April 30, 2014 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - Since at least 9/11 the Islamists have successfully cowed the West into a mindset of self censorship, using allegations of Islamophobia to shield itself from criticism.
"Terrorists can't be Muslims, you're just a bigot."
Though use of the technique by these extremists is relatively new - propelled incongruously by acts of terrorism by their co-religionists - the tactic itself is an old one, perfected by the collectivist left to establish and then enforce its own version of a secular demi-religious ideology.
The similarity between this and Islam's Shari'a based proscriptions against apostasy/heresy are striking and help to explain the odd affinity between the left and fundamentalist/political Islam when in fact their ideologies are at war with each other at an atomic level.
That is except for the one commonality - and it's a big one - they share; both seek to destroy traditional America and then remake it in their own image and likeness.
Call it the Shari'a of the left if you will. This entails forced compliance to a set of principles consistent with collectivist ideology which has been elevated to the level of a particularly intolerant religious dogma.
As the left assumes dominant positions in the institutions which create culture, the penalties for breaking their unwritten code increase in severity - capital punishment for the transgressors. This is the ultimate version of Hillary Clinton's politics of personal destruction except instead of it only being applied to "troublesome" individuals [Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, etc.] it's now directed at entire populations.
In this usage, violating elements of this religious code of behavior falls within the confines of heresy and one who rejects it in its totality becomes an apostate.
Subjected to the entire panoply of remedies available to these people, the West has become a timid beast, reduced from a snarling tiger to a cowering titmouse.
The process - in de minimis - is on full display right now in two very different high profile cases.
The first of these involves inelegant comments regarding black culture made by a white Nevada rancher and the second involves genuinely bigoted statements - outed via a seemingly illegally obtained recording of a "private" conversation - between a sports magnate and his erstwhile girlfriend.
Though most know the basic details of these matters, it's important to review them as seen against the above noted backdrop.
A few weeks ago, in his plain spoken rambling manner, rancher Cliven Bundy asked a provocative question; have the actions the federal government has taken over the last 50 years to address the problems of the black community [such as throwing $10 trillion at it with little positive effect] helped or hurt it? The rancher answered his own query in the affirmative, conjecturing that the federal Leviathan has wrought such havoc on life in the inner cities of America that blacks might have been better off as slaves.
Bundy's comments, selectively edited make it appear that he's a racist. However in their entirety, when used as a rhetorical tool, they seem to indicate he cares rather deeply about the desperate plight in which such a large number of American blacks find themselves.
Though his obtuse analogy was poorly drawn, taken as a whole it seems pretty clear that he meant no offense and wasn't expressing a bigoted viewpoint. The context is of utmost importance here because no one would even be talking about Bundy if the feds hadn't tried to seize his 140 year old homestead by extreme force...sending in hundreds of heavily armed troops.
The etiology of this process is instructive.
Mr. Bundy, though engaged in a legal battle with the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management, is an unknown private individual living out in the boonies of a largely barren Western state, doing what his family has been doing for nearly a century and-a-half.
The feds make an ill-considered move to forcibly seize his property.
Bundy resists to such an extent that he is transformed into something of a cult hero.
Tea Partiers, local ranchers and other patriots take up Bundy's cause, showing up at his ranch armed and in sufficient numbers to end the BLM's land grab.
Defying the federal government especially Barack Obama's is heresy to the left but they are really powerless to take him down because BLM left town with its tail between its legs, hence.there is no fulcrum against which to place their lever.
Bundy drops his guard and becomes enmeshed in a controversy centering on race.
The left does the math.
First, there's defiance of Uncle Barry then comments which were quickly labeled racist. As a result, Bundy is no longer simply a heretic, he is an apostate, seen as rejecting the entirety of collectivist quasi-religious law.
The rest is predictable, of course. The left comes at him with a flamethrower, hammer and tongs.
But so afraid are they of ending up in Bundy's boots, even supposed right wingers such as Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity go on the offensive jumping on the "racist" bandwagon which culminates in an absurdly ignorant pronouncement by talker Bill O'Reilly that because of what Bundy said he [paraphrasing closely] "loses all credibility."
So with "the most popular cable television host over the last 13 years" piling on, the gang rape of Bundy is complete. At best he's on the verge of destruction at worst, a dead man already rotting under a scalding desert sun.
Moving on to the second example we come to the case of sports team owner Donald Stirling who has been pilloried over his expression of views which truly are racist.
According to numerous reports, it was the Los Angeles Clippers owner's girlfriend, the former Vanessa Perez [now legally, "V. Stiviano"] who secretly recorded the private telephone conversation which is now being used by the race hustlers to destroy the man. Traditionally Sterling's comments would have resulted in him being shunned as a closed minded bigot while suffering social ostracism as a pariah.
Instead, on Tuesday afternoon, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver announced that Stirling will be "banned," fined $2.5M and then driven out of the NBA [his team, the Clippers are worth nearly $600 million] an entity which ex-NBA star Charles Barkley has declared a "black league."
Does that make Barkley a racist? Of course not, that epithet is reserved for white individuals.
Could any caucasian public figure get away with proudly identifying golf as a "white sport?"
You must be kidding.
This is by no means intended to defend Sterling's racist remarks, which are reprehensible. However the fact remains that the conversation which produced this pile-up was thought to be private [inadmissible in a court of law, but not a kangaroo court of public opinion] and one must wonder if our society can survive the apparent new standard that every aspect of one's life, including state of mind can and will be used to destroy and impoverish any individual who violates leftist religious law.
Looking past the controversies themselves we find this affair to be demonstrative of what David Horowitz so accurately described as the "unholy alliance" between the left and the Islamists. Both are engaged in imposing their version of what is in effect a state religion. This despite the irreconcilable chasm that exists between their two world visions. Nonetheless each are making significant progress towards the establishment of an Orwellian nightmare world where "deviational" thought can be criminalized.
Consider the bewildering late twentieth century appearance of the quirky transgression called the hate crime in which the presence of alleged racial animus considerably amplifies the seriousness of the charge.
Witness the knockout "game" [though how a cowardly sucker punch which lands someone in the hospital with a wired jaw can be called a game is beyond comprehension] when the color of the perp determines whether or not aggravating circumstances are present which will elevate the offense to the level where Eric Holder's thugs or Obama himself become involved with the full weight and power of a nearly omnipotent central government behind them.
The question here really is do Americans still retain the right to think what they want because if the standard is set this low then there are tens of millions of Americans of all manner, color or form who are guilty of the same or worse.
But there is a quantum difference between thought and action.
Let's say you are a white apartment owner who is not overly fond of black Americans, traditionally unless or until you refuse to rent to a black person based upon race no crime has been committed.
In the New Amerika though the mere existence of such thoughts is cause for stripping one of valuable investments.
Consider the fake environmental malady which used to be called global warming but has now been forcibly rebranded as climate change for obvious reasons, because even the specious theory's adherents could see their scheme was falling apart.
Yet now if one challenges the assertion that the Earth is on a collision course with rising seas, drowning Polar Bears and flooded coastlines they are guilty of a truly bizarre offense and labeled "global warming deniers," as if they are some Iranian nut-job who denies that the Shoah took place.
Though logically crazy on its face that's of no consequence, we are talking here of belief and faith based structures which by definition exist outside the realm of rational analysis.
What the left is up to in this little endeavor is becoming the final arbiter of what constitutes good and evil in society. They know that in holding that scepter they can rule with near dictatorial power.
In that sense they are well on their way towards creating their own version of a theocracy, despite the fact that they are continually pushing the fallacious assertion of a Constitutionally mandated "separation between church and state," when in reality such language does not exist within that document.
Intellectual consistency doesn't float their boats.
It shouldn't overly tax one's memory to remember the absolute malice which was directed at GW Bush and Sarah Palin. These folks were maligned with every ugly vulgarity imaginable.
But it wasn't simply words and wrathful scorn which these two had to deal with. Can anyone imagine someone making a movie about assassinating the current occupant of the Oval Office as was done in 2006 to Bush in "Death of a President"?
How about the prospect of having a raving lunatic like Joe McGinniss rent a house next to you with a deck from which he could peer into Sarah Palin's windows and watch her children play in the back yard?
Those are both acts of hateful depravity but well within the confines of what the left is willing to do to intimidate those with whom they differ politically.
The bottom line here is that when we discuss the very clear and present danger represented by the Islamist's efforts to force Shari'a down the throats of citizens of the civilized world, we mustn't forget that what the left has managed to do in assigning for itself the role of thought police is perhaps more dangerous since this threat originates internally within society and is therefore not instantly recognizable as being alien.
Since the left is working hand in glove - for now at least - with the Islamists, both of which are intent upon radically transforming the country, it's of great value to look past the surface chatter surrounding controversial people such Bundy and Stirling and see the process for what it really is, asymmetrical warfare against liberty and freedom.
©2014 PipeLineNews.org LLC. All rights reserved.