wants to be connected with anything resembling Fascism, for the left, it seems, a sizeable portion of the U.S. is made up of them, including our President. The overreach should seem silly and obvious to all but the most deranged fringe of the left. But the smear will persist widely because the left needs Fascists to affirm their own virtue and rationalize their escalating assaults on free speech, religious freedom and historical symbols that offend them. Without the specters of Hitler, Franco, the Klan, sandblasting monuments and renaming streets might seem like a waste of time and effort.

Sunday, April 15, 2018

Monuments, Museums and the Racial Reconciliation Racket

Image result for whites sorry for slavery

 Montgomery, Alabama (CNN)One of my first thoughts when I arrived in Montgomery, Alabama, and encountered the spring heat was this: How did enslaved men, women and children endure day after day?
                                                   Nia-Malika Henderson

The exotically forenamed Nia-Malika Henderson is a senior political reporter for CNN who, according to her by-line, “reports on the politics, policies and people shaping Washington with a focus on identity politics.” Just wondering, would a reporter so named be pursuing anything other than identity politics?  “Identity politics” has become a euphemism for an ideology whose central premise makes racism the defining feature of both historical and contemporary America and holds white Americans morally culpable for the all of the social and economic disparities that mark black-white race relations. White privilege and whiteness have become the twenty-first century’s scarlet letter with rituals of contrition and petitions for forgiveness as basic requirements for sustaining social and professional respectability.  

Ms. Henderson recently wrote a piece for CNN about her visit to Montgomery, Alabama where she experienced The National Memorial for Peace and Justice and The Legacy Museum: From Enslavement to Mass Incarceration that opened on April 26th.  She reports that “The memorial captures the brutality and the scale of lynchings throughout the South, where more than 4,000 black men, women and children, died at the hands of white mobs between 1877 and 1950. Most were in response to perceived infractions—walking behind a white woman, attempting to quit a job, reporting a crime or organizing sharecroppers.”

Some curious folks out there might pause and puzzle over just how much “peace” and “justice” will come out of this sort of a museum. But whatever skepticism or misgiving someone might entertain should quickly dissipate with the realization that “memorial” and “museum” are not quite the right words to describe what the creators of this project have in mind. Here is what a visitor will be in for.

From the website: “The memorial is more than a static monument. In the six-acre park surrounding the memorial is a field of identical monuments, waiting to be claimed and installed in the counties they represent. Over time, the national memorial will serve as a report on which parts of the country have confronted the truth of this terror and which have not.”

You need to read this slowly, pause and consider carefully what is going on and why it should make you very nervous and deeply suspicious, particularly, “Over time, the national memorial will serve as a report on which parts of the country have confronted the truth of this terror…” Whoa! Cultural Revolution, China, anyone? So, the old “white supremacy” monuments are being torn down at a dizzying pace, and now up goes a memorial-museum where the curators promise (threaten?) at some indefinite future time to come to your county of residence and determine whether you and your neighbors have “confronted the truth,” i.e., whether you constantly ruminate about how terribly, both in the past (enslavement) and present (mass incarceration), white people treat non-white people. What exactly will that confrontation involve and what will happen to you if your efforts to respond to the confrontation are deemed unsuccessful? Certified attendance at MLK prayer breakfasts will not be sufficient. It sounds like the “peace and justice” envisioned will be something like the fate of white farmers in Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe or, closer to home, the experience of the property owners in Ferguson, Missouri staring at their burned-out ruins when the rioting mobs were done.   

Somehow, the contemplation and understanding of history (what memorials and museums are supposed to be all about) do not seem to be what visitors to this site are supposed to come away with, and what exactly will the “reconciliation” look like? The objective is the stimulation of anger and bitterness on the part of black Americans; guilt and submission on the part of whites. This is another step up to the complete racializing of American politics which is increasingly marked by a systematic campaign of recrimination, resentment and hostility directed at middle class white Americans with the purpose of leveraging collective guilt through historical grievances and exerting collective retribution against people who had no part in them.  

From the Legacy Museum website: “Why build a memorial to victims of racial terror?  EJI [Equal Justice Initiative, the 501c3 non-for-profit sponsor] believes that publicly confronting the truth about our history is the first step towards recovery and reconciliation. A history of racial injustice must be acknowledged, and mass atrocities and abuse must be recognized and remembered, before a society can recover from mass violence. Public commemoration plays a significant role in prompting community-wide reconciliation.”

Whoever wrote this must live in an alternate universe. In contemporary America reminders of its “history of racial injustice” are relentless and ubiquitous. The main-stream media is obsessed with it. Pop-culture and the entertainment industry cannot get enough (“Black Panther,” anyone, The “Color of Water” or “Hidden Figures” just in the last year or so). Sports? Try watching ESPN or NFL football to attempt to escape the “national conversation on race” the professional scolds running our institutions keep telling us we have to have. Look at the content of public school curricula or the subject matter of social science and humanities courses at most universities and the reverence and sensitivity required whenever the “civil rights movement” is mentioned. Recall then-President Obama’s rumination that “racism is in our DNA.” Consider the single most memorable line coming out of the 2016 American Presidential campaign from Hillary Clinton. “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it.” So, this business of “publically confronting the truth about our history” is actually going on at a breakneck pace with truth as the biggest casualty. 

The orthodoxy of pervasive, systemic, institutional racism as the defining feature of American society is well defined and ruthlessly enforced by the most powerful forces that shape our culture. As it is with all firmly entrenched orthodoxies, punishment falls heavily on any and all transgressors. Nothing outside the boundaries of orthodoxy can be countenanced as the truth. Religious orthodoxy bans transgression as heresy; communist orthodoxy banned it as false consciousness and counter-revolutionary thinking; identity politics orthodoxy dismisses it simply as “hate.” Recently Mark Zuckerberg in an appearance at a Congressional hearing seemed genuinely flummoxed when asked by Senator Ben Sasse to define “hate speech.” One gathers from his dumbstruck look that he thought that the answer was just too obvious. How could anyone as bright as Sasse even raise it as a serious question? Hate speech is whatever would stimulate the disapproval of the feminists, black studies professors and sociologists who populate the faculties of our prestigious universities or would upset the diversity commissars who manage sensitivity training sessions and enforce speech codes at the corporations.   

Consider the fate of Amy Wax, a senior law professor when she strayed outside of what are normally the tightly secured boundaries of identity politics orthodoxy at the University of Pennsylvania. Together with her colleague Larry Alexander, she published an op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer that among other things said:

America’s less progressive culture laid out the script we all were supposed to follow: Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime.”

One might be tempted to think that not following this script might have something to do with the current “mass incarceration” of black males which is one of the grievances of EJI’s National Memorial for Peace and Justice. But Professor Wax’s suggestion that something other than racism has had a bearing on this ongoing catastrophe was clearly a transgression of major proportions. This along with some of her other violations of the PC code has aroused the fury of students and colleague faculty members at Penn and she is now a persona non-grata, pulled by her dean from teaching first year law courses and routinely pilloried by the illuminati in the local and national media outlets. Only tenure has saved her from a complete professional decommission, termination and expulsion from the university.     

The rage and condemnation cascading down on Professor Wax is completely understandable and instructive. She is not some unemployed West Virginia coal miner who supported Donald Trump, or your run of the mill bigoted Republican politician from fly-over country. She is a brilliant, full Professor at an Ivy League university with a record of teaching excellence who possesses a medical degree from Harvard in addition to her law degree and who also happens to be Jewish. Which make her the ultimate insider, a member of an elite club that prides itself on its progressive politics and its unconditional embrace of the ideology of victimhood. As a high-status member, you do not step out of this pristine, prestigious tent, turn around and piss back in. The keepers of the tent are all about making sure an insider, especially one with her stature, is punished to the max for violating the code. Otherwise, someone on the outside might begin to suspect that the members of the club are not quite as virtuous or perspicacious as they pretend to be.

But let us return for a moment to the alternate universe of the EJI and the truth we are supposed to confront.  “EJI believes that publicly confronting the truth about our history is the first step towards recovery and reconciliation…” The “first step”? Really? Apparently the last 50 years or so of race relations in American society have gone down the memory hole for these earnest EJI reconciliation specialists. Much can be said on this topic, but consider just a few highlights that might be considered as “first steps” and beyond: the 1964 Civil Rights Act; the creation of EEOC; Affirmative Action; Section 8 of the Housing Act; Minority Contract Set-Aside Program; University of California v. Bakke (1978) decision; Oprah; the official beatification of Martin Luther King Jr.; two black American Presidents (Bill Clinton, honorary per Toni Morrison), two black Secretaries of State, two black Attorney Generals; black domination in national athletics and prominence in the entertainment and music industries.  One can go on and on, but this should be sufficient to demonstrate that it would highly delusional to believe that “community wide reconciliation” is where any of us are heading. 

I wish the best for the National Memorial for Peace and Justice and the Legacy Museum and hope my county of residence will be ready for the coming confrontation. In order, however, to advance their efforts at “publicly confronting the truth about our history” now that O.J. Simpson will soon be walking freely among us, let me suggest that another memorial should be erected close by: The Nichole Simpson Brown--Ron Goldman National Memorial. It would be dedicated to victims of racially motivated miscarriages of justice. It could be set up as a site of interactive learning with Johnny Cochrane impersonators doing seminars on race pandering and jury nullification. It could also feature galleries with photos of the bloodstained crime scene, OJ trying on the gloves, video clips of the OJ white Bronco-Police caravan, the circus courtroom antics and best of all, the wildly jubilant black response to the announcement of the jury’s not-guilty verdict. "Who cares if he did it? The white bitch and her Jew boyfriend had it coming", I think, was the message the jurors were sending. (For the record: no white rioting followed this grotesque perversion of justice.) This memorial, however, would eschew the “peace and justice,” and “reconciliation and recovery” crapola that the EJI folks use to disguise their own project of grievance mongering and racial animosity to sound like anything other than what it is, casus belli.   

Tuesday, January 30, 2018

Is America a Democracy? Its Enemies Think Not

                                                                                      Image result for were gonna punish our enemies
Stalin’s dictatorship, too would be expected to foster ‘a permanent condition of stress by creating enemies at home and abroad and/or by imposing upon the population gigantic tasks that would be unlikely to be carried out in the absence of the dictatorship’ as well as, ‘a charismatic image of the dictator,’ ‘a utopian goal, carefully kept in a remote future’ and ‘proscription of any deviating values, supported by threats and acts of repression.’”
(From Stephen Kotkin, Stalin: Waiting for Hitler, 1929-1941, p. 306)

Observations and reflections of seemingly no relevance to your daily comings and goings jump out at you sometimes and make a strong, unexpected connection to your unrelenting, consuming nightmares. Jumping out at me was the above reflection on Stalin’s dictatorship from a new biography by the prolific historian of the Soviet era, Stephen Kotkin. So, how does a long dead, mass-murdering Bolshevik connect to twenty-first century American politics now in a constant, wild frenzy over one of its most bizarre of improbabilities, a TV-reality show star and former real estate mogul with gorgeous wife numero tres sitting in the White House? 

The closest we have gotten to a “charismatic image of the dictator” in recent times might have been the cult of personality that enveloped candidate Barack Obama, The One, in 2008 replete with fainting maidens at his rallies, God-comparisons by serious journalists, and fake Greek columns for the backdrops of his speeches. Obama’s “healing the planet” magic was sustained for a season by the massive collective sycophancy composed of the media establishment, the entertainment industry and academia. The cult of Obama, however, was a celebrity cult and Americans in their embrace of celebrities are, if nothing else, a fickle lot. Obama is now (at least for the time being), past tense, the mystic, Oprah, the current fashionable buzz.  For better or worse, we have, as they say, moved on, and whatever one might care to say about Donald Trump, “charismatic” is not what first jumps to mind.

What strikes so close to home about Kotkin’s comments on Stalin’s rule is his noting of “a permanent condition of stress by creating enemies at home or abroad….”  It is safe to say, I believe, that “a permanent condition of stress” captures what so many of us now feel as we endure the daily irruptions of ideological warfare increasingly infused with the language of apocalypse and the denunciation of yet another enemy of “our democracy.” Nancy Pelosi, of the recent Republican tax bill, intoned, “It is the end of the world… The debate on health care is life/death… This is Armageddon.” In the head of this cognitively impaired septuagenarian, predicting how the levers move to arrange her thoughts might be an entertaining exercise, but she cannot possibly believe this. No one believes it, but American politics has descended into untrammeled tribal warfare, and warfare is all about friends and enemies. Obama let it slip out in a 2010 Univision interview, dropping his ‘g’s  in order to sound less like a President and more like a mob boss, “We’re gonna punish our enemies, and we’re gonna reward our friends.” Obama, however, had stumbled on to something: enemies exist to be punished; that’s the whole point, and when you practice politics as warfare, that’s the only rule. 

The existence of these enemies Obama had put in his sights for punishment, I would suggest, is what makes our “permanent condition of stress” permanent. Moreover, it should be obvious that, whatever the particular threats political enemies might exude, persistence and endurance are of the highest importance, in a word, permanence. A completely vanquished enemy is no longer an enemy, and without him, the status-quo with all of its limitations and imperfections conveniently ascribed to his wiles, belongs entirely to the victor, an undisputed but tainted possession, however, that does not work completely to his advantage. On our enemies, we depend for our longevity more, perhaps, than on our friends.

Stalin was extremely fortunate in the early stages of his dictatorship to have had Hitler and Mussolini as his enemies. The racial and national superiority claimed by the Nazis and Fascists and their affinity for violence and military aggression made them the perfect foil for the Soviet’s phony “peace” propaganda and the promise of humanity’s revolutionary march of progress toward a world of equality, harmony and plenty and a socialist workers paradise. The Soviets were the “progressives” of the 1930s; they had divined the arc of the moral universe bending toward justice and were, in stark contrast to the Nazis, bending right along with it. Though Nazi Germany was militarily vanquished by Stalin (with massive assistance from the capitalist powers he had vowed to destroy) the imagery of fascism was embraced by the Soviets up to its collapse in 1991 to define its enemies, including its primary cold war enemy, the United States.

Who then are the enemies that now foster this “permanent state of stress” that seems to plague American politics? These are “enemies within,” those who oppose or are indifferent to the coercive moralism of the self-proclaimed “progressives” who now own the Democrat party. These enemies, in continuity with practice of the Soviet-era progressives, employing the ominous swastika-blackshirt imagery of the 1930s, continue to be smeared as fascists; “fascism” meaning opposition or resistance to progress. Only moral defectives and mental pigmies can be against progress which is why “fascist” rolls so effortlessly off the tongue of a progressive whenever he encounters someone not of his ilk. 

Progress, however, is conveniently and hopelessly abstract and remains always an elusive goal, one, as noted in Kotkin’s observation above, “that is carefully kept in the remote future.” The future is never where we are at, and thus it serves to defer accountability for current failure and as the ideological fulcrum to justify the application of whatever force is necessary to prepare everyone for arrival, someday, at that morally pristine destination of perfect equality, progressivism’s ruling motif. All progressives, whether of the 1930s Bolshevik-genre or 21st century American social justice warriors, are enthusiasts for coercion, since not everyone comprehends their current fallen state and only those who are willing to submit to the purification rituals get to continue moving toward the promise land. Those who do not are, as Hillary Clinton put it so bluntly during her 2016 Presidential campaign, “irredeemable.” With the shift of a few electoral votes, the future for anyone belonging to this class, would have looked even less promising. When you have the power, what exactly will you do to a large, intractable class of irredeemables that will not involve massive coercion? Hillary’s irredeemables would have felt her revenge; a bit like Stalin’s kulaks of the 1930s.

For today’s progressives, so enthralled with the promises of Obama and now in desperate “resistance” to President Trump, their “friends” and “enemies” no longer break out into Bolshevik-theorized hostile classes (oppressed-proletariat versus oppressor-capitalist) but into racial tribes (oppressed-people of color versus white-oppressors). The vehicle of this relationship is racism, and it is barely an exaggeration to say that twenty minutes cannot pass without Americans being reminded by some angry or condescending “authority” from the chattering classes what a racist society they live in. They watch the mobs assault historical monuments, benignly regarded for hundreds of years, now proclaimed “racist.” Speech that does not conform to the standards set by self-proclaimed victims of racial discrimination and oppression is proscribed as “hate speech,” and harassment and banishment meted out to the transgressors. Whiteness and white-privilege are officially the marks of moral turpitude and require the bearers to undergo confessional “struggle sessions” reminiscent of the Mao’s Red Guard in action during the Cultural Revolution.          

Racism, Obama revealed to us late in his Presidency, is “still part of our DNA that's passed on. We're not cured of it.” This was not good news, at least for some of us “folks.” Translated into practical-political terms this means that racists are here for the duration, enemies, you might say, of a permanent nature. What punishment might be in store for them is a matter of grim speculation. Obama’s metaphor of the “cure,” clearly, is a euphemism that barely conceals the growing hostility and resentment for the heritage and traditions of white European America and the determination to erase them.

There was no push back on Obama’s “diagnosis” from any notable within our culture shaping institutions. Indeed, this seems to be the received, state-enforced wisdom, the foundation of the ruling orthodoxy, and so once again Kotkin’s text on Stalin’s last-century terror-state bears out a certain resemblance to the descent of 21st century American politics into a soft dictatorship. We now, as did the Russians in the 1930s, face the proscription of any deviating values, supported by threats and acts of repression.” The dictatorship we live under today has no mustachiod, grey tunic-wearing party General Secretary who personally sets the standards for “correct” thinking enforced by an elaborate apparatus of state-terror. The proscription and repression for us is of a different more insidious, sophisticated order. Instead, we have a hoard of mini-Stalins (race-careerists, political opportunists, left-wing globalists, and cultural Marxists) throughout the land sniffing into every corner of American society for any scent of racism. The American-Stalinist orthodoxy is the judgment that racism, the defining core of American history, dominates every aspect of its social order. Redemption comes only by remaking America into a multicultural rainbow that reflects the diversity of the planet. This is not a debatable proposition: to raise questions or doubts is a high-risk enterprise. Your career can be destroyed, Nobel prize winning geneticist, James Watson, for example, for publishing research on race and IQ. You cannot speak and may be assaulted on a university campus if your views on race related matters do not meet official approval, Charles Murray and his faculty escort, for example, at Middlebury College last year. Professional advancement, academic respectability, social approval and mobility, all rest heavily on conformity to the affirmations of the fixed faith.

In government, the mini-Stalins busy themselves opening the borders to millions of third world people and denouncing as “racist” Americans who resent not only the financial and social burdens they impose, but also fear the loss of their culture and heritage. The journalists and media advocacy-functionaries, perform Pravda-like, rewarded for their fawning with access to corridors of power. From the corrupt, dissolute entertainment industry, we are subjected to productions of obscenity-laced nihilism and a steady barrage of barely disguised works of leftwing agitprop. Little-Stalins infest the workplace as sensitivity enforcers policing such things as the use of gender pronouns, searching for micro-aggressions, expanding the world of victims whose feelings require constant protection from the bigots who fail to grasp the imperatives of diversity and inclusion.   

In this dictatorship that the overlords continue, laughingly, to call “our democracy,” we – white, European, Christian Americans – are the enemy, the permanent enemy. Apologies for slavery and racism and copious confessions of white privilege will not change that. Reparations will not change that. Diversity indoctrination, sensitivity training and absorbing more lectures on tolerance will not make us less toxic. Reverence and worship of Martin Luther King and attendance at MLK prayer breakfasts will make no difference, will impress no one and will not diminish the hostility and rancor held against us. Nothing we say or do will make “whiteness” other than a permanent moral stain. The first practical order is to stop pretending otherwise and collaborating with the engineers of our destruction. What comes next should be obvious.     


Thursday, December 21, 2017

"Our Democracy" -- What is it Really?

“We need you to take this seriously. Our democracy is at stake. Elections matter. Voting matters.”  Barack Obama, November, 2017

From community organizer to President of the United States – now, back to community organizer. Obama cast these pearls of wisdom (above) before an adoring crowd in Richmond during a Virginia Governor election campaign stop. The ex-President continues to be a walking compendium of clichés of which he seems determined to flaunt as profundities. Vacuous they may be – nevertheless, they have served him well – to wit, the culmination of Obama deep thought –“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.”

Unlike other ex-Presidents, he has eschewed dignified retirement, and so, given his relative youth, many years lie ahead for him to inflict on us the weight of his massive ego and the steady stream of flagrant banalities delivered with all the condescension of an obnoxious adolescent lecturing his captive elders about how to fix that awful mess they have made of the world.

But there is more to Obama’s public interventions than just the usual dispersal of vapid nostrums for consumption by the useful idiots. They still cannot seem to figure out why, after eight wonderful years of Hope and Change, a former real estate mogul and reality show host is now resting his jackbooted feet on the White House coffee tables. Not to mention that poor old Bill Clinton had to disappoint that bevy of future White House interns he had recruited from his flights with Jeffery Epstein on the “Lolita Express.” 

So, Obama is hitting the trail with the scary “Our democracy is at stake.” The former Golfer-in-Chief who defiled the White House with regular guests such as Al Sharpton and criminal rapper, Rick Ross, is the now the basso profundo in the chorus of Chicken Littles intoning the demise of our system of government. You see, “our democracy,” the one that elected him twice, has been mysteriously swept away with the tides of Trumpian Fascism. When you win, it’s democracy in action; when you lose, the sky is falling.

Members of this distinguished chorus are out and about. Recently, Our Revered Lady of Chappaqua waddled into a Toronto bookstore peddling “What Happened” and told the Canucks, now having to stomach the best Canadian Democracy has to offer – Justin Trudeau – that: “Democracy is under attack everywhere. It's not only my country….  But I also want a concerned world to recognize that democracy is under assault.”  Well, no doubt, when Hillary speaks, the “concerned world” wakes up and listens. She can keep her finger on the pulse of the concerned world or whatever other nebulous abstraction that pops into her head, but an ambassador and embassy staff under siege on her watch? What difference does it make, now?

Moving along then toward the immanent collapse of America, there is Former Attorney General under Obama, Eric “My People” Holder who recently told Rachael Maddow that “Our democracy is under attack.” For those with a short memory, Holder was a highly useful Clinton errand boy who helped secure Bill’s notorious pardon of Marc Rich when he was Assistant Attorney General around the time the Clintons were looting the White House on their way out. The quid pro quo? Bill Clinton got a half a million dollars for his Presidential Library from Rich’s ex-wife and Holder would be the new AG in an Al Gore administration. If there were a perfect fit for “deplorable” and “irredeemable” would it be the man who bought the pardon or the man who sold it? Perhaps Hillary could help us out with this dilemma.  From Slate:   
Rich was a pioneering commodities trader who made billions dealing in oil and other goods. He had a habit of dealing with nations with which trade was embargoed, like Iran, Libya, Cuba, and apartheid South Africa. Rich also had a habit of not paying his taxes, to the point where one observer said that ‘Marc Rich is to asset concealment what Babe Ruth was to baseball.’ The United States indicted Rich in 1983, hitting him with charges—tax evasion, wire fraud, racketeering, trading with the enemy—that could’ve brought life in prison. Rich fled the country.” 

These are the Clintons et al … making “our democracy” work for them. What greater opportunity for the most extravagant cynicism when people like this try to put us into a state of fecal incontinence by prattling about “the assault on our democracy.” This is post-modern politics at its best: every serious activity becomes (wink, wink) a parody of itself. Language is disconnected from reality, its meaning always temporized by the speaker’s relation to power.

The initial temptation is to say that if what we as citizens get out of “our democracy” are the likes of Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, Al Franken, Maxine Waters, John Conyers, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan and Jeff Flake, then perhaps “democracy” really means “kleptocracy,” and “our democracy” is just a euphemistic bouquet intended to cover the stench wafting up from the capitol city cesspool of corruption and decadence, a special place run by poseurs and hypocrites who devote their energies to self-enrichment by selling political influence to the highest bidder. Added to the injury of their shameless corruption is the insult of their arrogance and condescension, their pretense to wisdom, moral superiority, selflessness and compassion for the oppressed.  
Whatever a serious observer might wish to call what the average citizen gets out of participating in the American political process, a “democracy” is not what would first jump to his mind. Democracies, supposedly, “are states in which all sane adults participate in making political decisions.” (Minogue, Kenneth. The Liberal Mind, 2580-2581. Ingram Distribution. Kindle Edition.)  By a rough count, there are approximately 200 million registered voters, official participants, so to speak, in U.S. political decision-making. How many of them are sane (or stoned or literate or dead), of course, is anybody’s guess. So then, for each and every one of you, my fellow citizens, your participatory share of American democracy is about 1/200,000,000th. Imagine being informed that you were named a distant heir to an estate worth $200,000,000, then your reaction to learn that you were in the will for a whole dollar. Well, that is how excited you should be about how much power you wield in American politics, or, how worried you should be the next time Obama (taking time out from proof-reading the ghost-writing of his $40 million memoir or Hillary now worth a hundred-plus million from her selfless devotion to women) tells you that “our democracy” is in great peril. 

A more accurate, prosaic description of American politics is that it is a client-patron system. The politicians compete to be patrons (elected officials who sell access to power) for clients (officially designated victim groups). The quid pro quo is obvious: the votes of the victims put the patrons in power; the victims get to be favored by the patrons over non-victims. “Favored” means rent-seeking privileges and political and legal support to leverage your official victim-status for social-professional-economic positioning. The patron also helps his clients with the stigmatization of the non-victims as bigots, those responsible for making the victims into the victims (best to ignore the irony at this juncture). Much of what now passes for political campaigning is simply a language game that separates the victims from the non-victims with code-words (“racist”, “sexist”, etc.) used by the patrons to secure and align their client coalitions and morally isolate the assigned bigots bearing their particular stigmata.

A client-patron approach to politics leads to an escalating state of “victim-inflation” because being a victim (a client) means you get to go to the front of the line. With no patron to advance your claims to victimhood, you to back of the line, if you are lucky to make it to the line at all. Client-patron systems, however, would seem to be highly entropic, moving toward completely disordered and chaotic end states like Venezuela and Detroit.

When Hillary tells her campaign audience that Trump supporters are “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it,” she is not simply intending to insult a particular voting block. She is signaling prospective clients that she will be their devoted (vote-purchased) patron who will use her power to assure their protection and favor and to punish the “irredeemables” because punishment is what racists and other designated bigots most deserve. “You name it” is not, I repeat, not a throw away phrase. It is an open invitation for the not-yet-initiated to get in the game, to help themselves and help her to expand her client base – more victims, more favors, more votes, more power … then, more Marc Riches and Eric Holders – fewer deplorables. Welcome to “our democracy”, politics in 21st century America.  If it is under attack, bring it on. Better late than never.

Tuesday, December 5, 2017

Islamophobobia and the Destruction of Hamtramck

Hamtramck, Michigan is a decrepit town of twenty-two thousand enveloped by Detroit. With forty-nine percent of its people below the poverty line, ancient, crumbling housing stock, and a crime rate that puts it at only 12% safer than all U.S. cities, why has it recently made the “We are the World” propagandists and virtue signalers so ecstatic? Here is a clue. Hamtramck in 2013, All the praises and thanks be to Allah, became the first majority Muslim city in the country with a majority Muslim city council. What better occasion for an edifying celebration of diversity (43 percent of residents born outside of the U.S. with twenty-seven languages in the public schools) and a stern rebuke for the naysayers and bigots who might wonder if the reproduction of Bangladesh and Yemen near the Motor City is a such a good idea?

But why not? Illuminati from the likes of The Nation, Politico and other champions of the voiceless and downtrodden over the past year or so have sojourned to this Mecca-in-the-making. They have seen the future, and have put their “diversity” stamp of glowing approval on it. After dispatching a few interviews, they report to their great relief that the locals are telling them that they are thrilled about this. The massive influx of Muslims, the erection of seven mosques (the most per capita in the U.S.)  and the call-to-prayer blasted out into the streets five times a day into what was once a ninety percent Polish Catholic community, is no big deal. 

Lianna Aghajanian of Teen Vogue (that’s right, Teen Vogue) tootled her way through Hamtramck last February and tells us that “[t]he city has been subject to a narrative full of inaccuracies, but the real story is just how quintessentially American it is.” Just when this crazy old world gets way too hard to understand, leave it to a savant from Teen Vogue to let us in on the “real story.” Now, when more of America becomes as “quintessentially American” as the new Hamtramck, Ms Aghajanian might want to pause a moment in her pursuit of the latest beach ware and think carefully about how the standard current fare in the hypersexualized fashion pages of Teen Vogue such as “Rihanna Responds to Fenty Beauty Fan’s Message About Trans Models” and, the monthly “Lovescope” will go down with the ascension of the Imams and the burka trendsetters.

A couple of months after Donald Trump’s inauguration a reporter from NPR interviewed some Hamtramck non-Muslim residents. Not everyone was gushing about the transformation of the city into “Hamtramistan,” the city’s new moniker.  “The Hamtramck they knew had changed. ‘It's now more like a Bangladeshi town, so, that's a different story,’ says [Alek] Fidler [a Polish American immigrant who came ten years ago]. ‘Seems like, you know, they were basically taking over.’ St. Florian's priest, Miroslaw Frankowski, recalls his first impression of this city when he arrived in Hamtramck about 10 years ago. ‘I’m almost like in Cairo,’ he says, ‘because you know, the call for the prayer — and people covered up under clothing typical for Middle East. Yeah, it seemed like I’m working in Middle East.’ In Hamtramck streets, it’s common now to see women fully veiled, with only their eyes exposed. The amplified Muslim call to prayer was a source of controversy here some years back, and still can raise hackles.” Religion invading the public square? Strangely, the lawyers from the ACLU are nowhere to be found. 

Tom Perkins, however, reporting for The Nation tells us that there is nothing much to report. “In reality, there’s not much tension worth mentioning in Hamtramck….  To the contrary, many of the city’s non-Muslim residents are proud to be a part of a historic first, and reports of tension and conflict are the work of those with an agenda or reporters capitalizing on a hostile national discourse.” Perkins, apparently, doesn’t think it is “worth mentioning” just why these non-Muslims are so proud, but we can take his word for it because we know that reporters from The Nation are far removed from “hostile national discourse” and never operate with “an agenda.”

Here, though, is the nub of Perkin’s non-agenda: “The Western world is experiencing a wave of Islamaphobia, and people want to know what life is like in an American city where Muslims are in charge. This is the first time in decades that the Polish Catholics haven’t run Hamtramck.” The Muslims haven’t been in charge here for very long, so let’s not jump to premature conclusions. Perhaps, however, it is not unreasonable to suggest that those inquiring minds who would like to know what life is like in any place where Muslims are in charge should look at what life is like in places like Mogadishu, Aden, and Dhaka where they have been in charge for a long time. These, I suspect, are not the sort of “model home” communities that exude tolerance, inclusivity and equality of women, the norms so prized by our betters at the Washington Post, NYT and Teen Vogue.

Let us grant for the moment that this wave of Islamophobia is washing over us (more on that in a bit), but does Mr. Perkins ever wonder, given this tsunami of fear and loathing experienced by Muslims in the Western world, why so many of them (by the millions) continue flocking to it? But let’s first get to the heart of his non-agenda, which is – a city in America, at last, “where Muslims are in charge.”   

Here exposed is the foundational premise of the cultural Marxism which is, of course, all about who should be in power (“in charge”) and who should not. The Polish Catholics, Perkins gloats, don’t get to “run Hamtramck” anymore. They might be unhappy about it, but who cares? Get over it! As Chuck Berry would put it: “Roll over Beethoven, and tell Tchaikovsky the news.” Out with the old; in with the new. Polish Catholics were part of the problem – the old, oppressive, white, Eurocentric, Christian order – and the historically oppressed Muslims, so stylishly multi-cultural, now in charge, are the solution, the future. Diversity has arrived in rustbelt America, and it is where there is a mosque on every street corner, and all you are allowed to see of the ladies are their eyes.

Hamtramck is the picture of what today’s proud progressives call progress. Presumably, they would be happy to see America increasingly resemble Hamtramck and eager to celebrate the disappearance of an America that took its cultural heritage from Europe and worshipped at Christian altars. A couple of more Hamtramcks in Michigan would likely have put the state in Hillary’s electoral column last November.

As we are now supposed to understand, one form of resistance to “progress” is a pathology known as “Islamophobia” discovered by newspaper columnists, cable-TV talking heads, sociology professors, and Democrat politicians. Phobias, as we know, are diseases of the psyche, irrational thoughts, fears and impulses that turn those who harbor them into disordered and dysfunctional personalities. The consensus of the cognoscenti that “Islamophobia” is now a great affliction of the Western world would suggest that we all now must admit that the West itself is a diseased, pathological entity, and that the only acceptable moral future for West must be a surrender to the “Other,” the East, a Hegelian sort of historical moment. Hamtramck would seem to be a surrender in the miniature, but, certainly emblematic of Der Untergang des Abendlandes, portending the triumph of the crescent over the cross.

But not so fast. We are grappling with agitprop, not psychology. “Islamophobia” does not refer to a real disease or anything real for that matter, but is just a word with a clinical ring to it, contrived by the traducing ideologues firmly entrenched in our opinion-shaping institutions. It is a Shimpfwort, a word of abuse. Its purpose is to rationalize and dramatize their moral outrage and to demonize the subjects of that outrage. After a period of sufficient repetition by the right people, it firmly entrenches itself in the expanding vocabulary of victimhood (“transphobia” has recently made its debut) and sustains the orthodoxy of egalitarian politics with its relentless aggression against hierarchy and Christianity.  

How, in general terms, this “wave of Islamophobia” game of pin the bigot’s tail on the white Christian donkey is played was brilliantly described by the political philosopher, the late Kenneth Minogue over thirty years ago. “In ideological criticism … [there is] a kind of perverse-reverse logic, i.e., condemnation goes before explanation, or, rather the moral precedes the factual. A sort of intellectual show trial. Censure leads to theory rather than theory to censure. But then, of course this is problematic because it is better to discover something that brings condemnation, than to shop around for a theory to support your moral outrage.” (Kenneth Minogue: Alien Powers: The Pure Theory of Ideology, St. Martin’s Press, 1985, 58) Stalin’s chief hit-man, Lavrenti Beria, put this concept in the most succinct of terms: “show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.” Tell Beria who you want to be put in the dock, and he invents the charges. “Islamophobia” is another invention of our contemporary Berias, the “theory” they shopped around for that bolsters their moral outrage with the sins of the West, condemns the unrepentant (the “unredeemables”) and seeks their extinction.

The response to the Islamization of once Polish Catholic Hamtramck – ho-hum by much of America and hip-hip-hooray by the Social Justice Mafioso.  It is a very bad omen.