Thursday, July 06, 2017

The Fracking Industry Deserves Our Gratitude


It has given America virtual energy independence, freeing it from the leverage of often hostile Middle East regimes.


By Victor Davis Hanson — July 6, 2017
Image result for pumping gas

Less than ten years ago, America’s energy future looked bleak.

World oil prices in 2008 had spiked to more than $100 per barrel of crude.

“Peak oil” — the theory that the world had already extracted more crude oil than was still left in the ground — was America’s supposed bleak fate. Ten years ago, rising gas prices, spiraling trade deficits, and ongoing war in the oil-rich Middle East only underscored America’s precarious dependence on foreign sources of oil.

Despite news of a radically improved but relatively old technology called “fracking” — drilling into shale rock and injecting water, sand, and chemicals at high pressure to hydraulically “fracture” the rock and create seams from which petroleum and natural gas are released — few saw much hope.

In 2012, when gas prices were hitting $4 a gallon in some areas, President Obama admonished the country that we “can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices.” That was a putdown of former Alaska governor and vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin’s refrain “Drill, baby, drill.”

Obama barred new oil and gas permits on federal lands. Steven Chu, who would become secretary of energy in the Obama administration, had earlier mused that gas prices might ideally rise to European levels (about $10 a gallon), thereby forcing Americans to turn to expensive subsidized alternative green fuels.

But over the last five years, frackers have refined their craft on private properties, finding ever cheaper and more efficient ways to extract huge amounts of crude oil and natural gas from shale rock.

In 2017, despite millions of square miles being off limits to drillers, America is close to reaching 10 million barrels of crude-oil production per day, the highest level in the nation’s history. The U.S. may soon surpass Saudi Arabia as the world’s largest petroleum producer.
When American natural gas (about 20 percent of the world total) and coal (the largest reserves in the world) are factored into the fossil-fuel equation, the U.S. is already the largest producer of energy in the world.

While environmentalists worry about polluting the water table and heightening seismic activity through hydraulic fracturing, fracking seems to become more environmentally sensitive each year.

When OPEC and other overseas producers tried to bankrupt frackers by flooding the world with their supposedly more cheaply produced oil, the effort backfired. American entrepreneurs learned to frack oil and natural gas even more cheaply and undercut the foreign gambit. The result is a windfall for all sectors of the American economy.

From 2014 to 2016, fracking helped cut the price of gasoline by $1.50 a gallon, saving American drivers an average of more than $1,000 per year.

Due to the fracking of natural gas, the United States has reduced its carbon emissions by about 12 percent over the last decade (according to the Energy Information Administration) — at a far greater rate than the environmentally conscious European Union.

Fracking and cheaper gas are allowing a critical breathing space for strapped American consumers, as alternative energy production and transportation slowly become more efficient and competitive.

Fracking has created a national savings of about 5 million barrels of imported oil per day over the last decade. That translates to roughly $100 billion in annual savings by avoiding foreign oil.

Fracking has allowed the U.S. to enjoy some of the lowest electricity rates and gas prices in the industrial world. The result is that cheap energy costs are luring all sorts of energy-intensive industries — from aluminum to plastics to fertilizers — back to the United States, with the potential of creating millions of new, high-paying jobs.

Fracking has given America virtual energy independence, freeing it from the leverage of unstable and often hostile Middle East regimes. The result is less need to interfere in the chronic squabbling in the oil-rich but unstable Persian Gulf.

Fracking has reduced oil prices and radically weakened America’s rivals and enemies. Desperate oil exporters like Iran, Russia, and Venezuela are short about half the oil income that they enjoyed ten years ago.

The late Hugo Chávez’s oil-fed socialist utopia in Venezuela is bankrupt.

What so far constrains Russian president Vladimir Putin is as much a shortage of petrodollars as fear of NATO.

Until recently, the combination of sanctions (lifted by the Obama administration) and crashing oil prices had nearly bankrupted would-be nuclear power Iran.

The once-feared OPEC oil cartel, the longtime bane of the United States, is now nearly impotent.

Friends such as Israel have gained energy independence by fracking. In contrast, some European allies who have banned fracking out of environmental worries are more vulnerable to Russian, Iranian, and Middle Eastern pressure than ever before.

Fracking is not easy. It requires legally protected property and mineral rights, a natural entrepreneurial spirit, environmental concern, and a free-market. In other words, it is an American way of doing business.

— Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author, most recently, ofThe Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won, to appear in October from Basic Books. You can reach him by e-mailing author@victorhanson.com. © 2017 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Politically-fueled cop hatred has taken another innocent officer’s life


July 6, 2017
July 6 Page 1
July 6 Page 1July 6 Page 1Covers for July 6, 2017Covers for July 6, 2017Miosotis Familia (NYPD)

Politically-fueled cop hatred has taken another victim. Convicted felon Alexander Bonds, who had already assaulted an officer with brass knuckles, wrote on Facebook last September, “Police is f—-ts, and this ain’t no gimmick. That’s where your taxpayer money be going, to pay off your own people being murdered. N—-s ain’t taking it no more, Mr. Officer.”
Bonds chose just after the Fourth of July to act on his hatred, walking up to an NYPD mobile command post in The Bronx at 12:30 a.m. Wednesday to pump a bullet into the head of Officer Miosotis Familia, a 12-year veteran of the force. She died several hours later in the hospital.
The assassination of the 48-year-old mother of three comes as gun murders of officers continue to rise nationwide: up 9 percent this year, on top of last year’s 53 percent increase. Last Thursday in San Antonio, Police Officer Miguel Moreno was deliberately shot in the head while investigating a car break-in. The San Antonio police chief responded, “I’m sick of the police haters. We protect them. We defend them. And they give us a big F.U.”
Alexander Bonds’ anti-cop rhetoric echoes the Black Lives Matter-inspired vitriol spewed by previous cop assassins over the last three years.
Ismaaiyl Brinsley, who assassinated NYPD Officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos on Dec. 20, 2014, had posted on Instagram: “I’m Putting Wings on Pigs Today. They Take 1 of Ours . . . . .Let’s Take 2 of Theirs.” Gavin Long, who assassinated a sheriff’s deputy and two police officers in Baton Rouge on July 17, 2016, declared in a suicide note: “I must bring the same destruction that bad cops continue to inflict upon my people, upon bad cops as well as good cops.” Micah Johnson, a supporter of the New Black Panther Party and other black-nationalist groups, said he wanted to kill white people and white cops in particular before assassinating five Dallas officers on July 7, 2016.
Those assassinations were followed by gloating on social media. “That n—a that shot the cops is a legend,” read a typical Twitter message after Brinsley’s murder of Officers Liu and Ramos.
On Wednesday, a commenter on The New York Times Web page claimed that Alexander Bonds’ assassination of Officer Familia is an understandable response to racist cop violence: “Cops kill Blacks and always get away with it. Is it any wonder that this is going to happen as well? They know they have no chance in the courts. While I would never encourage something like this, it’s easy to understand his motivation.”
Actually, it is tragically easy to understand, though certainly not condone, the motivation, given the drumbeat of lies about the police that have been amplified by the media and the political establishment during the Black Lives Matter era.
At the memorial service for the five assassinated Dallas officers last July, President Barack Obama had the temerity to repeat his usual charge that policing was lethally and systemically racist.
Black parents were right, Obama said, to fear that their child could be killed by a cop every time he goes onto the street just for doing “something stupid.”
Obama’s preposterous charge recalled Mayor de Blasio’s statement that he worries “every night” about the “dangers” his son may face from “officers who are paid to protect him,” after no cop was indicted for the July 2014 death of Eric Garner.
These claims were ignorant. There is no government agency that has saved more black lives over the last two decades than the police. In fact, Officer Familia was manning the mobile command unit because shootings in the 46th Precinct are up over 29 percent through June 25, compared with the same period last year. It’s not the cops who have shot those victims, but other young minority males.
Yet again this month, The Washington Post spun its database of fatal officer-involved shootings as proof of racially biased policing, even though blacks are killed at a rate lower than their violent crime rate would predict, including their violent-crime rate against police officers.
Black males, 42 percent of all cop-killers in the last decade, are 6 percent of the nation’s population. A cop is 18¹/₂ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a cop.
The White House is no longer occupied by a supporter of the mendacious Black Lives Matter movement. And following the assassination of Officers Ramos and Liu, Mayor de Blasio has thankfully ditched the anti-cop rhetoric. But the lethal anger fomented by Black Lives Matter lives on, making criminals more likely to shoot at officers and increasing tensions on the streets. The only long-term solution is for political and police leaders to stand up and start telling the truth about crime and about the power of proactive policing to save lives.
Heather Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the author of “The War on Cops.”

Wrestling With the Complex Gospel According to Bob Dylan, Once Again


By Terry Mattingly
http://www.tmatt.net/
July 3, 2017

Image result for bob dylan scott marshall

When Bob Dylan tells the story of Bob Dylan, he often starts at a concert by rock 'n' roll pioneer Buddy Holly in the winter of 1959.

At least, that's where he started in his recent Nobel Prize for Literature lecture.

Something mysterious about Holly "filled me with conviction," said Dylan. "He looked me right straight dead in the eye and he transmitted something. Something, I didn't know what. And it gave me the chills."

Days later, Holly died in a plane crash. Right after that, someone gave Dylan a recording of "Cotton Fields" by folk legend Leadbelly. It was "like I'd been walking in darkness and all of the sudden the darkness was illuminated. It was like somebody laid hands on me," said Dylan.

That story probably sounded "rather strange to lots of people," said Scott Marshall, author of the new book "Bob Dylan: A Spiritual Life."

"What happens when somebody lays hands on you? If people don't know the Bible, then who knows what they'll think that means? … Dylan is saying he felt called to some new work, like he was being ordained. That's just the way Dylan talks. That's who he is."

For millions of true believers, Dylan was a prophetic voice of the 1960s and all that followed. Then his intense embrace of Christianity in the late 1970s infuriated many fans and critics. Ever since, Dylan has been surrounded by arguments – often heated – about the state of his soul.

The facts reveal that Dylan had God on his mind long before his gospel-rock trilogy, "Slow Train Coming," "Saved" and "Shot of Love."

One civil rights activist, the Rev. Bert Cartwright, catalogued all the religious references in Dylan's 1961-78 works, before the "born-again" years. In all, 89 out of 246 Dylan songs or liner notes – 36 percent – contained Bible references. Cartwright found 190 Hebrew Bible allusions and 197 to Christian scriptures.

Also, Dylan told People magazine in 1975: "I didn't consciously pursue the Bob Dylan myth. It was given to me – by God. … I don't care what people expect of me. It doesn't concern me. I'm doing God's work. That's all I know."

What does that mean? Marshall collected material from stacks of published interviews and has concluded that two words perfectly describe Dylan's approach to answering these questions – "inscrutability" and "irascibility." Plus, it's hard to know when Dylan is being "serious, cranky or playful."

Nevertheless, faith language always plays a central role. Marshall cites waves of examples, including a time when Dylan was asked if his raucous "Rainy Day Women #12 & 35" – with its "Everybody must get stoned" chant – was code for getting high. Dylan wryly noted that many critics "aren't familiar with the Book of Acts."

In his Nobel lecture, Dylan also stressed the role great literature has played in his life, dating back to grammar school days. Once again, there were religious themes.

"Moby-Dick," for example, combined all "the myths: the Judeo-Christian Bible, Hindu myths, British legends, Saint George, Perseus, Hercules – they're all whalers." "All Quiet on the Western Front" mixed politics, nihilism and horror, and Dylan noted that he has never read another war novel. In that book, "You're on the real iron cross, and a Roman soldier's putting a sponge of vinegar to your lips."

With "The Odyssey," he said readers have to live the tale, wrestling with gods and goddesses. "Some of these same things have happened to you. You too have had drugs dropped into your wine. You too have shared a bed with the wrong woman. You too have been spellbound by magical voices, sweet voices with strange melodies."

In the end, a song's impact on each person is what matters. "I don't have to know what a song means. I've written all kinds of things into my songs. And I'm not going to worry about it – what it all means," said Dylan.

Marshall believes one thing should be obvious: If Dylanologists want to understand Dylan's life and art they will have to wrestle with all of his songs, including those drenched in Godtalk. Biblical literacy is an essential skill in that work.

The bottom line is clear, according to Hollywood director Scott Derrickson, writing in the book's foreward: "Dylan has never recanted a single line from a single song."

Wednesday, July 05, 2017

Baseball should thank its lucky stars Aaron Judge is in Derby


July 4, 2017
New York Yankees' Aaron Judge hits a solo home run during the fourth inning of a baseball game against the Toronto Blue Jays in New York, Tuesday, July 4, 2017. (AP Photo/Kathy Willens)
New York Yankees' Aaron Judge hits his 28th home run of the season during the fourth inning against the Toronto Blue Jays in New York, Tuesday, July 4, 2017. (AP Photo/Kathy Willens)
Aaron Judge has cut a Ruthian swath through baseball’s first half of the season, and to that point, could anyone imagine the Babe turning down the chance to participate in a hypothetical 1927 Home Run Derby?
There is as much chance of that as the Bambino rejecting an offer of a six-pack of brews and a fistful of hot dogs on any day of the week ending with a “y.”
Now, generations later, we will all rise — or, alternately, all sit in front of our televisions, tablets and other streaming devices — when the Yankees’ larger-than-life linear descendant in right field takes part in Monday’s Home Run Derby in Miami, a day before the All-Star Game.
Of course, Judge is all-in on this promotional extravaganza, his formal declaration announced before Monday’s 6-3 win at the Stadium against the Blue Jays. Given a choice, No. 99 never had a choice. For while it may be a stretch to suggest that Judge’s presence in this more-or-less silly event that was created in 1985 to pump the ratings for ESPN is good for baseball, there is no doubt that his absence from the competition would have been embarrassing for the sport.
Judge is a phenomenon, a 25-year-old rookie who is leading the American League in all three Triple Crown categories plus walks, on-base percentage, slugging percentage, and OPS. He is the king of distance and exit velocity. More than that, he is a show-stopper, the leading AL vote-getter in the fan balloting for All-Star selection and the youngest to achieve that milestone since 24-year-old Ken Griffey, Jr. in 1994.
The show would have gone on without him next Monday, but it would have been sorely diminished. Destiny’s Child without Beyoncé.
“For me, it’s just going to be another batting practice … in front of 50,000 fans,” Judge said. “I’m just going to go out there and compete and have fun.
“There’s no pressure. If I go out there and have fun, there are no worries.”
Judge has hit the longest home run of the season at 495 feet, that one into the left-field bleachers at the Stadium on June 11 against the Orioles. The next day, he broke his own record for the hardest-hit home run of the Statcast era at 121.1 mph. His batting practice swings have become shows in themselves.
“You can really notice the buzz he creates on the road in BP,” said manager Joe Girardi, whose team opened the Stadium early Monday so the home fans could watch him take his swings. “I think [the Home Run Derby] is part of our game and it’s a part of our game that the fans really look forward to.
“He has a chance to go, and Gary Sanchez has a chance to go, and you never want to take honors away from players who earn them. I’m OK with the opportunity.”
There is no empirical evidence that taking part in the Derby has a negative impact on the second half of a participant’s season. Indeed, Griffey won it three times in eight tries from 1990-2000. But stars have declined to participate. Mike Trout reluctantly passed on the event more than once. Bryce Harper, who was runner-up to Yoenis Cespedes (then an Athletic) in 2013 at Citi Field, turned down an invite to this year’s event, saying on Sunday, “I just don’t feel like it.”
Judge, who has 27 home runs in his team’s first 81 games, took more than a week to declare himself a participant in the event that will also feature teammate Gary Sanchez, last summer’s pinstriped phenom. He said he had not had any dialogue with MLB in which the Commissioner’s Office might have encouraged him to do the right thing.
“I waited so long because my 100 percent focus was with my team on the field and the All-Star was secondary to that,” Judge said. “I didn’t feel it was the right timing to announce anything.”
It has been team-first for Judge throughout this first-half whirlwind through which his celebrity has grown as large as his 6-foot-7 frame. He is no showman — no Ruth in that regard — but he stops the show. Monday will be as close to appointment-viewing as anything baseball can present in this new age of sports as video entertainment.
“I’ve never seen anything like it and I don’t think any of us have,” CC Sabathia, 17 years a big-leaguer, said. “I won’t watch the [All-Star] Game, but I will watch the derby.”
They’ll all rise. And they will all pay attention.

THE STRANGE DEATH OF EUROPE

Douglas Murray's new book confronts the Islamization of Europe.


July 5, 2017

Image result for douglas murray the strange death of europe

After you turn the final page of Douglas Murray's 2017 The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, you may find yourself staring off into the distance, sipping absent-mindedly at your absinthe, planning your escape to New Zealand or better yet, Mars. You may enter a monastery or a gun store. You may immediately plan to have twelve children, or you may get sterilized.
The basic facts are few: after the mass slaughter of World Wars I and II, Europe faced a labor shortage. Europe voted in socialists, and promised cradle-to-grave benefits. To solve both problems, Europe imported large numbers of often Muslim laborers. The World Wars' horrors, documented in excruciating detail, followed by the collapse of European imperialism, caused many elites to feel ashamed of their own identity, and to promote cultural relativism and multiculturalism. Europe abandoned its Judeo-Christian roots and the concept of the nation-state. Europe's most theatrically "moral" and "enlightened" elites promoted "diversity," open borders and a denigration of European culture as the height of virtue. At the same time, non-European cultures were assessed as superior.
These trends reached their climax in recent years, when massive numbers of mostly Muslim migrants made their way toward Europe in rickety boats and fragile rafts, and Europe, led by Angela Merkel, announced, "Come on in. Our social safety net will support you with cash, housing, and healthcare. Our multiculturalism will elevate you above any critique." Among the migrants were some who indeed assessed their own culture not only as superior to European culture, but as the culture that should, through violence and terror, dominate the world. The inescapable boogeyman of this tale is simple mathematics. Muslims have more children; Europeans have fewer. "By the end of the lifespans of most people currently alive, Europe will not be Europe and the peoples of Europe will have lost the only place in the world we had to call home," as Murray puts it.
Similar territory has been covered by other books: Oriana Fallaci's 2002 The Rage and the Pride, Bat Yeor's 2005 Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, Bruce Bawer's 2006 While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within, Melanie Philips' 2006 Londonistan: How Britain is Creating a Terror State Within, Claire Berlinski's 2007 Menace in Europe: Why the Continent’s Crisis Is America’s, Too, and Mark Steyn's 2008 America Alone: The End Of The World As We Know It.
Murray addresses what has often been referred to as "the migrant crisis," dated from 2015, and he covers events as recent as December, 2016. Murray brings his own late-night, brooding, depth. This is a book that dares to relate life's big questions to current headlines.
The Strange Death of Europe's 320 densely-packed pages open with four irrefutable words: "Europe is committing suicide." There are ample shocks to be had when reading this book. Here is one: Murray tells the truth. Truth has been so demonized that we are used to speakers avoiding truth, the way a muddy dog avoids a bathtub. I found myself, more than once, turning to the copyright page to confirm that this was not a self-published book.
Let's begin with a few bullet points culled from The Strange Death of Europe.
* In December, 2014, Africans took a smugglers' boat from Morocco to Spain. A Christian prayed. The captain and crew systematically identified, beat, and threw overboard all Christian passengers. This is not an isolated incident. Christian passengers on other boats have been drowned. Not just Christophobia but also racism dominates on the boats. Economically better-off Tunisians and Syrians look down on, and outrank, darker skinned and poorer sub-Saharan Africans. Middle Eastern Muslims occupy the best seats on the boat and are most likely to survive any accidents.
* On September 27, 2016, a 27-year-old Pakistani migrant in Germany was arrested while publicly raping an Iraqi girl. The girl's father approached with a knife. The police shot him dead, presumably right in front of the little migrant who had just been raped. She was now orphaned, as well as being a six-year-old, stateless rape survivor. She is not alone. Women are regularly raped and pimped by their fellow migrants, who are majority young men.
* The November, 2015 terror attacks in Paris killed or injured over five hundred people. Seven of the nine terrorists had posed as Syrian refugees.
* An eleven-year-old British girl's buttocks was branded with hot metal with the letter "M" for "Mohammed." The Mohammed in question "owned" her, beat, raped, and tortured her, and pimped her to numerous other sexual sadists, all Muslims. When victims like her – there are uncounted thousands – sought justice in England, they were accused of being "racists." When MP Ann Cryer took up rape of underage English girls by Muslim men, she was accused of being an "Islamophobe." She required police protection. A Muslim man spoke up; he received death threats from his fellow Muslims. English authorities hushed up, and enabled similar grooming gangs for "more than a decade."
* In 2004, in Marseille, France, Ghofrane Haddaoui, a 23-year-old Muslima, was stoned to death for rejecting a Muslim man's advances. This is not an isolated incident. "UK police admitted that they had failed to investigate scores of suspicious deaths of young Muslim women because they had thought these potential honor killings were community matters."
These events begin to strip the veneer off Europe's approach to the "migrant crisis" as a warm, cozy and inspirational humanitarian triumph.
And here's one more anecdote. Visiting a migrant camp, Murray met a 31-year-old husband and father. Back home in Afghanistan, this man had been a school administrator. The Taliban ordered him to help them poison the water supply for hundreds of schoolchildren. Poisoning Muslim schoolchildren would advance their goal of eliminating education, which they see as un-Islamic. To urge him to comply with their plan, they tortured the man in unspeakable ways, including repeatedly raping him while telling him, "You have no god; we are your god; you must do whatever we say." "If anyone tries to send me back to Afghanistan," this migrant promised Murray, "I will kill myself."
Murray makes clear: he understands that many migrants are escaping hellish lives. But Murray has the courage to ask whether it is Europe's duty – or even within Europe's ability – to take in every person on earth living a hellish life. The Afghan made most of his trip overland. He could have stopped in any number of relatively peaceful and comfortable Muslim countries he passed through on the way. He didn't. He, like the other migrants, insisted on Europe, and, indeed, Western Europe.
Refugees do best when they are taken in by countries and cultures closest to their own. There are over fifty Muslim-majority countries in Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, Central and East Asia. Most are at peace and many are very wealthy. Migrants walk through these countries to get to Europe. Why? Aylan Kurdi, whose death photo was exploited as a passport for uncountable refuges, was not escaping war; his employed father, living as an Iraqi refugee in peacetime Turkey, wanted the better welfare benefits to be had in Europe.
Murray points out that the ummah, or international community of Muslims, has not responded to the "migrant crisis" with much urgency, generosity, or compassion. Fahad al-Shalami, a Kuwaiti official, explained that his country is unsuitable for migrants because it is expensive and suitable for workers, not migrants. Further, al-Shalami unabashedly stated, migrants posed a threat to his nation. "You cannot accept people who come from a different atmosphere, from a different place. These are people who suffer from psychological problems, from trauma." Saudi Arabia has 100,000 empty air conditioned tents it refuses to a single migrant. Saudi Arabia did offer to build 200 mosques in Germany to accommodate new migrant arrivals.
Murray, using facts and figures, shoots down the claim that current immigration policy benefits Europe economically. He argues that that policy is in fact a drain on national wealth, as significant numbers of current immigrants are more likely to take more out of the government coffers than they put in. He also argues that housing, schools and other social services are suffering. Greens who had previously argued for the benefits of zero population growth are suddenly arguing for the benefits of huge and sudden increases in population. In short, Islamophiles are willing to say anything as long as it serves their agenda. In any case, "immigrants get old as well," Murray observes, in response to the argument that Europe is "graying" and needs fresh blood. Expecting immigration to keep up welfare benefits for an aging population is "a pyramid scheme." Regarding the alleged cultural benefits of current immigration policies, Murray remarks, "If there is a bit more beheading and sexual assault than there used to be in Europe, then at least we also benefit from a much wider range of cuisines."
Open borders is "a deliberate policy of societal transformation: a culture war waged against the British people using immigrants as a battering ram." Multiculturalism is a lie. "Amid the endless celebrations of diversity, the greatest irony remains that the one thing people cannot bring themselves to celebrate is the culture that encouraged such diversity in the first place." Murray quotes Samuel Huntington, "Multiculturalism is in its essence anti-European civilization. It is basically an anti-Western ideology." Multiculturalism is "self-annihilating."
Murray quotes opinion-leaders who insist that European cultures have no identity, or at least no identity worth saving. A Swedish Minister of Integration told new arrivals that Swedes envy them because they have a culture, whereas Sweden has no culture worthy of mention. If one challenges this, the response is that white, Christian Europeans are the most evil people in history, who have done nothing but invade, colonize, and enslave. In 2006, the Swedish Prime Minster, Fredrik Reinfeldt, said, "Only barbarism is genuinely Swedish. All further development has been brought from the outside." "Destruction is exactly what our societies deserve," Murray writes, paraphrasing the pro-migrant mindset. Europe "must be uniquely punished for the deeds of history."
Masochism is the hip European's most potent drug. Murray cites Norwegian politician Karsten Nordal Hauken who was raped by a male Somali migrant. Hauken expressed his own "guilt." "I had a strong feeling of guilt … I was the reason that he would …be sent to a dark and uncertain future in Somalia."
In 2015 a "No Borders" activist was gang-raped on the France-Italy border by Sudanese migrants. Her comrades urged her not to report the rape. At first, she did not. When she finally did, her comrades accused her of "spite."
In January, 2016, Selin Goren was raped by three migrants in Mannheim. She lied to police and said her attackers were German. She later told the truth and then posted, on Facebook, a letter to her attackers. She wrote, "I am so incredibly sorry … you aren't safe here, because we live in a sexist society … you are beset by increasing and more aggressive racism …  I will not allow it … I will not stand idly by and watch as racists call you a problem. You are not the problem. You are not a problem at all."
A German intellectual told Murray that "the German people were anti-Semitic and prejudiced and deserved to be replaced." "Only modern Europeans," Murray writes "are happy to be self-loathing in an international marketplace of sadists."
Islam, on the other hand, must be celebrated as a font of all good things, as in the 1001 Islamic Inventions exhibit in the London Science Museum. When medieval scholar Sylvain Gouguenheim published an essay arguing that the texts from Ancient Greece said to have been saved by Muslims were in fact preserved by Syriac Christians, Gouguenheim was condemned for "Islamophobia." Scholars publishing on questions so simple as the origins of the Koran must publish under pseudonyms and live in hiding. Western Europeans, no less than terrorists, adhere to this speech and thought suppression. "The one thing our societies really do hold sacred and impervious to ridicule or criticism are the claims and teachings of Mohammed."
To facilitate their war on the West, pro-migrant activists hammer away at mind-numbingly repetitious Nazi analogies. It is 1939, and Muslim migrants are just like Jews in Nazi Germany, and open borders activists are just like the saviors of Anne Frank. This scenario is not just false, it is fantastical, self-flattering and tantamount to Holocaust denial.  
Murray asks why Eastern Europe is so different. I can only hope he might read my own 2015 article, "Western European v Eastern European Responses to Mass, Unvetted, Muslim Migration."
Groups paying the highest price for Europe's approach to "multiculturalism" include, of course, women, homosexuals, and Jews. One Parisian said in 2015, after the November attacks of that year, "Before, it was just the Jews, the writers, or the cartoonists." Tommy Robinson, not a member of the elite, was rendered a non-person by the UK for his resistance. Murray comments on the double standard here. "It is infinitely easier to criticize generally white-skinned people, especially if they are working class, than it is to criticize generally darker-skinned people whatever their background." "In 2003, a report into anti-Semitism by the European Monitoring Center was quietly shelved when it found that the upsurge in anti-Semitic activity in Europe was caused by a rise in attacks on Jews by young Muslims." On Bastille Day in 2014, "worshipers at a synagogue in Paris were barricaded inside by immigrant protesters chanting, 'Death to the Jews.'" In Paris in 2006, Jew Ilan Halimi was tortured for three weeks, and killed, at the hands of Muslims.
Murray, like many others, doesn't dwell on the fact that the "migrant crisis" is a crisis for the sending countries, as well as the receiving ones. The migrants are not those most likely to suffer in war. They are not the poorest of the poor, the elderly, women, and children. The migrants are overwhelmingly healthy, young men with enough cash to pay considerable smugglers' fees and enough sophistication to navigate any obstacles using iPhones and instructions sent to them by "open borders" activists.
As young, healthy, resourceful men who are able to achieve their goals, they are, in short, the raw material for an army – literal or metaphorical. They could be heroes. They could be in their home countries fighting to defeat ISIS. They could be working to build a better future for their wives and children. They could be using their drive to improve their homelands, not to outwit border patrols and the disbursers of welfare checks, not to compete to prove that they are more pathetic and more worthy of Europeans' pity than the next "refugee," not to join with other migrants in mass sexual assaults on the women, girls and boys of naïve hosts offering them refuge.
What happens to a poor, unstable country when its most energetic and income-generating population rises up, en masse, and answers Europe's siren call? At least one scholarly study, focused on Pakistan, argues that male migration has profound negative impacts, especially on the women left behind. Mainstream press and aid organization accounts of the impact of the loss of husbands, fathers, and sons, such as this one, this one, this one, and this one, are heartbreakingly grim. If a single "open borders / refugees welcome" social justice warrior cared about anything but their own virtue signaling, they would not be luring men to Europe, but traveling to migrant-sending nations to improve conditions there. No doubt these couch warriors would assess any such assignment as too much work, with too many mosquitoes and not enough hot showers.
Murray repeatedly cites opinion polls that show that a majority of Europeans don't want mass Muslim immigration into their countries. He mentions Enoch Powell, the conservative politician who delivered the 1968 "Rivers of Blood" speech that voiced many of the concerns that Murray outlines in his book. Powell was removed from the political scene. And yet, Murray says, about 75% of the public agreed with him. Ray Honeyford, a headmaster, wrote a 1984 article critical of the effect of multiculturalism on education. Honeyford's career in education was ruined.
Given these overwhelming pressures, one must ask: what made early counter-jihadis so much more insightful and courageous than their peers? The answer, I think, is comparable to the characteristics that typify Holocaust rescuers. Rescuers, according to scholar Nechama Tec, are independent outsiders with universalistic values that transcend race and ethnicity. Just so with counter-jihadis. Not a few counter-jihadis were and are gay: Pim Fortuyn, Bruce Bawer, Tommy English, and Murray himself.
Murray remarks, "If a concern is felt by a majority of the public for many years and nothing is done to address it, then trouble and resentment are certainly stored up. If the response is not just to ignore the concern but to argue that it is actually impossible to do anything about it, then radical alternatives being to brew … at worst they will surface on the streets."
Murray does not address one possibility that seems all too plausible: war. Ayaan Hirsi Ali warned of war in June, 2017. Political scientist and Arabist Professor Gilles Kepel discussed the possibility in September, 2016, as did Daniel Pipes in 2007. Tommy Robinson, in a June, 2017 interview, expressed the despair he feels "as a father of three." "There's no light at the end of the tunnel … When people get desperate – it's like they're forcing people down that path" to war.
In a chapter entitled "Tiredness," Murray says that maybe Europe is dying, as per Oswald Spengler in Decline of the West. Murray recognizes that the West is founded on "Judeo-Christian culture, the Ancient Greeks and Romans, and the discoveries of the Enlightenment."
"For centuries in Europe one of the great – if not the greatest – sources of energy came from the spirit of the continent's religion … it drove Europe to the greatest heights of human creativity." Murray says that a couple of forces destroyed Christianity. One was nineteenth-century German biblical criticism, that desacralized previously sacred texts. The other was Darwin.
In place of Christianity, no substitute has arisen except for nihilism and hedonism. "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life," Murray quotes an atheist bus campaign slogan.
Scholarship cannot fill in the gap left by retreating Christianity. In a lapidary set piece, Murray skewers an academic conference. "A group of academics and others had gathered to discuss the history of Europe's relations with the Middle East. It soon became clear that nothing would be learned because nothing could be said … the aim of this game – for game it was – was to maintain the pretense of academic inquiry while making fruitful discussion impossible."
Art, too, cannot replace religion. It is contemptuous of its audiences. It has journeyed from creating works that cause the viewer to say, "I wish I could do that," to works that cause the viewer to say, "Even a child could do that." "The art of our time seems to have given up any effort to kindle something else in us."
Nature abhors a vacuum. People have always asked, and will always ask, "What am I doing here?" Western Europeans no longer have answers to such questions. Islam is sure of itself. Islamists and their Islamophile allies guarantee that Islam is above reproach. Young Europeans seeking meaning will convert to Islam.
In spite of all this, Murray recognizes that, as atheist author Don Culpitt wrote in 2008, "Nobody in the West can be wholly non-Christian. You may call yourself non-Christian, but the dreams you dream are still Christian dreams … the modern, secular world is itself a Christian creation."
Murray writes, "The culture of human rights, for instance, owes more to the creed preached by Jesus of Nazareth than it does, say, to that of Mohammed … Europe is a collection of towns and villages. Leave a village and you will eventually stumble upon another. And in any low-built area the first thing you will see is the church, placed at the heart of the community. Today, where these hearts of the community are not wholly dead and converted into housing they are dying … I cannot help feeling that much of the future of Europe will be decided on what our attitude is towards the church buildings and other great cultural buildings of our heritage standing in our midst … A society that says we are defined exclusively by the bar and the nightclub, by self-indulgence and our sense of entitlement, cannot be said to have deep roots or much likelihood of survival. But a society which holds that our culture consists of the cathedral, the playhouse and the playing field, the shopping mall and Shakespeare, has a chance."
Murray, who had previously self-identified as a practicing Anglican, but now identifies as an atheist, insists that any real return to Christianity is impossible. One gets the sense that Murray believes that only the Amish and pockets of Hasids still take the Bible seriously. Murray sounds so genuinely sad in these passages, so deeply elegiac, that I wished I could hand him a copy of my own book, Save Send Delete, in which I argue for Biblical faith as a reasonable choice for a modern, thinking person. I can only hope that he might stumble across this review and email me. I will send him a free copy.
Murray's book, as well as all discourse on Europe's overwhelming and rapid Islamization, could benefit from mention of the scholarship of Robert Putnam. Marxist social engineers act on the belief that existence precedes essence – there is no such thing as an essential human being. Human beings can be manipulated to be whatever those in power want them to be. If the elite decides that rapid Islamization is a good idea, people can be made to accept that through proper training from their betters.
Such training kicks in immediately after every terror attack. We know exactly what Sadiq Khan will say after the next, inevitable, stabbing, bombing, or decapitation. "This has nothing to do with Islam. We cherish our diversity. We are going to go about our daily lives." Those statements, repeated robotically ad nauseam, masquerade as avuncular reassurances. In fact, they are more sinister. They are 1984-style dictatorial scripts, brainwashing the masses and red-lining the limits of acceptable speech. This is what we are required to say. We may not ask, "What can we do differently to avoid such terror attacks?" We may not ask, "Isn't it time we refuted the teachings that inspired the murderers?" or, "Who is minding the border?"
Social engineers are wrong. There are essential aspects to a human being. Normal people inescapably do better when they have a sense of community and heritage. When the support of community and heritage is ripped from them, they react negatively. As John Leo wrote in 2007, summing up Robert Putnam's then-recent research, "immigration and ethnic diversity have a devastating short- and medium-term influence on the social capital, fabric of associations, trust, and neighborliness that create and sustain communities."
Indeed, if the very anti-Western, pro-Islamization forces were to learn that, say, Mali, a majority Muslim country in Africa, were to become, through immigration, majority atheist Chinese in this century, those very activists would be on fire with concern for "indigenous" Malians. Funny how being an "indigenous" person is highly valued by anti-Western forces when one is talking about a country like Mali, and that very status becomes an insult when one is talking about white Europeans.
Murray's book reminds us of an important fact. Believe it or not, left-wing counter-jihadis and Islamophiles like NPR, The Southern Poverty Law Center, the ludicrously self-identified "anti-fa" or "anti-fascists" all have something significant in common. Both claim that counter-jihad is an exclusively right-wing phenomenon. Left-wingers want to discredit and marginalize counter-jihad by labeling it "hard right." Right-wing counter-jihadis want to monopolize credit.
Murray reminds us that the early counter-jihadis in Europe were not right-wingers at all. As a child, Oriana Fallaci had engaged in real anti-fascist activity in Nazi-occupied Italy. Retired sex bomb, animal rights activist, and vegetarian Brigitte Bardot is no right-winger. Pim Fortuyn, Theo Van Gogh, Bruce Bawer, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the staff of Charlie Hebdo, Tommy English, leader of Gays Against Shariah UK: none of these are right-wingers. In the US, neither are Sam Harris, Bill Maher, and Eric Allen Bell. On the other hand, Republican President George Bush went to the Islamic Center of Washington, DC, six days after 9/11, to say, in the company of CAIR's Nihad Awad, that "Islam is Peace." Recently, I had a dizzying experience with a Catholic priest. When it comes to abortion, women or married priests, he is an arch-conservative. When I tried to talk to him about jihad, that same arch-conservative priest suddenly sounded like an "open borders" advocate. You can read our exchange here.
Opposing FGM, child marriage, and the murder of people with whom you disagree are not exclusively right-wing stances. In a 2009 Gallup Poll, zero percent of surveyed Muslims thought homosexuality morally acceptable. Opposing the murder of homosexuals is not an exclusively "'right-wing" position. Counter-jihad is too important to risk alienating any potential allies by labeling counter-jihad as a purely "right-wing" concern. Counter-jihad is a universal, human concern.

Tuesday, July 04, 2017

The Scars of Our Nation’s Violent Birth


The new Museum of the American Revolution in Philadelphia preserves our bloody road to independence.

By George Will — July 1, 2017
Related image

Monday, July 03, 2017

Who’s Killing Charlie Gard? And Why Won’t the Vatican Help Him?


Socialism kills. Even when it doesn't need to. Because it wants to.


June 30, 2017

Related image

Charlie Gard is cradled in the arms of his mother Connie as dad Chris Gard puts his arm around her
I complained in 2015 that villains were leaking out of C.S. Lewis’ fiction and getting jobs at the Vatican. The latest escapee is mealy-mouthed John Wither, the death-dealing bureaucrat with a heart of styrofoam from That Hideous Strength. Now a real-life clone of Wither is leading the Vatican’s once-prophetic Pontifical Council for Life.
You might remember Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, that Council’s new president, for his taste in religious art. As Catholic art historian Maureen Mullarkey documented, Paglia is best known for hiring a gay activist artist to decorate his cathedral with homo-erotic nudes.
But Paglia just distinguished himself in moral theology. He’s signing on to the death sentence that British and European courts have issued for little Charlie Gard. As Daniel Payne of The Federalist sums up this tragic case (in a pointed and lucid moral analysis worth reading slowly and carefully):
The baby, Charlie Gard, has been terminally ill since his birth, unable to move his limbs or breathe on his own.
His parents wish to bring him to the United States for a long-shot experimental treatment. The courts object, believing Charlie should be allowed to die “with dignity.” The European Court of Human Rights declined to hear an appeal, effectively sealing the boy’s fate.
Against the backdrop of this barbaric abuse of judicial authority, the Catholic Church—the world’s greatest defender of the right to life, and long a moral bulwark against state intrusion into the rights of the family sphere—has decided that the courts in this case are basically right.
The Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life yesterday released a statement that waffles between limp-wristed equivocations and outright willful ignorance of church teaching. If this is where the Vatican now makes its stand, then the most vulnerable members of society — which is to say all of us, at some point — are in trouble.
Indeed. I wrote here just weeks ago about Pope Francis’ decision to sack most of the members of the Vatican’s pro-life powerhouse. Then replace several of them with openly pro-choice thinkers. Now we see the outcome: The institution that ought to be the last line of defense for the sanctity of human life is reduced to nattering inanities.
So many issues come together in the case of Charlie Gard. Let’s go through them one by one.

Parental Rights


The Catholic church follows natural law in seeing that parents have the first, second, third, and fourth claim to crucial decisions about their children. Even intolerant Catholic states in past centuries that persecuted “heretics” rarely tried to interfere with non-Catholics teaching their religion to their children. Think about that. The Inquisition wouldn’t tear children away from parents for the sake (it thought) of their eternal salvation. That is how basic the parent/child bond really is. We know that by natural reason. Only parents who deprive their kids of basic human rights like food, education, or medical care, deserve to be pre-empted by the state. And even then with great care.
In Charlie Gard’s case, the state is turning the natural order on its head. It empowers panels of doctors, medical bureaucrats, and international lawyers to rip Charlie from his parents’ loving care. Because they want him to live. But the state wants him to die.

Socialist Medicine and Rationing


As we all know, Britain has a National Health System. It rations care. Since we live in a fallen world of limited resources, some rationing must happen. In freer societies like ours, the government ensures a basic level of care for the truly needy. We expect people with means to make their own arrangements for insurance.
So we shouldn’t be shocked if either the British National Health Service or some private U.S. insurer opted not to pay for a long-shot experimental treatment for a child. Charlie’s parents don’t have an unlimited claim on the resources of their neighbors.
But that’s not at issue here. Thanks to an international grassroots fundraising campaign the Gards have found donors. They’re willing to cover all the costs of flying Charlie to America and offering him this treatment that might save his life. But the British authorities, backed up by the European Union and now the Vatican, have ruled that Charlie’s parents cannot try to save him. Instead he will be left to die slowly of hunger and thirst. His parents won’t even get to take him home to die. Like poor abandoned Terri Schiavo, he must wither away in a sterile hospital bed, surrounded by strangers.

Property Rights and Freedom


Why would a government deny parents who have found the money the chance to try to save their child’s life? What possible motive could be at work?
The only one I can think of is this: They resent the slightest hint of private initiative. Many on the British left resent the fact that wealthy people can “opt-out” of NHS care. (They hire private physicians, or fly to the U.S. for care.) Such “privilege” offends their egalitarian principles — which are nothing more than a prettified version of the deadly sin of Envy. Remember that the man consumed by Envy would rather trash your car than steal it. He’s consumed, finally, by hatred for the Good. Like Satan glaring at innocent Adam and Eve in Milton’s Paradise Lost.
Private choices also flout socialists’ hunger for control. For a society of termites to whom they can play at being Queen. Bureaucrats in China didn’t care whether the peasants could afford to feed more children. The state would cull them anyway, to serve its infamous One-Child Policy. Rich or poor, all must be treated exactly alike. Likewise, Stalin’s thugs who collectivized agriculture in Ukraine didn’t worry about which farmers’ seed corn or milk-cows they were seizing. The socialist impulse despises such distinctions. That’s what people mean when they complain about “inequality.” It is all that they mean.
In the socialists’ hive vision of an ideal society, individual initiative counts for nothing. No, less than nothing. It is an irritant. A pesky reminder of human dignity and freedom — two causes that socialists have written off as lost, or dismissed as ugly vestiges of “bourgeois” Christian morals.
Such antiquated ideas must be expunged. And people like Charlie Gard are eggs we must break for the omelet.