Critics of “Gays for Trump” Party Miss the Point |

An interesting follow-on from the GOP convention, and many bad things happening in the world.

Gay rights activists have not traditionally found a political home on the right. Yet gay activist and alternative-right icon Milo Yiannopoulus wants to change that, arguing that while the Republican party may not love homosexuality, Islam wants gays dead, and therefore gay people should support Trump (who Milo calls “Daddy”).

This was the theme of “WAKE UP,” billed as “the most fab party at the RNC,” which brought Milo together with controversial activist Pamela Geller who has gained notoriety for her “Draw Mohammed”cartoon competition as well as billboards in New York which read: “In the war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”

The event was panned by media outlets such as Salon in a piece which shrugged off the event as a “virulently anti-Islam party at the RNC” and The Nation, which slammed it as “Islamophobes, White Supremacists, and Gays for Trump—the Alt-Right Arrives at the RNC.”

Teen Vogue said the event “perpetuates Islamophobia.” The Nation’s piece revealed the alarmingly open presence of white nationalists at the event and the seemingly small numbers of gay people who showed up.

Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who spoke at the event, referred to Europe as “Eurabia” and said, “Islam is the problem.”

If they would have looked to France, they would have seen that gay support for the far right has already happened there. In 2015 a national scandal occurred when it emerged that the winner of France’s largest gay magazine’s beauty contest was an outspoken supporter of France’s right wing Front Nationale.

As early as 2012, 26% of the gay community in Paris supported the Front Nationale, as opposed to 16% of straight people.

The rationale is startlingly simple. Milo’s cult status as an online provocateur has been generated by making controversial statements and pushing the accepted boundaries of discussion. He has been able to tap into the large and growing alt-right movement — a disparate collection of mostly young white males who support socially liberal policies but who hold the left in contempt for their perceived abandonment of liberal values when it comes to human rights abuses committed in the name of Islam.

Because of this, Milo and others make the argument that only the right will stand up to defend gay people against Islamist extremism.

The movement also partially consists of white nationalists and racists, who are able to maintain their foothold because they have consistently spoken out against radical Islam (and indeed Islam in general.)

Put simply, people would rather be racist than dead.

That’s very true, of course, even very socially conservatives don’t want to kill gays. They may want to ‘cure’ them or ‘convert’ them or something of that nature, but they universally realize that conversion at the muzzle of a gun is likely to be insincere, and invalid.

Personally, I would be more pleased if the gay activists would realize that many of us, on the right, simply don’t care, in civil manners about any groups, our quest is for individual rights for each and every one. What Martin Luther King referred to as the content of the character, rather than the color of the skin (and we could easily add sexual preference to that). That underpins all of our belief structure, including the free market.

However the ideology in question is not Islam, as Geert Wilders would argue, but is Islamism, the theocratic political project which seeks to impose the religion of Islam over everyone in the world and implementsharia governance, complete with hudud punishments. This ideology does threaten the freedoms of all Americans.

Tarring all Muslims with the same brush is not only morally wrong, but also facilitates the very thinking propagated by the Islamic State and other Islamist groups –- by dividing the world into two camps, Muslims and non-Muslims.

However, the refusal of the elites around the world — with a few notable exceptions such as the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom David Cameron — to correctly name and challenge the issue has created a vacuum.

People know there is a problem and know that it needs to be tackled.

When the Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) object to billboards calling on Muslims to talk to the FBI if they become suspicious of terrorism, when President Obama and Hillary Clinton point blank refuse to name the ideology at fault, people will start to draw their own conclusions about who is to blame and take action accordingly.

via Critics of “Gays for Trump” Party Miss the Point |

And so our elites themselves have prepared the battleground for the battle between the west, and not our real enemy radical Islam, but Islam itself, and quite possibly our own elites, as well. But we should forestall that, for defeating the wrong army is not victory. We need discernment in our leaders as much as we need courage enough to see and identify the enemy. And yes, there is one, and no it is not Islam. It is radical Islam, and when we fight this battle, we will do enough inadvertent damage to Islam, without confusing Islam itself with it in our minds.

This is the mistake that our political leadership (all across the west) makes. The west will be defended in the end, but there should be enough leadership to show that proper targeting will save many, many lives, on both sides.

I see little reason to fear radical Islam once proper defense measures are put in place, ones that do not overly infringe on our desiderata: individual freedom. But we have leadership that appears to be using radical Islam as a means to control their own populations, rather than defend our civilization. That is unlikely to end well for them, for us, or for Islam.

Guns, Islam, and Orlando, and a note on Brexit

A note if you haven’t heard: Brexit won, everywhere but London, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, and fairly decisively. I’m not going to say any more because Jess and I both cared very much about this, and we disagreed, and we agreed not to gloat, whoever won.

So, while we all catch our breath, perhaps some Bill Whittle on Orlando. There are some quite graphic images in the video, so be warned, but then again that’s how life is, as well.

Sadomasochism and the Jihadi Death Cult

Anwar Tarawneh, the wife of Jordanian pilot Maaz al-Kassasbeh, takes part in a rally calling for the release of her captive husband in Amman on Feb. 3, 2015. (Khalil Mazraawi/AFP/Getty Images)

I ran across this yesterday and think it may be a fairly good explanation. While I don’t think any single explanation holds in all cases, this may answer the question in many.

[…] Although we cannot know what goes on inside anyone’s head, the tools of psychoanalysis offer some tantalizing, and I believe promising, angles of interpretation. To be fair, military strategists, national security specialists, criminal-justice professionals and journalists are not trained to observe these men as if they were patients. They may have read the works of Islamists like Sayyid Qutb and Hassan al Banna, but they lack the diagnostic skills needed to access the deeper unconscious levels of psychology that are necessary for understanding the attraction of sadomasochism.

Indeed the denial of sadism by the specialists who usually comment on terrorism has ironically played into the hands of jihadis by permitting an identification with the aggressor. There are many people out there who, alas, like to watch torture videos of immolations and beheadings. We are even more reluctant to acknowledge that broad portions of the world’s population are drawn into this sadism because they cannot recognize their own impulses.

[…] Unconsciously and concretely, they have recreated their own group self-perception of being “caged in” emotionally and mentally because of the debilitation of growing up in a shame-honor culture: They realize that, in the eyes of the world, Islam has been shamed. Fire, too, in the context of psychoanalysis, has many aspects worth considering. It might express projected rage. It might also purify an obsession with feeling dirty, deeply linked to this shame, which is supported by a religious conviction that normal human needs are unclean. They must therefore find a scapegoat and then kill off the contaminated one, inviting us to watch voyeuristically.

But what of the Western converts who join the jihadi cults? What is the draw for them? It is nearly the same. From examining their childhoods, the majority are born into what I call shame-honor Western families—highly rigid and authoritarian or lacking any parental structure at all. And then there are the numerous jailhouse converts. Many criminals have a cognitive deficit, and some show signs of clinical sadomasochism. A sadist seeks power through control, manipulation, and forcing the other to submit. Intimacy comes only with violence. They feel, they bond, through violence: Burning the Jordanian pilot expressed the Islamic State’s perverse sense of intimacy with its victim. […]

While it is obviously true that we cannot place every terrorist under intensive psychological investigation, we can nonetheless speculate on their behavior and the sources of this trauma. In my own research and descriptive analysis, corroborated by neuroscience findings, my theory is that terrorists may not fully develop empathy, an emotion acquired in the earliest years of life. […]

The Iraqi child-psychiatrist Dr. Sami Timimi has written that in Arab Muslim culture the bond between mother and child is unseverable. One is never permitted to separate from the mother. This is a perversion, a misuse of the baby as an object. In an honor-shame culture one does not go through an individuation separation process known in psychological development as neotenization. This impedes maturity. The group identity is more important than the individual identity. Shame and revenge predominate.

Read the entire article Sadomasochism and the Jihadi Death Cult – Tablet Magazine

As I reflect on the article, it makes me wonder if it has other applications, such as marital and/or child abuse.

I also think we all have some degree of sadism, masochism, or actually both built into us. I suspect that what we call leadership has some connotations, as does the strong desire many of have to complete our tasks, no matter what.

It seems to me that a large part of growing up may well be to learn to channel these impulses into controlled channels. And that may be the key to a lot of problems.

Well out of my field, but interesting to think about.

Lacking conviction?

code pink on Iran

Neo and I have sometimes quoted Yeats’ lines from The Second Coming:

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere   
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst   
Are full of passionate intensity.
This is because they seem as relevant to our times as they did to the 1930s. T.S. Eliot expressed it less pithily but with more exposition in his Idea of a Christian Society which was written around the time of the Munich Crisis of 1938. He, like many, was shaken by what had happened, and penitent and critical. But as he explained:

It was not…a criticism of the government, but a doubt of the validity of a civilization. We could not match conviction with conviction, we had no ideas with which we could either meet or oppose the ideas opposed to us. Was our society, which had always been so assured of its superiority and rectitude, so confident of its unexamined premises, assembled round anything more permanent than a congeries of banks, insurance companies and industries, and had it any beliefs more essential than a belief in compound interest and the maintenance of dividends?

Those words are I think even more relevant now than they were then. Back in the 1930s our civilization retained many of its Christian characteristics, and its morality and standards were those of our Judeo-Christian heritage – we did, in short, as we found in 1940, have some ideas to pitch against those of the Nazis, as we would, for the long Cold War, against the Communists. But what have we now?

I’m struck and penitential about the way in which so many feminists are quiet about what has happened in Cologne and elsewhere – it is clear that for them fear of being called ‘racist’ outweighs the principles they claim to stand for. Their ideas are not held with as much conviction as those of ISIS sympathisers. But they are hardly alone. Our governments do, indeed, seem to care only for banks and profit and not for anything higher. It leaves us, literally, vulnerable against those who hate our civilization and all it stands, or stood for. The reason I singled out feminists a moment ago was that they at least know, passionately I thought, what they stand for, but it is easy to be passionate when faced with an ‘enemy’ which isn’t really that. Western men can be misogynistic, but that fades when compared to the attitude of many Muslims – but best not cross them because unlike Western men, they will turn round and harm you. Is it cowardice? Or is it just that they are not that passionate?

It sometimes seems as though the effort of staying alert for so long against the enemy of Communism has sapped us of our energy. Was it too much for too long? No doubt it would be nice if the world was a better place where we did not face real enemies, but those liberal pieties are not true, they are a delusion. Perhaps Eliot was right, and we do not have values which will stand when the wind blows? But so it seemed in the 30s – and when the moment came, so too did the man – Churchill. We shall have to hope there’s one in the wings.

Clash of Civilizations: Islamic vs. Judeo-Christian

OK, gang, I give up for now, I’m fighting a cold and writing isn’t going well. But here’s a friend of mine. And Dan is right.

Judeo-Christian civilization has nothing in common with, and nothing to gain from, Islamic civilization as it now exists. They have been clashing for centuries. Now, Islamic civilization appears to be winning in much of the European Union and, to a lesser degree, in America. 

Can anything be done to slow and then to halt the spread of fundamentalist Islam? Ayan Hirsi Ali hopes there is and that Muslims will do it. I also hope they will, but am quite dubious that it will happen in the foreseeable future.We need to take other steps promptly. […]

Fundamentalist Islam is a culture of compulsion and hate

Americans should learn far more than we have from the recent experiences of Sweden, Germany, England, France and other European Union countries in welcoming Muslims to Islamise their cultures. I posted a lengthy article on that on December 13th. If you haven’t read it yet, please do so now. It provides very helpful background for an understanding of the clash of Judeo-Christian and Islamic civilizations.

Here is a lengthy video by Walid Shoebat, once an Islamic jihadist and now a Roman Catholic opponent of Islam. Born in “Palestine,” he imbibed the Islamic culture of hate and compulsion as a youth, as did most of his acquaintances. Eventually, he changed from what he was to what he now is.

via Clash of Civilizations: Islamic vs. Judeo-Christian | danmillerinpanama.

And see that’s the thing, whatever you believe, you have a much better chance of NOT dying for your belief under Christianity. But I also know this: If we don’t defend our culture, we will lose, and Islam will win. Not only will we (as Christians) lose, but the relativists, who don’t understand belief in God, will lose even more badly than we will, for unlike them, we are, at least, ‘People of the Book”. and may survive (by submission) if we wish. Them, not so much.

From the comments

English: Picture of Billboard put up by the Un...

English: Picture of Billboard put up by the United American Committee given to me by the group itself. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Dan Hannan said recently that:

Americans are very good at assimilating newcomers. They go in for loud displays of national pride – flags in the yard and bunting on Independence Day and stirring songs – that strike some Euro-snobs as vulgar, but that make it easy for settlers to want to belong.

And that is true, we have welcomed and assimilated all sorts of people over the last 300 or so years. But can we assimilate a group of people who basically believe in a theocracy, and maintain our country, as designed?

My dear friend Isabella Rose commented on yesterday’s post to this point. She said:

It is such a sad mess. While I can understand that some Muslims might not sympathize with jihadis in their extremest measures, the problem is that it is fundamental to the Muslim faith to seek out the practice of Sharia law. I have witnessed this first hand in getting to know Muslims, and I have heard their explanations of how they are a people of peace, and not the monsters the media makes them out to be. Nonetheless, I have also heard them turn around and clearly state that if you offend them or your faith, you should be punished under their laws.

Their idea of peace is very different from ours. From what I have seen, a world under Sharia law would be a peaceful place to them. The problem is, can we accept the abuse of other humans in the name of their God? Do we want to be subject to their laws if a dispute should arise between us and them personally? They would want us to be, and to them, that would be peaceful.

I think we walk such a fine line here. On the one hand, they are human beings, who we must love. On the other, they are holding onto a belief system that is calculated to eventually destroy our own, and establish their religious reign. Sadly, this is the paradox that is so difficult in our world. Do we take the liberal approach, whereby we act kind to them but do not seek to also set limits and borders to their initiatives? Do we take the opposite extreme approach, whereby we retaliate by hating them all and being inhumanly cruel?

There are no easy answers to such complex questions. Sadly, prophecy is clear that eventually the continuing actions of Muslims will lead to an international war that will cause much loss of life and bloodshed. I feel as though I am living in a twililight zone, as the news unfolds what was once mere written words on a prophetic page of history.

I think that all we can do is strive for a balance, whereby we love them and pray for them in our personal lives, but find a way to charitably stand strong in our defenses against their errors. As for the greater arena of the international political spheres, I am just glad I am not in the shoes of those who have to make such fateful decisions. Yet in the end I am not unfamiliar with tough love, and if pushed enough, I can see where it may – very sadly – have to come to that. But who will we blame? The Muslims, or our world that has become so cold that it drives disillusioned young people to extremist motives?

I think she states it very well, and yes, I do agree with her as I often do. But what do we do? I don’t know, and I doubt anybody has really thought about it.

This morning Archbishop Cranmer also spoke of this. Here are some of his thoughts.

For the first time in almost 300 years, we’re facing a conflict that has a distinct theological and religious element which we have not faced before,” said the Archbishop of Canterbury in response to the Prime Minister’s statement expressing the desire of his conscience to bomb Syria. “Recent studies demonstrate the theological basis of extremist groups behind jihadist thinking,” the Archbishop added, mindful that ISIS/ISIL/Daesh clearly has something to do with Islam, even if politicians persist in their delusion that the Islamic State is a nihilist, godless, irreligious death cult which has “nothing to do with Islam”, which is a religion of peace, prophetic benevolence and infinite mercy. Archbishop Justin probed further:

Does the Government realise that in facing this conflict there must be an ideological response that is not only national in dealing with the threat of extremism here, but is global in challenging the doctrines that draw so many people to support ISIS internationally? And what steps are they proposing to take to put together the conflict at the ideological and theological level, as well as at humanitarian and military?”

As we move inexorably toward bombing Syria – which the Archbishop acknowledges is “almost inevitable” and which action he fully supports – we would be foolish to ignore the “distinct theological and religious element”, which bombs will not eradicate. Indeed, military conflict with the infidel West represents an Islamist theological apocalyptic consummation: those who reject the dominion of Allah and the mission of Mohammed are kuffar. What Mohammed did to unbelieving Meccans is what Daesh must do to the profligate Jews and Christian prostitutes of Paris, Brussels, London, Berlin, Rome..

There can be no refuge or safe havens for Christians in the Middle East without the hard power of military intervention, but bombs produce collateral damage, and the blood of innocents is inescapable. Yes, we might degrade ISIS/Daesh in the short term, but the theological narrative and dream of the Caliphate will simply slumber to wake another day.

Source: BOMB SYRIA? AIRSTRIKES AGAINST ISIS WILL NOT ERADICATE ISLAMIST IDEOLOGY

So what should we do, as American, and as Christians (most of us)? It starts, I think, with prayer for us to see the way forward. I think bombing may be useful, but it is not the answer, I also think ground troops will be required. Neither are they the answer, really, unless we are with the Bishop of Béziers, Renaud de Montpeyroux and say, “Kill them all, God will know His own”. I think we are better than that, or at least I hope and pray we are.

%d bloggers like this: