The Islamic Reformation is Here

Politics and religion are the two topics that are toxic to a conversation.  The problem is a serious person can’t avoid talking about the issues of the day, simply because it affects our lives.  Others just want to bury their head in a cell phone and play Pokémon Go all damn day which is fine as long as they don’t vote.  The problem is they do vote.

Unless you’re crawling under a rock to capture Pikachu, one can’t escape the daily murders committed by jihadist.  But whatever you do, don’t blame it on Islam.  None of this violence has anything to do with that religion of peace.  These militants have hijacked a great religion, so we’re told.

One cannot engage in a conversation without the obligatory, Christians have committed just as many atrocities as Muslims.  These apologists can’t resist moral equivalency.  They would rather condemn all religions rather than distinguish the historical context and the philosophical nature of purported crimes.

 

Barack Obama is a master at moral equivalency to the point of embarrassment.  He can’t resist defending Islam.  He imputes contributions and achievements that are incredulous.  I’m waiting for the moment when he declares George Washington the first Imam of the United States.

The simple fact is you can separate Jesus Christ from those who’ve committed atrocities in his name; however, you can’t separate Muhammad from his blood thirsty followers.  Jesus lived a life of peace and forgiveness; Muhammad didn’t and that makes all the difference.

Christianity had its reformation about 500 years ago.  Many are wondering if Islam is capable of reforming itself.  A few contend ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaeda, and other like minded groups are the Islamic Reformation.  Samuel Huntington warned us about an Islamic Resurgence in his prophetic book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.

In its political manifestation, the Islamic Resurgence bears some resemblance to Marxism, with scriptural texts, a vision of the perfect society, commitment to fundamental change, rejection of the powers that be and the nation state, and doctrinal diversity ranging from moderate reformist to violent revolutionary.  A more useful analogy, however, is the Protestant Reformation.  Both are reactions to the stagnation and corruption of existing institutions; advocate a return to a purer and more demanding form of their religion; preach work, order, and discipline; and appeal to emerging, dynamic, middle-class people.

Huntington further stated:

To ignore the impact of the Islamic Resurgence on Eastern Hemispheric politics in the late twentieth century is equivalent to ignoring the Protestant Reformation on European politics in the late sixteenth century.

Apologists for Islam will continue to make excuses for this sorry excuse of a religion.  They will continue to advocate for a reformation when in fact it already happened and it’s being displayed for the whole world to see.  

A Multicultural America is a Multicreedal America

 Liberals always seem to laud multiculturalism and diversity while demonizing Christianity and nationalism.  Why is that?  What is it about the American creed that is so offensive to their delicate sensibilities?  Are they so full of self-loathing that they would abandon the principles that made this country great.

Samuel Huntington wrote in his book, “Who Are We?  The Challenges to America’s Identity” the following:

“We the people of the United States” had to exist with common ethnicity, race, culture, language, and religion before we could “ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.”  The Creed is unlikely to retain its salience if Americans abandon the Anglo-Protestant culture in which it has been rooted.  A multicultural America will, in time, become a multicreedal America, with groups with different cultures espousing distinctive political values and principles rooted in their particular cultures.

That sounds like a recipe for disaster.  And indeed tribalism is part of the Democratic Party’s grand scheme for a perpetual majority.  Christianity, the bedrock of American exceptionalism, has to be marginalized as well.  Huntington wrote:

Within countries, individuals who are more religious also tend to be more nationalist.  A 1983 survey of fifteen, mostly European, countries found that “in every country surveyed, those who said they were not religious are less likely to be proud of their country.”

That’s the truth.  Talk to any liberal and you can easily come to that conclusion.  Huntington concludes with this:

Dissenting Protestantism is central to America’s.  Americans are overwhelming committed to both God and country, and for Americans they are inseparable.  In a world in which religion shapes the allegiances, the alliances, and the antagonisms of people on every continent, it should not be surprising if Americans again turn to religion to find their national identity and their national purpose.

Samuel Huntington died little over a month after Barack Obama won the 2008 election.  No doubt he foresaw what this president-elect had in store for America.

 Source:

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Are-We-Challenges-Americas/dp/0684870541

One Man Foresaw the Coming Ukrainian Crisis

With all the think tanks and foreign policy geniuses that infest Washington D.C. you’d think someone in the Obama administration would’ve foreseen the fomenting conflict in the Ukraine.  But as usual, the bungling boobs that run this country, once again, fumbled the ball.  I no longer believe we should be astonished at their incompetence.  It should be expected.

Was there at least someone in the United States who warned of a Ukrainian schism?  As a matter of fact there was.  I dusted off my copy of Samuel P. Huntington’s, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.  In it, he described three possible scenarios.  I’ll relate one of them:

A second and somewhat more likely possibility is that Ukraine could split along its fault line into two separate entities, the eastern of which would merge with Russia.  The issue of secession first came up with respect to Crimea.  The Crimea public, which is 70 percent Russian, substantially supported Ukrainian independence from the Soviet Union in a referendum in December 1991.  In May 1992 the Crimean parliament also voted to declare independence from Ukraine and then, under Ukrainian pressure rescinded that vote.  The Russian parliament, however, voted to cancel the 1954 cession of Crimean to Ukraine.  In January of 1994 Crimeans elected a president who had campaigned on a platform of “unity with Russia.”  This stimulated some people to raise the question:  “Will Crimea Be the Next Nagorno-Karabakh or Abkhazia?”  The answer was a resounding “No!”   as the new Crimean president backed away from his commitment to hold a referendum on independence and instead negotiated with the Kiev government.  In May 1994 the situated heated up again when the Crimean parliament voted to restore the 1992 constitution which made it virtually independent of Ukraine.  Once again, however, the restraint of Russian and Ukrainian leaders prevented this issue from generating violence, and the election two months later of the pro-Russian Kuchma as Ukrainian president undermined the Crimean thrust for secession.

That election did, however, raise the possibility of the western part of the country seceding from a Ukraine that was drawing closer and closer to Russia.  Some Russians might welcome this.  As one Russian general put it, “Ukraine or rather Eastern Ukraine will come back in five, ten, or fifteen years.  Western-oriented Ukraine can go to hell!”

With the ouster of a Russophile president, the Ukraine is indeed going to hell.  You’d think the State Department, which is infested with Clintonites, would remember the 1990’s.  Maybe they were members of Obama’s Choom gang.  Even recent history is too much for these drug addled wannabe hippies to remember.

The Clintons can be blamed for many things.  One of them is this whole multicultural nonsense that permeates our national discourse.  Since Professor Huntington was spot on in his observations of the Ukraine, here is another prophetic excerpt describing this Pandora’s Box the Democratic Party has bestowed upon us:

The multiculturalists also challenged a central element of the American Creed, by substituting for the rights of individuals the rights of groups, defined largely in terms of race, ethnicity, sex, and sexual preference.  The Creed, Gunnar Myrdal said in the 1940’s, reinforcing the comments of foreign observers dating from Horace St. John de Crevecoeur and Alexis de Tocqueville, “has been the cement in the structure of this great and disparate nation.”  “It has been our fate as a nation,” Richard Hofstader agreed, “not to have ideologies but to be one.”  What happens to the United States if that ideology is disavowed by a significant portion of its citizens?  The fate of the Soviet Union, the other major country whose unity, even more than that of the United States, was defined in ideological terms is a sobering example for Americans.  The total failure of Marxism…and the dramatic breakup of the Soviet Union,” the Japanese philosopher Takeshi Umehara has suggested, “are only the precursors to the collapse of Western liberalism, the main current of modernity.  Far from being the alternative to Marxism and the reigning ideology at the end of history, liberalism will be the next domino to fall.”  In an era in which peoples everywhere define themselves in cultural terms what place is there for a society without a cultural core and defined only by a political creed?  Political principles are a fickle base on which to build a lasting community.  In a multicivilizational world where culture counts, the United States could be simply the last anomalous holdover from a fading Western world where ideology counted.

Rejection of the Creed and of Western civilization means the end of the United States of America as we have known it.  It also means effectively the end of Western civilization.  If the United States is de-Westernized, the West is reduced to Europe and a few lightly populated overseas European settler countries.  Without the United States the West becomes a minuscule and declining part of the world’s population on a small and inconsequential peninsula at the extremity of the Eurasian land mass.

Professor Samuel P. Huntington passed away on December 24, 2008.  One must note that the timing of his death happened little more than one month after Barack Hussein Obama was elected president.  Without a doubt he knew what this man was about. 

Transnationalist Demand Amnesty, Undermine National Sovereignty

It wasn’t so long ago, the Washington D.C. creatures tried to shove amnesty down our throats.  The American people stood up and shamed those politicians who dared to reward a group of people who have demonstrated their disregard for our laws and sovereignty.

A decade hasn’t passed, and the same people are at it again.  One vociferous advocate for amnesty is the Chamber of Commerce.  President and CEO, Tom Donohue, held a press conference demanding our elected officials do something to legitimize these illegal alien diasporas.  Here is the video.

A while back, I read Samuel P. Huntington’s book:  Who Are We?  The Challenges to America’s National Identity.   In it he addressed the motives and aspirations of transnational elites, whom have no allegiance to a nation state.  They see themselves as global citizens.  Here is an excerpt:

Economic transnationals are the nucleus of an emerging global superclass.  “As debates about global economic integration rage on, at least one of its effects has become clear,” the Global Business Policy Council asserts.  “The rewards of an increasingly integrated global economy have brought forth new global elite.  Labeled ‘Davos Men,’ ‘gold –collar workers’ or … ‘cosmocrats,’ this emerging class is empowered by new notions of global connectedness.  It includes academics, international civil servants, and executives in global companies, as well as successful high-technology entrepreneurs.”  Estimated to number about 20 million in 2000, of whom 40 percent were American, this elite is expected to double in size by 2010.  Less than 4 percent of the American people, these transnationals have little need for national loyalty, view national boundaries as obstacles that thankfully are vanishing, and see national governments as residues from the past whose only useful function now is to facilitate the elite’s global operations.  In the coming years, one corporate executive confidently predicted, “the only people who will care about national boundaries are politicians.”

Isn’t it interesting that Professor Huntington mentions “Davos Men”?  One of the biggest advocates for amnesty in the U.S. Senate is Senator John McCain.  Here he is with George Soros at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

Transnationalism is being taught at our colleges and universities.  Here is another excerpt, this time demonstrating academia’s role in undermining our sovereignty:

Professor Martha Nussbaum of the University of Chicago denounced emphasis on “patriotic pride” as “morally dangerous,” urged the ethical superiority of cosmopolitanism over patriotism, and argued that people should direct their “allegiance” to the “world community of human beings.”  Professor Amy Gutmann of Princeton argued that it was “repugnant” for American students to learn that they are, “above all, citizens of the United States or to some other politically sovereign community,” but to “democratic humanism.”  Professor Richard Sennett of New York University denounced “the evil of a shared national identity” and judged the erosion of national sovereignty “basically a positive phenomenon.”  Professor George Lipsitz of the University of California, San Diego, argued that “in recent years refuge in patriotism has been the first resort of scoundrels of all sorts.”  Professor Cecilia O’Leary of American University saw the articulation of American patriotism as right-wing, militaristic, male, white, Anglo, and repressive.  Professor Betty Jean Craige of the University of Georgia also attacked patriotism because of its association with military prowess.  Professor Peter Spiro of Hofstra University approvingly concluded that it is “increasingly difficult to use the word “we” in the context of international affairs.”   In the past people used the word “we” with reference to the nation-state, but now affiliation with the nation-state “no longer necessarily defines the interest or even allegiance of the individual at the international level.”

Transnationalists view our notions of citizenship and national sovereignty as antiquated and puerile.  They have as much regard for Americans as the 20 million illegals who have invaded our country.

Source: http://universalfreepress.com/is-john-mccain-posing-for-pictures-with-his-boss/

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Are-We-Challenges-Americas/dp/0684870541