PayPal

Friday, November 10, 2017

Pamela Geller: A Warrior of the Mind



I can’t say enough about Pamela Geller’s FATWA: HUNTED IN AMERICA, previously reviewed on Rule of Reason (Pamela Geller: Wonder Woman of the Counter-Jihad). I could pen a column for each chapter in the book, and it still wouldn’t do it justice. Geller is an Amazonian warrior without equal, at least in our time.


Ayn Rand was an Amazonian warrior in her time (1905-1982), and endured and survived the same level of smearing, defaming, and character assassinations at the hands of the MSM as Geller has and continues to endure now. Rand was opposed to Communism and alerted Americans to the insidious and stealthy campaign to insinuate the ideology into the culture, especially by academics and Hollywood. She was hated because of her opposition to any brand of collectivism and for her willingness to expose the sneaksbies. Islam was not an overriding concern to her or to just about everyone else in Rand’s time.

Geller has amply demonstrated how Islam is being insinuated into American politics and culture, and how it should be fought, and not merely resisted.

Rand was an indefatigable warrior of the mind. Geller is a warrior of the mind, as well. She insists that it is the ideology of Islam that must be repudiated, defeated, and extinguished. It is not just its uncounted instances of barbarism over the centuries and its totalitarian nature that must be exposed and opposed. For more people to grasp the death-worshipping nature of Islam, it must be addressed as an ideology. Nothing but a preemptive intellectual strike against Islam will disintegrate it as a “moral” system. Islam, like the Left, has no moral argument in its defense. It cannot call on the truth about itself without implicating itself. Geller is leading that strike.

If you have an ounce of self-esteem, when someone comes at you with a gun, you answer with force. If he is out to destroy you, you owe it to yourself to defend yourself. We need to understand that the left is as dangerous, if not more so, than the suicide bomber, for obscuring this basic fact. Because leftists have the legitimacy of the mainstream, the imprimatur of respectability, they wield this spurious legitimacy like a club to destroy all opposition to their totalitarian agenda. (p. 226, FATWA)


Geller’s detractors and enemies on the Left are like the Komodo Dragons of Indonesia. These prehistoric creatures are content to merely bite a victim, and inject a bacterial poison into it. They will wait until the victim dies from the poison or is helplessly paralyzed by it before consuming it. So it is with the Left and Islam. That is how the Left and the so-called “religion of peace” have worked. The First Amendment has been bitten, and it is dying. The Islamic Komodo Dragons are drooling.

Security at the Draw Mohammad Garland event
Quoting from my first review of FATWA:

To those who do not wish to think about the essence of Islam, but would rather cowardly slink behind George Bush’s mantra that Islam is “a religion of peace,” Geller has a prophetic warning:

“You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality” (p. 87).

Those consequences keep piling up the bodies and victims in jihadist attacks inspired by Islam, almost weekly.

The bigger lizard, Islam, will sooner or later come after the smaller ones. Journalism has been bitten. It is practically dead.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) reported a 1991 document of the Muslim Brotherhood, the “Explanatory Memorandum,” that explains Islam’s methods and goals of conquest:

The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers…

Steve Emerson of IPT prefaced that startling revelation of strategy with:

This May 1991 memo was written by Mohamed Akram, a.k.a. Mohamed Adlouni, for the Shura Council of the Muslim Brotherhood. In the introductory letter, Akram referenced a "long-term plan…approved and adopted" by the Shura Council in 1987 and proposed this memo as a supplement to that plan and requested that the memo be added to the agenda for an upcoming Council meeting. Appended to the document is a list of all Muslim Brotherhood organizations in North America as of 1991.

Geller cites the Memorandum in FATWA. The MSM is the palsied (such as the New York Times), “miserable” hand that is aiding the enemy in its quest to destroy Western civilization.

Geller writes:

After years of doing battle, I would later come to understand the evil of the left and its dogma of superiority of feelings over reason…It was not until years later that I understood that the left was as big a problem, perhaps bigger, than the jihad. For the left was all about control, which is why they are aligned with the jihad forces. There is no better system of control than Sharia.

It isn’t Democrat versus Republican. It is the eternal struggle of mankind. Individualism versus collectivism. The state versus the individual. The left despises the individual, which is why they are so deeply at odds with America, why they stand with Islamic supremacists. There is no unique soul under Islam, no “individual.” America, on the other hand, was the first moral government in history to be based on individual rights (p. 15 FATWA).

The systematic sliming of the defenders of the freedom of speech is nothing new. It began shortly after the American Revolution and soon after the Constitution was ratified in 1788 (by the 9th state, New Hampshire, meeting the 2/3rds requirement), when President John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798. From my September 2016 column, “Hate Speech: Then and Now”:

What went on in the mid- to late-1790s has reverse parallels today. Where the Mainstream Media (MSM) today, by its own admission, intervened to slander, libel, and smear presidential candidate Donald Trump (now the President-Elect), to aid in and guarantee the election of a criminally irresponsible, scandal-rich, unstable Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate, the writers and newspapers of the 18th century came under vicious attack from the government and the Federalists, the party of John Adams, who as President signed the Alien and Sedition Acts passed by Congress. The MSM failed ingloriously in its efforts. But Adams, who was the main target of criticism by “Republican” (the name of the early Democratic Party) writers and newspapers, unleashed the dogs of censorship on them when he signed the Alien and Sedition Acts on June 18th, 1798.

The Sedition Act outlawed what one could call the 18th century equivalent of “hate speech.” It was impermissible and punishable now to hate President John Adams (the second President after George Washington) and the Federalists and their national and foreign policies, and to voice one’s anathema for them in print or vocally. Those who did so and drew the attention of large numbers of people, were arrested and jailed. Adams and the Federalists would not otherwise have heard or read the dissatisfaction but for informers who reported the transgressions to Adams and his political allies.

This section of the Sedition Act may sound familiar to you. Google, Facebook, and YouTube are the heirs and practitioners of this brand of censorship:

SEC. 2. And be it farther enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States….

Substitute Islam for the “government of the United States,” Congress, or the President, and you will get the point. In this instance, it was the government suppressing any criticism of itself by criminalizing words printed in what was then a free and raucous press. Writers and editors were arrested for having printed, written, or spoken those words; they were tried, and served time in prison. By the time Adams left office in 180 to make way for Thomas Jefferson, only two of those victims languishing in jail were the sole survivors of the persecution, out of possibly dozens. Jefferson immediately pardoned them.

Today, however, it is that new “free press,” not the government (not yet), that has become the judge and jury of any anyone speaking out against Islam, for holding it in contempt, disrepute, or ridicule, and for inciting “hatred” for it in people (“Islamophobia,” bigotry, and racism, even though Islam is not a race and has follower and converts from every ethnic group), and feels free to defame and denigrate anyone who speaks the truth about Islam. Our “free press” has become a tool of a totalitarian ideology that tolerates no criticism (as the Nazis did not), and so is no longer “free.” If Islam will not tolerate the freedom of speech, neither will the MSM. The MSM has become the despised “running dog” of Islam. And we know that, at its core, Islam and Muslims hate dogs.

Geller writes in FATWA:

For years, the left and its media lapdogs have created narratives out of whole cloth about the impending violence from the right…(p. 222, FATWA).

(For example, the “backlash” in the U.S. against Muslims that never happened or ever happens after a particularly vicious and bloody jihadist attack, e.g. 9/11, Orlando, Boston, New York) is a violence that the left hopes will happen so it can argue for more gun control, and speech controls. I can only say that this species of malevolent hope of the MSM is evidence of a sociopath. But when the violence occurs, it is usually the work of jihadists, and when the MSM is forced to concede it, the jihadists are excused because of “mental illness” or imaginary persecution or discrimination. Or they are “excusably” provoked by the actions and words of Geller and other “right-wingers).

The left always blames us for violence, no matter how nonexistent the ties. Even when I was the target of an assassination plot in Garland [with some FBI connivance], the left blamed me because I would not adhere to the blasphemy laws under Sharia (p. 223; brackets mine; Geller discusses the FBI’s connivance in Chapter X: “Garland, Texas: ISIS Attacks the Homeland”).

In short, she would not bend to Sharia. And never will. So she had to die.

In short, the MSM narrative asserts that Geller “provoked” the jihadists by exercising her right to speak freely and to display a gallery of Mohammad images. Speakers and writers of the truth are today accused of “hate speech,” when in fact it is the MSM and Islam that indulge freely in “hate speech.”

Geller is a moviemaker, aside from being a prolific writer (Can’t We Talk About This?), and a tireless champion of the freedom of speech. In FATWA: HUNTED IN AMERICA she details her fight against knock-kneed transportation authorities to get her many ads put on buses and in subway
Winner of the Draw Mohammad Garland event
stations. One of her billboards is prominently displayed in Times Square. She an advocate of the victims of Muslim honor-killings, and a public speaker when she is allowed to speak and even allowed to appear anywhere. Almost single-handedly, she defeated plans to erect the Ground Zero Mosque. She is a founder, with Robert Spencer, and a prime mover behind the American Freedom  Defense Initiative (AFDI) and Stop Islamization of America (SIOA). The Wikipedia entries on Geller, Spencer, and the AFDI are prime examples of the lop-sided kinds of pro-Islam “journalism” that is the norm today.

Before the dhimmis of the MSM go to sleep, they first check their closets or look under their beds for the boogeyman jihadists of Islam they fear will behead them. But all they find is stern-eyed,
indomitable Pamela Geller. And they fear her more than they do jihadists.

Wednesday, November 8, 2017

A Gallery of Prophetic Phizs II



Phiz is old British slang for a human face or facial expression, derived from visage or physiognomy.
.
This is the second part of a two-part column on the forbidden images of Mohammad. I am doing it because it can and will be done in defiance of Islam and of the Left.

Many of these images are old and uncredited, dating back centuries. Many of them are from the 19th and early 20th centuries, a few are from the Draw Mohammad Day in 2010, or are otherwise contemporary. And a few, to judge by their styles, crudity, and character, are of Medieval origin.  But, regardless of the period in which they were created, they are all fanciful representations of Mohammad, because he is a person no one living or dead had ever seen, whose historic existence is doubtful (see Robert Spencer’s Did Mohammad Exist?)l, but whose image per Sharia is prohibited on pain of death. There are more than you could imagine; this is but a handful. Some are benign and adulatory, some are tasteless, some are humorous, and subject specfic. All “objectify” various, individual perceptions of Mohammad. So-called “Islamists” would have everyone believe that the depiction of Mohammad is a recent phenomenon, when in fact, according to Robert Spencer, his image was depicted on Middle
Eastern coins over a thousand years ago.

Practically the only renderings of Allah are glowing pentagrams with embedded Arabic inscriptions, or they are just the name,  Allah, in Arabic, which suffices for Islam as a representation of Allah. Christianity traditionally has portrayed God as a bearded old man in a nightgown, sandals or flip-flops. Islam refuses to attempt any human objectification of Allah, because doing so would be “blasphemous” and worthy of a death fatwa.

Enjoy the freedom of speech.

As a precedent, I am dedicating this column to a partial roster of the tireless, courageous, and dogged fighters for freedom and the freedom of speech:
Pamela Geller, Geert Wilders, Robert Spencer, Steve Emerson, Anne Marie Waters, Katie Hopkins, Daniel Greenfield, Bosch Fawstin, Diana West , Ibn Warraq, Bat Ye’or, Lars Vilks, Salman Rushie, Milo Yiannopoulos (whose original surname, Hanrahan, is the surname of one of my detective heroes). It is also dedicated to the scores of men and women who have been silenced (permanently) in their opposition to Islam and its campaign for global supremacy and the annihilation of the West and Israel, or who are outspoken but still invisible to the Sharia-compliant MSM and our dhimmi governments, or are suppressed, defamed, or ignored by them.  It is also dedicated to  all the victims and escapees of Islamic honor-killing in the U.S., Canada, and the world over. Au contraire, Mr. Obama, the future belongs to them, not to you or to Islam.



In 1997, the fledgling Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) brought their wrath to the Court, petitioning then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist to remove the sculpture from a marble frieze in the Supreme Court. CAIR outlined their objections as thus:
1. Islam discourages its followers from portraying any prophet in artistic representations, lest the seed of idol worship be planted.
2. Depicting Mohammad carrying a sword "reinforced long-held stereotypes of Muslims as intolerant conquerors."
3. Building documents and tourist pamphlets referred to Mohammad as "the founder of Islam," when he is, more accurately, the "last in a line of prophets that includes Abraham, Moses and Jesus."

(Quite the contrary, CAIR. Mohammad [if he existed] was the founder of Islam. There was no Islam before him, and no other “prophets” of it. Abraham, Moses, and Jesus were copped from Judeo-Christian texts by tongue-in-cheek scribes long after Mohammad was pushing up daisies.)

Rehnquist dismissed CAIR's objections, saying that the depiction was "intended only to recognize him [Mohammad] ... as an important figure in the history of law; it was not intended as a form of idol worship." He also reminded CAIR that "words are used throughout the Court's architecture as a symbol of justice and nearly a dozen swords appear in the courtroom friezes alone." Rehnquist did make one concession, though, and promised the description of the sculpture would be changed to identify Mohammad as a "Prophet of Islam," not "Founder of Islam." The rewording also said that the figure is a "well-intentioned attempt by the sculptor to honor Mohammed, and it bears no resemblance to Mohammed." Rehnquist more or less told CAIR to go suck an egg.


FINIS