Posts Tagged ‘Kamikaze’

Islam’s ONLY Hope For True Reform Comes From A Surprising Source. And What Of America’s Only Hope For Reform?

December 17, 2015

I’ve recently been contemplating the Qur’an and the pathological tendency toward violence within Islam.  And I’ve been contemplating how morally idiotic liberals irrationally and continually pronounce Islam as “a peaceful religion” when they would NEVER say the same thing about biblical Christianity given the Bible’s blatantly clear stances of abortion, homosexuality and socialism.

Is Islam a religion of peace?  Is Mars a planet with breathable atmosphere?  No and no, with both deserving a “No, stupid” delivered with suitable incredulous and condescending stare.

I’ve made the points recently: both the Bible and the Qur’an contain commands to violence and death.  Here’s an article from a decidedly liberal (i.e., hostile to Judeo-Christianity) perspective about the Bible being even MORE violent than the Qur’an in the eyes of progressive liberalism.  Penn State religious history professor Philip Jenkins launched his own “investigation” of the Bible vis a vis the Qur’an and concluded, “”Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible.”

And of course everyone is agonizingly aware of the ten top Christian terrorist organizations inflicting mass death in tens of thousands of terror attacks.  Oh, wait, they’re not, BECAUSE THERE AREN’T ANY CHRISTIAN TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS the way we’ve suffered al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Islamic State, Taliban,  al-Shabaab, Hezbollah, Hamas, Ansar al-Sharia, al-Nusra, Muslim Brotherhood, etc., etc.

It’s just a complete mystery to liberals why a “religion of peace” like Islam is inspiring so much terror and hate and violence.  When they believe with ever fiber of their being that it ought to be the Christianity that they so despise that is the true source of all the violence.

Let’s consider this leftist professor’s claims and see if they are actually true.  I’ll begin with the Bible and proceed to expose a critical fact that Jenkins leaves entirely out of his false comparison.

Yes, the God of the Bible, in judgment of sin, commands the Israelites to wipe out and exterminate the inhabitants of the land He is giving His people.  God gives Abraham’s descendants through Isaac the Promised Land.  Shortly before Abraham dies, God tells Abraham this:

 “As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you will be buried at a good old age.  Then in the fourth generation they will return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete.” — Genesis 15:15-16.

Understand that God had already promised Abraham this land that belonged to another people in Genesis 12.  In the very passage I just quoted for you from Genesis 15, God immediately after verses 15-16 proceeds to specifically define the boundaries of the Promised Land that He just promised:

On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, “To your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates–the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.” — Genesis 15:18-21

So God tells Abraham, “I am giving you THIS land, land that other peoples are currently on.  But not YET.  God’s promise unfolds throughout Genesis chapter 15. Look at the unfolding context:

  • 7He also said to him, “I am the LORD, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to take possession of it.”
  • 13Then the LORD said to him, “Know for certain that for four hundred years your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own and that they will be enslaved and mistreated there.
  • 14But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions.
  • 15You, however, will go to your ancestors in peace and be buried at a good old age.
  • 16In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.”
  • 18On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, “To your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates–
  • 19the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites,
  • 20Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites,
  • 21Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.”

The Book of Genesis records Israel being invited into Egypt by a grateful Pharaoh but ultimately being cruelly enslaved by a subsequent Pharaoh.  And just as God had foretold to Abraham, Israel would spend 400 years in bondage as slaves.  But the Israelites were finally delivered through Moses.  And they came in and took the land that God had promised them.  And God gave them this land after having given the wicked people who inhabited it 400 years to get their moral acts together.

God tells the Israelites under the command of Moses’ successor Joshua to wipe out these peoples (i.e., the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites).  In Deuteronomy 20:16-18 God commands:

16“Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. 17But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the LORD your God has commanded you, 18 so that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the LORD your God.…

This theme – and the reason behind it – is repeated several times by God in the Old Testament, as Numbers 33:55 demonstrates:

‘But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land, those you allow to remain will become barbs in your eyes and thorns in your sides. They will give you trouble in the land where you will live.

So in these passages we have the commandment and we also have the REASON FOR the commandment: if Israel destroys its enemies and wipes them out, they will not be corrupted.  If they refuse or fail to wipe out their enemies, then the very same evil that brought God’s judgment on their enemies will enter into Israel and God will have to bring judgment upon THEM.

Which, for the record, is ultimately precisely what happened to Israel as is declared in numerous biblical passages.  We find in 1 Samuel 15:17-24 a simple statement that Israel refused to obey God’s commands.  They didn’t drive out these wicked peoples, who ultimately morally contaminated them and perverted the righteous culture God commanded them to create where previously only the wicked cultures of the Amorite, Jebusite, etc. had been.

Because Israel did NOT drive out the wicked peoples who inhabited the land God gave them according to God’s command, Israel became just as wicked if not MORE wicked than those people as their evil ways contaminated Israel’s culture:

But the people did not listen. Manasseh led them astray, so that they did more evil than the nations the LORD had destroyed before the Israelites. — 2 Kings 21:9

Habakkuk chapter one records the people becoming evil and the LORD raising up the Babylonians to judge them.

And so just as God used the Israelites as His weapon against the wicked peoples who inhabited the land that God gave to Israel, so God used the mighty Gentile nations such as the Egyptians, the Assyrians and the Babylonians against Israel.  God is sovereign over the nations, and He providentially uses them to ultimately accomplish His will.  And in His sovereign providence He uses the righteous and the wicked alike.

Israel was first subjugated by Gentile powers and ultimately after rejecting their Messiah ceased to exist for two millennia until God, in fulfillment of His word through Ezekiel, literally resurrected the nation back from the “dry bones” of the dead.  And in miraculous fulfillment of Isaiah 66:8 – “Who has ever heard of such things? Who has ever seen things like this? Can a country be born in a day or a nation be brought forth in a moment? Yet no sooner is Zion in labor than she gives birth to her children” – Israel was born in a day when the United Nations officially and historically declared her existence on May 14, 1948.  This was in direct response out of international outrage over the world having allowed six million Jews to be slaughtered in the Holocaust.

Liberals may not like it because they hate the God of the Bible, His righteousness, and His sovereignty over the nations when they yearn for a totalitarian socialist global new world order that exalts itself far above the God of the Bible.

God is sovereign over the nations.  Liberals despise Him for that; they want a world where the nation – the totalitarian human government – is sovereign over God.  They want a world where they dictate to God and to mankind what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil.  But I digress.

We have seen up to this point that in a violent world, God not only condoned but actually commanded His people Israel to employ the same violence that all the other people were employing.

BUT… we ultimately come to a critical turning point in the Bible: we come to the promise of a New Covenant.  The Old Testament itself affirms a coming New Covenant:

31 Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”Jeremiah 31:31-34

Hebrews 8:6-13 also affirms that this New Covenant has been fulfilled in Christ Jesus.

During the Last Supper Jesus said:

19And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.”  — Luke 22:19-21

Hebrews 9:15 states, “For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance–now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.”

So we have a progression in both Testaments of the Bible from the Old Covenant to a New Covenant.  And the New Covenant is literally and even physically embodied in the Word, Messiah Jesus.

And what is it that Jesus taught?  What did He command?  Violence?  No, the Virgin-born fulfillment of Isaiah 9:6 came to be “the Prince of peace.”  And Jesus taught even as He was being led away to be viciously flogged and then crucified, “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”

Liberals completely fail to comprehend this: the Bible begins with violence and moves to peace.

Not so the Qur’an.  Not so Muhammad.  When you read a Qur’an, understand that “Muhammad was like two different persons at two different times and the Quran is like two contradictory books pasted together.”  Understand that in Islam you have 1390 Years of Violence and only 10 years of Peace.

When Mohammad first began to proselytize his new religion in Mecca and claim that he was receiving revelations from Allah, he was decidedly the underdog.  And correspondingly all of his revelations centered around peaceful coexistence and tolerance.

But then Mohammad went to Medina in what is today called “Al Hijra.”  He was able to garner followers and became militarily powerful.  And suddenly all of the revelations of his Qur’an took a decidedly violent turn.

The Qur’an was NOT organized in any kind of chronological order; rather, it was organized by length, from the longest to the shortest suras.

When you re-arrange the Qur’an by chronology, you get this order: and you get not violence to peace as the Holy Bible gives, but peace to VIOLENCE.

So, for example, do your own research.  Consider the very first violent Sura 2:191-193 found in the Qur’an which states, And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killingbut if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful.   And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone.  But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)”.  And lo and behold, when you examine the chronological order and look to the right column to see where it was organized according to the tradition based on length of sura, you find that this edict found in Sura 2 to “kill them wherever you may find them” is the VERY FIRST sura Mohammad conveniently claimed he received from Allah when he arrived in Medina and became the dominant power. 

This is not merely a command for violence; it is a UNIVERSAL COMMAND for violence.  I’ll talk about that more.

Keep going down the list of violent suras and look at where they are found, whether they were written earlier in Mohammad’s Mecca phase or later when he arrived at Medina and became militarily powerful.

You will find that without any question, the vast overwhelming majority of violent sura that commanded violence and death were given in Medina just as the vast overwhelming majority of suras commanding any kind of “peace” was given in Mecca.

A simple historic statement of fact: Mohammad and the Qur’an takes us from peace to viciousness and hate and murder and death and slaughter.

Now, this is bad, but it actually gets WORSE.  Because Islam has a doctrine called “abrogation” by which later suras correct and supercede earlier ones.

In other words, if Mohammad first said “peace” and then he said “war,” the ONLY correct interpretation of the Qur’an MUST BE WAR.

Now, abrogation is not necessarily such a terrible thing; every parent has done it: your child may ask you if she can go to a party, and then you find out something you don’t like about the party that makes you change or mind, or your child misbehaves and you say, “Now you can’t go.”  You’ve abrogated your previous statement.  You’ve said yes and now you’re saying no to the same thing you’d said yes to.  So if your child comes to you and says, “You said on Monday I could go, so I went,” you are enraged as you point out, “But I said on TUESDAY you could NOT go, so you are in a heap of trouble!”

It’s different when it comes to a revelation from God, though: God isn’t supposed to be caught by surprise or change His mind with new information or be wrong and then correct Himself.  How did Mohammad respond to this dilemma?  It seems that Qur’an 2:106 was “revealed” in response to skepticism directed at Muhammad that Allah’s revelations were not entirely consistent over time. Muhammad’s rebuttal was that ”Allah is able to do all things” — even change his mind.

And hence we have examples of blatantly obvious abrogation in the Qur’an such as:

In Surah 58, Al Mujadilah, verse 12, the believers are commanded to give alms before a private consultation with the Messenger. In verse 13 they are told that it is no longer necessary.

In Surah 33, Al Ahzab, verses 50-51 Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) is allowed to marry and divorce an unlimited number of women. In verse 52 he is prohibited to continue to do so.

In Surah 73, Al Muzzammil, verses 2-4, the prophet of Islam is commanded to spend about half of the night in prayer and reading of the Quran. In verse 20 of the same Surah this is changed into what is easy for him and those who followed his example.

But this Islamic view of Allah is in very direct contrast to the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible, and so we have passages like Numbers 23:19: “God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

Sneering liberal pseudo-intellectuals claim that Christianity has the same issue of abrogation, BUT WE DON’T.  And they are frankly moral idiots of the very lowest order to make such a blatantly false claim.  Here’s why:

  1. In every single example of violence in the Old Testament, it is ALWAYS in EVERY CASE a specific command by God to a specific people to do a specific thing at a specific time for a specific reason.  There is NO universalized commandment by God to always kill everyone the way we see in the Qur’an, no “kill them wherever you find them.”  There are no verses in the Bible that say “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you…” (Qur’an 2:216), no “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah” (Qur’an 4:76).  God never gives a universal command that He later has to take back.
  2. If the Bible were given the same way the Qur’an is given, Moses would have commanded peace and Jesus would have come after Moses and subsequently taught, “But I tell you, hate your enemies and slaughter those who persecute you.”  When Jesus, in fulfillment of the New Covenant that even the Old Covenant itself anticipated hundreds of years before Jesus’ arrival on earth, as the Prince of Peace, actually taught, “But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44).  You need to comprehend how absolutely MASSIVE is the difference between a religion that begins with violence and then moves to peace (Christianity) verses a religion that begins with peace and then ends with commands to universalized violence.
  3. The Bible pointedly “abrogates” ITSELF in terms of violence because it promises a New Covenant and then it DELIVERS one in the form of the Prince of Peace, Jesus.  The “abrogation” of violence was not for the sake of Jesus’ convenience, the way the abrogation of peace for a call to violence clearly was politically oh-so-very convenient for Mohammad.  Let me put it this way: Jesus told Peter, “Put away your sword” (Matthew 26:52) in order that He could be arrested and beaten and go to the cross where He would die a terrible, humiliating, agonizing death in our place for our sins.  Versus Mohammad who said let’s be peaceful when he was the underdog and then turned on a dime and ordered mass violence the moment his forces gained the upper hand.
  4. The Bible doesn’t “abrogate” violence merely because times had changed and the world was no longer a violent place and the Bible was correcting a problem that was obviously out of step with the rest of the world.  Any such notion is simply FALSE.  The Romans at the time of Christ were as vicious and brutal as ANYONE ever had been; what they did to Jesus itself proves that.  And Jesus’ disciples wrote the New Testament not only in light of what Rome had done to Jesus, but in light of the fact that even as they were writing, Rome was treating Christians viciously.  St. Peter and St. Paul were both executed by Rome, as were many other disciples.
  5. The God of the Bible is a God of wrath just as He is a God of love.  But all of His attributes are perfectly balanced, such that His wrath is manifested in the attribute of justice that ultimately flows from love.  And the toleration of evil results in a lack of justice.  And so God gave His people the sword and used them as an instrument in defined, limited circumstances and only in accordance with His command.  But ultimately He was always preparing for the arrival of His Son, the Prince of Peace.
  6. Finally, the thing that changed in the Bible was this: “But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship” (Galatians 4:4-5).  God prophesied a coming Messiah who would epitomize and usher in a “new covenant,” and Jesus came as foretold.
  7. And so Jesus completely fulfilled the Old Covenant (Matthew 5:17).  The various laws and regulations and customs of the Old Testament weren’t “abrogated,” but rather they were fulfilled and served their purpose and were no longer necessary because the promised Messiah took their burden off our necks.  And so Christians have realized even in the time of St. Peter that unless a principle or a command from the Old Covenant is specifically repeated/restated in the New Covenant, it was fulfilled by Christ and no longer applies to New Covenant believers.  We can compare the Old Covenant and the New to the abacus vs. the computer or the horse vs. the automobile: the former things weren’t “abrogated” and declared wrong; rather they served their purpose and we now use the superior things.  Christ is the Superior which fulfilled the inferior and the inferior that served as a type or a shadow (see for example Colossians 2:17Hebrews 8:5) of the Superior is therefore no longer needed.

It is for this reason that I point out the fact and hereby state for the historical record that Penn State religious history professor Philip Jenkins is an abject moral idiot and the worst kind of intellectual fraud.  He is, as are all progressive liberals, a pathologically ignorant fool masquerading himself as someone who is wise and knowledgeable when he in fact teaches the precise opposite of wisdom and knowledge.  Jenkins is not only utterly blind to what is actually going on all around him in the real world as Muslim terrorists murder and bomb innocent people in the name of Allah, but as I have just proven he is just as utterly blind to the religious theology that he claims that he is an expert in.

A passage from Colossians sums these liberal fools up well: “Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.” – Colossians 2:8.  Tragically, modern universities teach very little BUT “empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense.”

The fact that the Qur’an does NOT begin with violence and then end with peace, but rather the opposite, and the fact that abrogation forces true Muslims to accept that the later “revelations” to Mohammad supercede previous ones, puts Islam in a deep, dark pit of endless violence that is NOT true of Christianity.

Which is why Christianity and Christ are attacked all the damn TIME by liberals and Christians don’t unleash waves of violent hate the way Muslims routinely do the moment they even THINK their Prophet might be getting insulted.

We are left with a giant problem of Islam: we find that Islam, Mohammad and the Qur’an spent ten years deceiving people by preaching peace and tolerance in order to grow strong and powerful, and then the rest of history practicing force and violence and terror the moment they were able to gain the upper hand.

We find that Islam does NOT mean “peace” as liberals love to adoringly say; it means “submission.”  AND YOU WILL SUBMIT OR ELSE YOU WILL BE KILLED.

A historical study of Mohammad’s life reveals that the “Prophet of Peace” had fought in over thirty violent military campaigns and had at least another thirty campaigns planned at the time of his death in 632 AD.  In fact I can quote you Islamic sources that state, “that the Prophet waged jihad operations 77 times in the first 10 years as head of the Muslim community in Medina.”  But it is a fact of history that when Mohammad showed up at Medina, he became a violent terrorist warmonger who waged unrelenting war until he defeated and subjugated everyone around him.  What you will also find is that Islam did NOT practice peace after Mohammad’s death; in fact it split due to terrifying, graphic and vicious violence that continues to this very day as the viciousness created Sunni and Shiite Islam.  But within 100 years of Mohammad’s death, warring, violent Muslims were attacking Christian Europe and had killed an looted and pillaged their way all across the entirety of Europe before finally being crushed by Charles “the Hammer” Martel at the Battle of Tours in France in 732.  Violent warring Muslims had already poured across Africa and seized the Christian realms established by St. Augustine.  All of the vast peaceful Christian provinces of North Africa had fallen to the bloody sword of Allah by 711.  Violent, warring Muslims poured into Christian Spain to be finally defeated by El Cid.  Violent, warring Muslims poured into the Christian Byzantine Empire and besieged Constantinople and the Christian Emperor pleaded with the Pope to send Christian warriors to defend a Christian realm from Muslim conquest in what became known as the Crusades.

The United States of America, from its infancy, almost immediately came into contact with violent, warring Islam as the violent, warring Muslims from the Islamic Barbary States began a vicious campaign against the United States.  So we had ten years of “peace” and yes, fourteen centuries of violence and war.

The ONLY thing in history that has stopped Islam from violence against their “infidel” neighbors is raw military power and the Muslims’ naked fear of the “infidels'” willingness to use it.

The Muslims who are attacking us are doing nothing more than reading their Qur’ans in light of the life of their moral and spiritual paradigm, their Prophet, Mohammad.  Their lives are matching his teachings, and that is why they are “killing us wherever they may find us.”

Jesus, by contrast, never harmed anyone.  He was the Lamb of God who never harmed anyone or ever commanded anyone to ever harm anyone.  Jesus is the antithesis of Mohammad.

If you want peace, there is ultimately one one place and one Person to go to: to the foot of the Cross, to the feet of Jesus, who came to allow violence to prevail so He could ultimately prevail against all violence when He returns as King of kings and Lord of lords.

So, how then do you reform Islam?  If you have any honesty or intelligence, you ought to see the nearly insurmountable difficulty by now.

There is only one possible way and it is interesting where it is found:

It is found in the Qur’an itself.

What you have to do is go to one interesting and frankly incredibly embarrassing period for Muslims: when Mohammad received his “Satanic Verses.”

Here are a couple of links to understand what is going on from Answering Islam (another here) and from Muhammadanism.  But here’s what happened in a historic nutshell: while Mohammad was in Medina (his “peaceful” period), he was weak and had few followers.  He was estranged from even his own tribe.  And he had a “revelation” that it was okay for his followers to acknowledge and affirm the existence of three pagan goddesses alongside Allah: Lat, Uzza, and Manat.  When the inhabitants of Mecca heard Muhammad’s confession of the ancient goddesses inside the Ka’aba, they immediately revoked the ban they had placed on him and gave his movement political breathing room.  But the moment he was able to become strong enough to rescind his confession, he took it back by claiming that while he had believed it had come from Allah, it had actually come from Satan.  And so he went back on his confession because what he had put in the Qur’an as a revelation from Allah had actually come from Satan.  Hence the title, “the Satanic verses.”

I’m just going to say it: the ONLY hope for Islam in terms of any meaningful reform into a religion of actual peace is for Islam to affirm that the ENTIRE Medina portion of the Qur’an came from Satan.

It is a simple and undisputable fact of history that Mohammad HIMSELF took back part of his Qur’an and claimed it had actually been from Satan; ultimately, Muslims are going to have to take back a much bigger chunk of it and recognize that every violent sura came from the same Satan.

Mohammad himself acknowledged that Satan could enter into him and alter his revelation.  Run with it.

But what of the United States?  What is our only hope for reform?

Another fact of history to point out is that the United States actually has some powerful experience with dealing with fanatic death cults.  We faced one called “Imperial Japan.”  Believe it or not, Muslims were NOT the first people to fly planes loaded with bombs into human-inhabited structures: think “Kamikaze pilots” during World War II: not merely hundreds but THOUSANDS of them.  3,860 Japanese Kamikaze pilots died as their explosives-laden planes either crashed into American ships or were shot down trying to do so.

Oh, yes, America has dealt with “suicide bombers” and the ideology that sent them at us before.  Do you understand me?  WE’VE DEALT WITH THIS KIND OF VICIOUS MENTALITY BEFORE.  And we did not prevail over it by adopting any modern liberal pile of inane Obama blathering drivel.

How we defeated that existential threat to freedom and peace is a matter of history.

The Japanese Imperial fascists were every BIT as much of a national death cult as what we are confronting now with Islam: but the United States of America stopped being “a sleeping giant” and woke up enough to unleash a violent jihad of our OWN and we BROKE THE NECK of that national death cult.

I remember the quote from the Japanese admiral who had planned the Pearl Harbor attack and then realized what he had done as America began to rise up in righteous anger:

I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve.” Japanese Admiral Yamamoto

Islam is NOT going to reform by itself.  Any more than the Japanese were going to reform by themselves.  They’re going to need some confrontation.  They are going to need to be confronted with reason and with truth and with fact and with their own history and they are going to need to be confronted with a terrible resolve to use all the power we can bring against them until they are forced to see reason as the Japanese were forced to see reason.

But that means that the United States needs to reform as well if it is going to survive.  We desperately need to manifest the same “terrible resolve” that we were able to find in the days of our greatness.

Pain can be an awesome tutor when it is combined with truth.  That is the only chance to drive even a fool to finally see reason and do the right thing.

Liberals are people with a pathological hatred of truth.  And so what they keep repeating in their condescending moral idiocy is that everyone ought to be just like them and ignore truth, ignore reason, ignore history, ignore reality and just follow the blatherings of Obama.

The TRUTH is that Islam has an inherent, intrinsic, pathological problem with violence.  Ultimately, the ONLY way through to any genuine peace is to make Islam recognize that truth and DEAL with it.  Any liberal notion that the path to peace is to ignore the truth, bury our head in the sand and hope the truth somehow goes away is another word for “suicide.”

Liberals tell us over and over again that to confront Islam, to associate it with terrorism, will “radicalize” the Islamic world.  But here’s the thing: every single time liberals affirm this proposition, what they are in fact acknowledging is their own belief that every single Muslim is hair-trigger psycho and all it will take is the slightest provocation, the littlest nudge, to send them over the edge of madness and into bloodbath jihad.  They acknowledge that the very Christianity they revile so is a FAR superior worldview to every other worldview including Islam, because it is only in Christianity that we can have peace even with our enemies as we follow the teachings of Jesus as true disciples.  Let’s get beyond “Piss Christ” (a crucifix of Christ placed in a jar of urine) and Ofili’s “Holy Virgin Mary” (a mockery of the Virgin Mary smearing her with dung and pornographic images); just imagine the response if a Barack Obama tried to impose homosexual marriage on a Muslim country and imagine every single Muslim willing to crawl over the dead bodies of their own family members so they could get to Obama and cut his head off for his blasphemy.  Or how about this one: why don’t you Democrats try forcing the American people to fund “Piss Prophet” with tax dollars the same way you imposed “Piss Christ” on us and see how crazy insane Muslims get?

You don’t DARE do that.  Why not? 

And the answer is: because the mere act of drawing a cartoon – and let me assure you that a cartoon is FAR less offensive than your filthy, vile, disgusting urine, liberal – is enough to set off the entire Islamic world into a murderous rage.

And the answer is: because you KNOW Christianity is the only true source of peace on earth – as much as you hate it.  Just as you KNOW Islam is the source of violence just waiting to explode regardless of your dishonest rhetoric about “the religion of peace.”

Every single time a liberal so much as mentions the possibility of “radicalizing” the Muslim community, they affirm the spirit of violent hate just waiting to be unleashed by a religion that is manifestly violent.  Nobody worries about “radicalizing” Christians because you know full bloody well we don’t act that way.  You fear Muslims “radicalizing” if you so much as breathe wrong because no matter how much you want to suppress reality, bury the truth, deep, deep down you know how very wrong you are.

Go ahead, be a good liberal and follow the liberal way of burying your head in the sand so you won’t have to deal with REALITY:

The Bible spoke of wicked Israel before its judgment.  Let it speak to us before ours as well:

You boast, “We have struck a bargain to cheat death and have made a deal to dodge the grave. The coming destruction can never touch us, for we have built a strong refuge made of lies and deception.” — Isaiah 28:15

And we’ll see how long you keep your fool heads attached to your bodies the moment these people get to you:

003

If you bury your head in the sand to reality, you might as well lose your head, you deserve to lose your head – and we now live in an age where lose it you surely will.

We absolutely cannot continue to ignore the true reality – and yes, the terrifying reality – that is Islam.  We have to confront them with the truth and force them to acknowledge that truth and embrace the change they must embrace.  Or we will surely be fighting until the end of the planet in nuclear Armageddon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

How Secular Humanists And Progressive Liberals Have Always Exempted Themselves From The Darwinian Evolution They Inflict On Everybody Else

January 21, 2013

I was watching a Military History program called “No Surrender: German and Japanese Kamikazes” about the birth of the Japanese kamikaze pilots of WW2 yesterday.

If you have knowledge of the dilemma of the German generals – with a fanatic Führer screaming orders and a fanatic youth who would have lined the generals up and shot them for treason or cowardice if they’d failed to continue to wage the war – you shouldn’t be surprised to learn that the exact same dilemma slapped the Japanese admirals in the face.  We find that neither top military leadership could stop the war or even de-escalate the atrocities.

First let’s talk briefly about Nazi Germany.  Germany was the official seat of the Protestant Revolution with Martin Luther nailing his 95 Theses to the church door in Wittenberg.  But well before the end of the 19th century, Germany had strayed far from God, indeed.  It had in fact become the most atheistic nation in all of Europe and in all of Christendom and in all of Western Civilization.

The perversion and degradation of German culture began in the minds of the German intellectuals.  Even in the very last days of Nazi Germany, with thousands of bombers devastating helpless German cities every single day, Germany led the world in science and philosophy.  What we found – or at least what we should have found – is that science and academia and vicious, murderous barbarism could easily come together to the worst horror imaginable.  We also should have found that ideas have consequences.

It turns out that Japanese admirals were in a very similar bind coming from the younger Japanese officers.  When the admirals first watched the first kamikaze pilots ignore their orders and fly their planes into American navy ships, they were utterly horrified.  Imperial Japan was not at least not initially a nation in which the old ordered the young to their deaths from behind the safety of the front lines; it was a war in which a fanatic youth with the best modern Darwinian educations breathed in the toxic ideas they had been fed throughout their entire lives and took those ideas to their natural conclusion.

It was the young pilots who had been the best students in science and technology who alone had the sheer fanaticism to transform themselves into human bombs.  Darwinism didn’t stop them from barbarism; it informed their barbarism and made them barbarous.  More than 4,000 of the most “scientific” and technically literate minds in Japan died committing suicide in order to try to kill their enemies.  These young fanatic officers ignored their older superiors and forced the admiralty to embrace total war to the death.

Because ideas have consequences.  And these young minds that had been so thoroughly poisoned by evolution and Darwinism rose up and lived out the implications of what they had been indoctrinated in.

Let’s put it this way, if you’re a secular humanist or a Darwinist, please explain to me how Darwinism does not entail Social Darwinism.  I mean, if Darwinian evolution is in fact true, if there is no God, no heaven or hell, no judgment, if we are random byproducts of a purposeless, meaningless, valueless universe that will ultimate swallow us up again the same random way it spat us out, then just why should we love and sacrifice for one another when it is far easier and far more profitable to crush and kill them instead?  All Social Darwinism really is is consistently living out the consequences of scientific Darwinism.  There is no Creator to whom we will be held to account on Judgment Day; there is no Imago Dei; we are nothing more than animals; and the animal world is a world in which the strong dominate and the weak die out.

Darwinian morality is as vicious as it is violent.

Let’s start with the fact that evolutionists claim that their system of Darwinism is simply the way the world works.  Assume that’s true for a moment.  And then look at the world around you.  Because like it or not, Darwinism entails social Darwinism.  What is true for nature must be true for the individual and society.  If nature progresses by competition for survival, and the victory of the strong over the weak, then all progress must come the same way.  If the law of the bloody claw is not entailed evolution, just how is it not entailed? How does the 4 billion year history of earth as envisioned by Darwinians not demonstrate that might makes right and it is far better to kill your enemy than it is to turn the other cheek to it? If life is an unceasing struggle for existence, and its outcome is the survival of the fittest, as Darwin claimed, then that is how we ought to function as individuals and as a society.

Modern Darwinians want to use their system to violently club God to death, then drop that club and say, “Now that Darwinism has killed God and religion, let’s not live as if our system that says life is a struggle for existence in which only the fittest survive and the weak are a threat to the rest of the herd is actually true.”  Like so many other elements of Darwinian thought, there is a massive self-contradiction.

Richard Dawkins has laid war and death on the back of religion, but he refuses to accept the far greater holocaust of death on the back of his atheism.  When we rightly point out that atheistic communism was responsible for the murder of more than 110 million people during peacetime alone, Dawkins claims that communism and atheism have nothing to do with each other.  But as I showed last week, that simply is false: atheism was at the very core of Marxism.  If you look up “state atheism,” you find that it is virtually identical with communism.  And it is no coincidence that not only did Karl Marx identify with Charles Darwin as strongly supporting his theory of class struggle and write that Darwinism was “the basis in natural history for our views,” but Nazism was also little more than applied Darwinism – with the rationale of both creating a master race and exterminating the Jews being profoundly Darwinian.  Hitler even made his own people the victims of his Darwinism, stating, “If the German Volk is not strong enough and is not sufficiently prepared to offer its own blood for its existence, it should cease to exist and be destroyed by a stronger power.”  That is profoundly Darwinian.  Now intellectual frauds like Richard Dawkins are trying to go back and rewrite history to expunge the incredibly tragic results of Darwinism being applied to the actual world and society.

And the horror that results in society is equally true of the individual who lives by Darwinism.

Why do we as individuals rape, murder and sleep around?  Becauserape is (in the vernacular of evolutionary biology) an adaptation, a trait encoded by genes that confers an advantage on anyone who possesses them. Back in the late Pleistocene epoch 100,000 years ago, men who carried rape genes had a reproductive and evolutionary edge over men who did not: they sired children not only with willing mates, but also with unwilling ones, allowing them to leave more offspring (also carrying rape genes) who were similarly more likely to survive and reproduce, unto the nth generation. That would be us. And that is why we carry rape genes today. The family trees of prehistoric men lacking rape genes petered out.”  Darwinism is “a scientific idea that, if true, consigns traditions of self-restraint, loyalty, the very basis of family life, to the shredder.”  Now go ye and do likewise.  Unless something inside of you screams “NO!  I will NOT live in accordance with that terrible, wicked, demonic theory of Darwinian evolution!”

As was once stated in Time Australia Magazine:

Japan, war, and evolution
Source: TIME Australia, August 14, 1995 (p. 83). First published in CREATION Magazine Volume 18 number 2. Pages 7 to 9. December 1995 – February 1996.

This century has seen countless millions killed –more than in all known wars of human history put together – in the name of ideologies that owe their inspiration and justification directly to evolution.

The Nazis used this ‘science falsely so-called’ to justify treating other races as sub-human. Engaging in war, even genocide, could hardly be wrong, so they thought, since it made their version of the ‘fittest’ more likely to survive.

Communism’s dialectic materialism required belief in evolution for intellectual respectability. Stalin’s butchery is directly linked to his renunciation of God (and thus all notions of sin and judgment) after reading Darwin’s book. Mao Zedong, responsible for the deaths of tens of millions, listed Darwin and Huxley as his two favourite authors.

Few have realized, however, the degree to which Japanese thinking leading up to and during World War II was also heavily influenced by Darwin.

Japanese thought blended the theistic with the evolutionary. They were a chosen people because the Emperor was a descendant of the sun goddess; they were a master race because they were more highly evolved. Japanese biologists ‘produced studies decrying the apish physical features of other races (hairiness, long arms) and noting the highly evolved characteristics of the Japanese’ (which included milder body odour).

The horrors of Changi, the Burma railroad, and the various death marches of World War II showed a people renowned for cultural gentility treating their wartime captives as totally subhuman. Once you have made any group of people less than human in your thinking, backed up by the authority of ‘science’, it becomes a powerful justification for plain old sin.

If instead of Darwinism, the scientific world had been disseminating the truth that we are all closely related, being the descendants of Adam and Eve through Noah, what a difference we could have seen in the history of the last hundred years!

So yeah, evolution and Darwinism.  And Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia and Maoist China. Like peas in a pod.

I would submit that it’s not merely that through Adam and Eve “we are all closely related,” but that we have a Creator to whom we are accountable for how we treat one another that ultimately matters.  Because if someone is about to rob and murder you, do you really think they would stop if you just told them that we all randomly mutated from some common ape ancestor?

I saw something in the Los Angeles Times editorials.  Jon Wiener wrote on January 18:

Your editorial calling on Egyptian President Mohamaed Morsi to apologize for describing Zionists as ‘descendents of apes and pigs’ is only half right.  We are all descendents of apes, more or less.

Morsi is congratulated for embracing the theory of evolution at a time when so many of our own Christian leaders reject it.  No apology is necessary there. It’s the pigs that are the problem.

The following day, in the paper’s “Mailbag” section, writers explained away the insulting comparison to the pigs, too.  No harm calling Jews descendents of apes and pigs, no foul.

Here’s the thing: Wiener and those who piled on after him completely missed the point of Morsi’s claim and proceeded to make the same error themselves.  Morsi was most decidedly NOT saying that Arabs are likewise the descendents of apes and pigs; he was clearly saying that Jews ARE such descendents but that he and those who think like him are not.  And Jon Wiener, good liberal secular humanist that he is, likewise thinks that while all human beings are the random by-products of the union of mindless and soulless apes, he and his fellow liberal secular humanists are not.

It’s the same mistake, of course, that the Nazis and the Japanese committed: they believed in Darwinism for everybody else, but somehow exempted themselves from the animal state that they so so clearly in their millions of victims.

Gleason Archer exposed the moral and logical idiocy of secular humanism with the following:

“But it should be pointed out that consistent atheism, which represents itself to be the most rational and logical of all approaches to reality, is in actuality completely self-defeating and incapable of logical defense. That is to say, if indeed all matter has combined by mere chance, unguided by any Higher Power of Transcendental Intelligence, then it necessarily follows that the molecules of the human brain are also the product of mere chance. In other words, we think the way we do simply because the atoms and molecules of our brain tissue happen to have combined in the way they have, totally without transcendental guidance or control. So then even the philosophies of men, their system of logic and all their approaches to reality are the result of mere fortuity. There is no absolute validity to any argument advanced by the atheist against the position of theism.

On the basis of his won presuppositions, the atheist completely cancels himself out, for on his own premises his arguments are without any absolute validity. By his own confession he thinks the way he does simply because the atoms in his brain happen to combine the way they do. If this is so, he cannot honestly say that his view is any more valid than the contrary view of his opponent. His basic postulates are self-contradictory and self-defeating; for when he asserts that there are no absolutes, he thereby is asserting a very dogmatic absolute. Nor can he logically disprove the existence of God without resorting to a logic that depends on the existence of God for its validity. Apart from such a transcendent guarantor of the validity of logic, any attempts at logic or argumentation are simply manifestations of the behavior of the collocation of molecules that make up the thinker’s brain.”

You see, these communists, these fascists, these secular humanists, these progressive liberals, they claim that we’re all just meat puppet herd animals.  But somehow they exempt themselves and believe that they – who are just as much mindless random-chance by-products of evolution as everyone around them, can and somehow should still make all of the decisions for the rest of us.

I just wish that the evolutionists and Darwinians who argue that we are the random-chance product of mindless apes would confine their hateful ideology to themselves and leave the rest of us out of it.  But they actually do far worse; they make it ALL about the rest of us and leave themselves out of it.  That way we have the master race bureaucrats to make all our rules for us.

The doctrine of evolution intrinsically dehumanizes.  There is no God who lovingly created man in His own image, there is no God-given moral nature.  There is no meaning, no purpose and no value.  There is only nature and bloody violence and then more and more and more violence.  And ultimately there is only extinction in the cold depths of space as the mindless process that randomly spawned human beings just as mindlessly swallows it all back up again.

It’s interesting that in Revelation 15, when angels preach to the human race during the Tribulation, they say, “Fear God and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come, and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water” (Rev 15:7).  Just as World War Two was the product of mindless evolutionary dogma, so also will Armageddon be the result of the same dogma.

And that’s why the beast is coming.

Progressivism Revealed In Words Of Hollywood Liberals Like Tom Hanks And Sean Penn

March 14, 2010

If you want to know what an idea looks like, it is a good idea to look for some examples of that thing in action.

Take “progressivism” or “liberalism,” for instance (please! as the old comic’s joke goes).

What do these people think?  What are they about?  What is their vision for the future, and for this country?  What do they want to do?

Well, why not ask Tom Hanks and Sean Penn, both famed Oscar-winning Hollywood liberals in good standing.

Let’s start with Sean Penn.  That way we can get rid of him faster.

Sean Penn, speaking about Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, said:

Every day, this elected leader is called a dictator here, and we just accept it, and accept it. And this is mainstream media. There should be a bar by which one goes to prison for these kinds of lies.”

Well, what SHOULD we think about Hugo Chavez?  Let’s find out.

From May 2007:

CARACAS (Reuters) – Venezuelan troops have seized an anti-government television channel’s broadcast equipment, the station said on Sunday, ahead of a controversial midnight EDT/0400 GMT takeover by President Hugo Chavez that will take the broadcaster off the air.

Chavez sparked international criticism with his decision to not renew RCTV’s license and to replace Venezuela’s most-watched channel with a state-backed network that will promote the values of his self-styled socialist revolution.

From November 2008 in the New York Review of Books:

Hugo Chávez Versus Human Rights

On September 18, we released a report in Caracas that shows how President Hugo Chávez has undermined human rights guarantees in Venezuela. That night, we returned to our hotel and found around twenty Venezuelan security agents, some armed and in military uniform, awaiting us outside our rooms. They were accompanied by a man who announced—with no apparent sense of irony—that he was a government “human rights” official and that we were being expelled from the country.

From July 2009 from the Human Rights Watch (which also includes numerous Venezuelan human rights violations):

Jul 31, 2009

The Venezuelan government has adopted and proposed measures that reduce the ability of government critics to voice their opinions and will seriously limit freedom of expression in Venezuela.

From August 2009 via the UK Telegraph:

Thirteen channels ordered to be closed by the Venezuelan government went off the air on Saturday and more than 200 are expected to close in coming weeks.

The government broadcasting watchdog, Conatel, said that 34 radio outlets would be closed because they failed to comply with regulations.

However, critics claimed the crackdown infringed on freedom of speech and hundreds of protesters demonstrated in Caracas against the closures.

And, of course, that is simply scratching the surface of Hugo Chavez’s abuses of freedom:

According to the U.S. State Department and other official government sources, the Venezuelan government has been guilty of numerous human rights violations under Chavez’s rule.

“Politicization of the judiciary and official harassment of the political opposition and the media characterized the human rights situation during the year,” said the State Department’s Country Report on Human Rights in Venezuela for 2008 that was released last month.

The report credits the Chavez regime with unlawful killings, arbitrary arrests and detention, discrimination based on political grounds, widespread corruption at all levels of government, official intimidation and attacks on the independent media.

“According to HRW [Human Rights Watch], ‘Government officials have removed scores of detractors from the career civil service, purged dissidents employees from the national oil company, denied citizens access to social programs based on their political opinions, and denounced critics as subversives deserving of discriminatory treatment,” says the State Department report.

A recent report by the Congressional Research Service also outlined human rights concerns in Chavez’s Venezuela.

“Under the populist rule of President Hugo Chavez … Venezuela has undergone enormous political changes, with a new constitution and unicameral legislature, and a new name for the country, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,” states a Feb. 5, 2009 CRS report.

“U.S. officials and human rights organizations have expressed concerns about the deterioration of democratic institutions,” the report adds, “and threats to freedom of expression under President Chavez, who has survived several attempts to remove him from power.”

How about Hugo Chavez in his very own words:

CHAVEZ: “Yes, we are indoctrinating the children from the first grade through college, every grade, private schools. The ideology of the revolution! The ideology of socialism! Our ideology.”

So Hugo Chavez is a dictator and a thug who is without any doubt suppressing freedom of speech and other human rights in his country.  And if I may now refresh your memory about Sean Penn’s view of the man:

Sean Penn has defended Hugo Chávez as a model democrat and said those who call him a dictator should be jailed.

The Oscar-winning actor and political activist accused the US media of smearing Venezuela’s socialist president and called for journalists to be punished.

Every day, this elected leader is called a dictator here, and we just accept it, and accept it. And this is mainstream media. There should be a bar by which one goes to prison for these kinds of lies.”

This one’s pretty easy.  Sean Penn demonizes the press for smearing a dictator by calling him a “dictator.”  And proceeds to argue that journalists who report the truth about Chavez be jailed.

Which is, of course, precisely what a dictator would do, isn’t it???

You see, Hugo Chavez is a dictator and thug; but he is a LEFTWING dictator and thug (just as most dictatorial thugs almost always are).

So, to put a thousand words into a picture:

Mind you, Sean Penn is not the only Hollywood liberal who has embraced this dictatorial thug. There’s Danny Glover, Oliver Stone, Benicio del Toro, and others.

And earlier progressives eagerly flocked around the communist revolution under Vladimir Lenin and the fascist revolutions under first Benito Mussolini and then Adolf Hitler, too.  Which is to say that this behavior from progressives – as bizarre and as morally insane as it is – is part of a century-old tradition.

Let’s go back to Woodrow Wilson, the father of the progressive movement.  In his unintentionally chilling essay, “Leaders of Men,” Wilson wrote:

The competent leader of men cares little for the interior niceties of other people’s characters: he cares much – everything – for the external uses to which they may be put. His will seeks the lines of least resistance; but the whole question with him is a question as to the application of force. There are men to be moved: how shall he move them? He supplies the power; others supply only the materials upon which that power operatesIt is the power which dictates, dominates; the materials yield. Men are as clay in the hands of the consummate leader.

On Wilson’s elitist view, American citizens truly ARE as clay.  They are incapable of understanding anything remotely complex.  And therefore the half-truths (which very often amount to whole lies) of the skillful demagogue become justified:

only a very gross substance of concrete conception can make any impression on the minds of the masses; they must get their ideas very absolutely put, and are much readier to receive a half-truth which they can understand than a whole truth which has too many sides to be seen all at once.

And how did the father of the progressive movement – who viewed men as uncomprehending clay waiting to be shaped by the half-truths of the skillful demagogue – view the Constitution?  Wilson wrote:

Justly revered as our great Constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws

And uncomprehending clay men do not particularly deserve the inalienable rights bestowed upon them by a Constitution which itself is of little actual value.  Thus the father of the progressive movement wrote:

No doubt a lot of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle.

And what should be the limitations of power on the government Leviathan – which could easily be stripped of its limiting Constitution – over uncomprehending and infinitely malleable men of clay?  In The State, Wilson said that:

“Government does now whatever experience permits or the times demand.”

In his “Congressional Government,” Wilson wrote that:

“I cannot imagine power as a thing negative and not positive.”

In other words, Progressivism sees no limitations against the power of raw government power.

But I can certainly imagine such power being a negative thing.  As a student of history, I am vividly aware of the fact that in just one such form of government – communism – more than 100 million people were systematically and brutally murdered by their own government during peacetime.

Conservatives favor limited government with limited and well-defined powers.  Which is the exact OPPOSITE of fascistic totalitarian governments.  When you start demanding bigger and bigger and more activistic and socialist government, you begin meandering over to fascist land.

Thus you should understand why it  shouldn’t be surprising that Sean Penn and Danny Glover should think this way about Hugo Chavez.  Chavez is the Great Leader who shapes stupid clay men with his skillful demagoguery; and thus woe be unto any who seek to get in his way.

And, good news for progressives, the magnificent Hugo Chavez’s socialist revolution is coming to America in the form of Barack Hussein Obama:

(CNSNews.com) – Inspired by his meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama at the Americas Summit, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez declared on Sunday that Venezuelan socialism has begun to reach the United States under the Obama administration.

And it’s completely reasonable that Chavez would think this way about Obama.  After all, the American president who did nothing while the Venezuelan dictator nationalized U.S. businesses has done plenty of nationalizing himself.  Which prompted Hugo Chavez to point out:

CARACAS (Reuters) – Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez said on Tuesday that he and Cuban ally Fidel Castro risk being more conservative than U.S. President Barack Obama as Washington prepares to take control of General Motors Corp.

Does the Obama administration share the totalitarian views of Hugo Chavez, and even admire them?  It certainly does, according to the words of Obama’s Diversity czar, Mark Lloyd:

“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press.  This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.

[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance.”

[…]

“In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution – a democratic revolution.  To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela.

The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled – worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government – worked to oust him.  But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.

And we’ve had complaints about this ever since.”

“Complaints,” of course, which bother genuine progressives such as Sean Penn and Obama’s diversity czar Mark Lloyd.  Which is why they think that “complainers” should be thrown in jail.

The left loves – and even worships as a surrogate for God – big government, and seemingly the bigger the better.  And of course, the very biggest governments, the ones that can control the populations and guide their nations to the next socialist Utopia, invariably are or descend into totalitarian regimes.

It’s not that Sean Penn is stupid for his views.  Sean Penn is accurately explaining his progressive philosophy.  He is not a politician who needs your vote, so he can be honest.  And as a multi-millionaire celebrity, he epitomizes the mindset of progressivism: that the peon clay masses are ignorant and need to be ruled over, and that they should surrender their wills and allow the government of their superiors to do whatever they think is best.  And who better than an elitist Hollywood celebrity to explain why the more than 300 million Americans constituting the lower classes are like maggots crawling across the landscape, and that they should be compelled to shut up and do as their betters tell them?

So let us be rid of Sean Penn and introduce ourselves to the “wisdom” of Tom Hanks.  Recently – in acquainting America with the 10 part HBO series on World War II he took part in – had this to say:

“Back in World War II,” he told Brinkley, “we viewed the Japanese as ‘yellow, slant-eyed dogs’ that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?” In a separate interview, Hanks referred to the war in the Pacific as one of “racism and terror.”

Damn racist American bastards.  They were called “the greatest generation”; the generation that rose up from the ashes of the Great Depression to defeat the greatest evil the world has ever seen.  But you and Tom Hanks know the truth, don’t you: they were just a bunch of racists.  The vicious cheap-shot sneak attack at Pearl Harbor didn’t have anything to do with our going to war against Japan.  Heck, in the spirit of the modern “truthers” who claim that Bush bombed the World Trade Center, FDR probably sent in American planes painted to look like Japanese Zeroes.

Stupid unAmerican fool.  We didn’t want to annihilate the Japanese “because they were different.”  We were forced to annihilate them because they were utterly fanatic and refused to surrender.  We were forced to annihilate them because they started a war of annihilation and wouldn’t stop.  Tom Hanks is too ignorant and too much an ideologue to consider the Rape of Nanking, or the Bataan Death March, or the Banzai charges, or the first suicide bombers known as the Kamikaze.  I’d like to see Tom Hanks take part in a movie about the monstrous and utterly despicable Unit 731.

If Tom Hanks wasn’t a complete moral idiot, he would simply realize that Japan attacked us without provocation with a vengeance, and the United States of America responded with a vengeance.  Just as they would have done had their attackers had white skin and round eyes.

And when Tom Hanks asks, “Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?”  he is not content to label the greatest generation as a bunch of racist warmongers; no, he seeks to do the same thing to our great warriors who are protecting us today.

Why are we fighting against Islamic jihadism?  Because they’re “different,” as Tom Hanks maintains?  How about because they attacked us in vicious act of war that left 3,000 innocent civilians murdered?  Maybe THAT had something to do with it?

Contrary to being “racists,” our soldiers today are operating with a level of restraint against an utterly despicable terrorist enemy – who hide among and prey upon their own civilian people – that is simply amazing to behold.  Our soldiers as a matter of routine are the most enthusiastic back-patting cheerleaders of the courage and toughness they are beginning to see in their Afghani and Iraqi counterparts.

Tom Hanks, like Sean Penn, see only ugliness in America and Americans, and only beauty in the totalitarian regimes of brutal dictators.

And that is, and always has been, the progressive way.