The Progressive Pyramid of “Moral Authority” (8f)

current-top2The Answers, Finally!

I have devoted the last five posts to discussing the elevation of Political Islam to the top of the Progressive Pyramid of “Moral Authority.”  My goal has been to convince you that this event has happened in point of fact.  If I have succeeded even partially then there remains the disturbing question of why such a thing could be contemplated, let alone done by the elite Progressive Left (ePL).

The first step in identifying a credible answer is to review this pyramid’s history.  The first four decades, the 1950’s through the 1980’s shows that the ePL spent 40 years in direct or indirect support of the only ideology / organization in the world that was credibly capable of destroying Western Civilization, that being totalitarian communism, primarily led by Soviet Union (i.e., the U.S.S.R.) and secondarily by Communist China.

communistevilLet there be no mistake, the ePL spent at least four decades seeking to advance the most evil, genocidal form of human ideology/government ever in history towards its goal of world domination.  The following summary of communism’s genocidal murder from The Black Book of Communism only scratches the surface of the crimes, terror and repression carried out in the name of  Marxist “good intentions.”

screen-shot-2017-02-22-at-7-24-08-am

Summary of Estimated Total Human Beings Killed by Communism from The Black Book of Communism

This is the ideology / government that the ePL faithfully supported in more than forty years of unremitting, tireless work.  Their only regret appears to be that, due to courage and commitment in the West, culminating in the Reagan/Thatcher/Pope John Paul II led victory, totalitarian communism collapsed in upon its utterly evil self.

This raises the obvious question:

“If communism hadn’t collapsed between 1989 and 1991, but rather continued to be a credible existential threat to Western Civilization, would the ePL have elevated a sexual predator and the gay marriage movement to their pyramid’s peak in the 1990’s and 2000’s, respectively?”

I believe the answer is a clear no.  That is, the ePL during this period was forced to elevate people / groups other than those who posed credible existential threats to Western Civilization, because there was no alternative.  However, sometime in the 2000’s, they came to the realization that a new force had arisen that carried within it the potential for destroying Western Civilization, that being Political Islam.

The Answers

I’m sorry to have to say it, but the ePL’s embrace of the ideology / group (i.e., Political Islam) that believes the previous holders of the top spot (i.e., the gay movement) should be executed  isn’t illogical, but certainly is treacherous.  It’s not illogical because the ePL doesn’t ultimately care about the good of real flesh and blood human beings.  What they do care about is:

  1. their hatred for Western Civilization and all that created and sustains it
  2. tearing Western Civilization down.

None who actually cared about human life could possibly have enthusiastically supported totalitarian communism for generations.  The tragic truth about these regimes was available to anyone with the desire to know long before the Soviet Union fell.  A few prominent sources include:

Nor were there any admissions of guilt or requests for forgiveness by the ePL when The Black Book of Communism was published in 1997.

So, my answer to the original question “Who occupies the top-spot on the Progressive pyramid of moral authority and how are they chosen?” is (with both of the following statements from the ePL’s perspective):

Under desirable circumstances (e.g., 1950’s — 1980’s and 2010’s) the top-spot belongs to that group or organization that poses the most consequential existential threat to Western Civilization.

Under special circumstances (e.g., 1990’s — 2000’s) the top-spot belongs to the person, group or organization that most effectively preserves Progressive Leftist power and/or heightens their credibility.

You see, actual flesh and blood human beings are simply disposable means to their ends.  Let’s assume that the ePL prefers a situation in which gay lives are valued.  However, when this desire is placed in competition with their ultimate goal to destroy and remake Western Civilization in their image, it’s simply no contest.

To Whom Does this Answer Apply?

Am I here stating that all people who profess Progressive beliefs are pursuing the above goals?  Not in the slightest.  In fact, the vast majority of human beings in the West who support Progressive policies have good intentions.  The problem is that, for a variety of reasons, the ePL has convinced many people to follow their lead while obfuscating their actual goals.

First and foremost, many gentle souls have thought long and hard about this world’s evils and what can be done to improve the situation.  To many of these people the ePL is the practical means by which their hopes are being brought into reality.  They believe that the ePL shares all of their beliefs, including their desire that all people find peace, prosperity and safety in a better world.

While this may be true in the fantasy utopian long-term, they don’t appear to understand that the ePL pursues the necessity for death and destruction on a monumental scale in the near/mid-term.  Wether it’s 100 million people killed under communism or over 100 gays murdered/maimed in Orlando or 1,400 young girls enslaved and sexually abused in Rotherham, or countless other acts of intimidation and terror, it’s just the cost of doing business while destroying a civilization.  That is, the necessary destruction of Western Civilization as a prerequisite for creation of this supposedly “better world” is, simultaneously, aggressively pursued and purposefully ignored.

But there are additional reasons for being drawn into the ePL’s ideological orbit.

For example, due to the ePL’s dominance in academia, mass media (news and entertainment), charities and Mainline Protestant denominations, among other highly visible organizations, the path of least resistance to a sense of moral superiority is to align oneself with these institutions.  Given the complexity of the world and the limitations of time and attention, many people simply accept the ePL narrative as a matter of convenience.  They are simply placing their trust in people and institutions that have “risen to the top” of our culture.

Additionally, there’s no avoiding the fact that it is much safer from a personal, business, and social perspective to be aligned with Progressive Leftism.  It’s not people and businesses who support Progressive ideology who are being hounded, slimed and fired for their beliefs.  In fact, a person who is clearly associated with the Progressive Left has much greater protection from consequences for their beliefs and actions than do the “irredeemable deplorables” who live outside the ePL bubble.

screen-shot-2017-02-27-at-7-53-09-am

Super Bowl 50 Propaganda for Marxist Terrorists

How, you might ask, do these people not notice the ePL’s highly public support of those who are seeking our death and destruction?  Here we enter the realm of propaganda and big lies, in which monsters are magically converted into do-gooding heroes:

  • Spies for totalitarian, genocidal communist regimes become martyrs for civil liberties
  • Murderous Marxist terrorist thugs become heroic fighters for social justice
  • Perpetrators of Islamist terror become victims of Western colonialism who are only seeking to right historic wrongs.

We err greatly by underestimating the power of idealistic, utopian thought to obfuscate hard reality.  In explaining this dynamic I simply cannot improve on this final paragraph from The Black Book of Communism‘s Forward.

screen-shot-2017-02-23-at-6-28-36-am

Excerpt from The Black Book of Communism

The Progressive Pyramid of “Moral Authority” (8e)

current-top2Why Did They Do It?

Way back in my first post on Political Islam’s ascension I said:

For anyone unfamiliar with the elite Progressive Left’s ideology this turn of events seems absurd, if not impossible.  How could they possibly justify such an (apparently) illogical and (apparently) treacherous act?

I’ll provide an answer, but first would like to discuss a couple more examples of where the elite Progressive Left’s elevation of Political Islam has led.  This is being done to (hopefully) increase the likelihood that the eventual answer will somewhat less shocking.

Slavery Was Terrible in the West, But was Not So Bad in Muslim Countries

georgetownuniversity

Georgetown University, Washington D.C.

If there’s one thing that everyone (except for a tiny and powerless lunatic fringe) in Western Civilization could agree upon, it’s that the institution of slavery was fundamentally, completely and deeply evil.  This conclusion spanned history and culture, and thus constituted one of the few remaining areas of civilizational moral agreement.

I’m sorry to have to tell you that this consensus is being openly challenged by a  a tenured Georgetown University (yes, the big one in Washington D.C.) professor and holder of the Al-Waleed bin Talal Chair in Islamic Civilization, Jonathan Brown.

screen-shot-2017-02-18-at-5-03-51-amThe lecture in question was held on February 7, 2017 at the International Institute of Islamic Thought in Herndon, Virginia.  One attendee, Umar Lee, was particularly incensed by its content.  He had quite a bit to say about it, providing a summary of good Professor Brown’s (of the highly respected Georgetown University, home to the Al-Waleed bin Talal Chair in Islamic Civilization) position.

While the lecture was supposed to be about slavery in Islam Brown spent the majority of the lecture talking about slavery in the United States, the United Kingdom and China. When discussing slavery in these societies Brown painted slavery as brutal and violent (which it certainly was). When the conversation would briefly flip to historic slavery in the Arab and Turkish world slavery was described by Brown in glowing terms. Indeed, according to Brown, slaves in the Muslim World lived a pretty good life.

Professor Brown’s lecture included the following statements, which are excerpted from a detailed post that includes an audio recording of the entire event.

When the questioner persists in his challenge to Brown’s take on slavery in Islam, Brown goes on to say that it’s an undeniable fact that Muhammad held slaves.

“Are you more morally mature than the Prophet of God?” Brown says. “No, you’re not.”

So, there you have it. If Muhammad held slaves, how bad could slavery really be?

“I don’t think it is morally evil to own somebody because we own lots of people all around us, and we are owned by people,” says Prof. Brown of Georgetown University — which last year announced plans to repent for its own profiting from the US slave trade. 

On the matter of concubines — in Muslim society, female sex slaves imprisoned in a harem — Brown says that we can’t judge past civilizations by our own sexual standards, because “we think of people as autonomous agents, and the consent of those autonomous agents is what makes a sexual act acceptable.” He goes on:

“For most of human history, human beings have not thought of consent as the essential feature of morally correct sexual activity. And second, we fetishize the idea of autonomy to where we forget, who is really free? … What does autonomy mean?”

Please, don’t quickly look away and try to forget that this happened at highly respected Georgetown University, home to the Al-Waleed bin Talal Chair in Islamic Civilization.  This is something that only those who securely sit atop the Progressive Pyramid, and know it, would feel empowered to say.

rotherham-440x330Rotherham Child Sex Scandal

The fact that Professor Brown, at Georgetown University, home to the Al-Waleed bin Talal Chair in Islamic Civilization, provides philosophical justification for Islamic slavery and sexual predation may seem troubling but not particularly relevant.  However, a gang of Islamists in the United Kingdom has turned these ideas into brutal, practical reality.

In the United Kingdom the poison of Progressive Left multiculturalism has been present for longer and at much higher doses than we have experienced in the United States.  As a practical consequence, Political Islam has sat atop the pyramid for much longer there.  Thus, it has been emboldened and enabled to the extent that an unprecedented child sex scandal has occurred – and may well still be underway.

An article in The Federalist provides a good summary.

new investigation by the Daily Express has found that the massive Rotherham child sex exploitation ring whose discovery rocked England two years ago is not only still in operation, but is as strong as ever. Reports from social workers, police, residents, and abuse victims all said the same thing: It’s still happening on an “industrial scale.”

In 2014, an independent inquiry led by Alexis Jay, a former senior social worker, found that men of Pakistani origin had groomed at least 1,400 young girls for sexual exploitation over the previous 16 years. These girls, as young as 12, were variously raped, abducted, tortured, and forced into prostitution. Keep in mind, this happened—and is still happening—in the heart of England, not some far-flung banana republic.

The report, known as the Jay Report, found “blatant” failure by city officials and police who didn’t prosecute the well-known and well-documented crime ring out of fear of being accused of racism. So they hushed it up, ignored it, and blamed the victims themselves.

rotherham-615246This long-standing, active, remorseless ring of sexual predators was predominantly comprised by Muslim men from Pakistan.  It is for this reason that local authorities, including law enforcement, shirked their responsibilities.  Let’s be clear, in the United Kingdom so powerful was the position of Political Islam that authorities would rather allow 1,400 young girls to be sexually preyed upon than do anything to stop this vile crime.

sun280814A very recent report on this situation covered the conviction of some of the perpetrators.  Here’s how The Sun article of February 2, 2017 began.


A report into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham said more than 1,400 children had been groomed, trafficked and raped in the town over a 16-year period

VILE members of a Rotherham sex gang shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’ today as the group were handed sentences totalling more than 80 years for their crimes.

Six men were given sentences between 10 years and 20 after the court heard details of how two young girls were groomed and sexually abused in the South Yorkshire town between 1999 and 2001.

There were emotional and chaotic scenes at Sheffield Crown Court after two of the defendants shouted “Allahu Akbar” as they were led from the dock.

As their supporters began shouting down into the court, one of the victims shouted back “justice is served” as police moved into the public gallery.

Let this sink in…the criminals shouted “Allahu Akbar” as they were led from the dock and they had vocal supporters in the courtroom.  Yes, after decades of inaction these men were finally brought to justice.  But the fact that this outrage lasted so long, and may well still be occurring, speaks volumes to the power associated with sitting atop the putrid Progressive pyramid.

How Do You Respond?

So, which of the following three statements more accurately describes your response to the above information:

  1. Complete and utter outrage, and full willingness to say so to anyone
  2. A guilty inner sense of surprise and disapproval, but also an understanding that no-one but your most trusted confidant (if even them) can know
  3. Anger and disgust that an irredeemable deplorable who is certainly an Islamophobe and so also must be a Homophobe, Racist, Sexist, and many other evil things would dare to pass judgement on one of Western Civilization’s victim cultures (you know, that weakling civilization that, but for their defeat in 1683 at the Gates of Vienna, would have conquered all of Western Civilization, but I digress).

Where you fall in this continuum will strongly impact how you respond to my finally answering the question at hand.

The Progressive Pyramid of “Moral Authority” (8d)

current-top2The Tell

There can be legitimate debate on when Political Islam was raised to the Progressive pyramid’s top position.  However, in 2016 the reality of this elevation became crystal clear.
On the early morning of June 12, 2016, a lone gunman, Omar Mateen, entered the Pulse (gay) Nightclub in Orlando Florida and proceeded to systematically murder 49 people and wound 53 others.  While conducting this monstrous rampage, Mateen  was heard shouting “Allah Akbar.” He also called 911 during the attack

pulse-nightclub-2

Pulse Nightclub Victim

to pledge allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.  ISIS claimed responsiility for the attack Sunday afternoon.

This event created the worst possible ideological situation from the perspective of the elite Progressive Left because it pitted the two most

160615-victims-composite-49up-horiz-jsw_0f05005d9f84f0d06750adf7362ea598-nbcnews-fp-1200-800

The human beings murdered at the Pulse Nightclub by an Islamist

favored identity groups on the Progressive Pyramid against one another: Political Islam and the Gay Movement.  Thus, the Progressive Left was forced to choose which of these two groups would receive the support and protection due the Pyramid’s top position.  And, choose they did, with Political Islam clearly the winner.

How can I be so certain of this conclusion?  Well, let’s start from the top.  Were there any situation that could move the Obama Administration off of their absurd position that Islamist terror has nothing to do with the religion of Islam, this would be ckwplwdxaaahpzsit.  However, the Obama Administration pointedly declined to identify the source of this now active threat against the lives and well-being of the Gay Community.  In their public statement, the White House refused to identify Omar Mateen as an Islamic terrorist.

While Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton’s hillary-clinton-1st-pulse-statementinitial response can reasonably be categorized as sympathetic, she also declined to connect the ideology that led to this terrorist attack with  Political Islam.  To her credit, she did call for increased international cooperation in the fight against ISIS.  However, she did nothing to change her previous position that Islamic terror has nothing to do with the religion of Islam.

Whillary-clinton-pulse-statementhile it is true that the entire religion of Islam isn’t our enemy, it certainly is also true that the radical extremists in Political Islam have declared war on Western Civilization and are waging that war by many and sundry means, including most definitely terrorist attacks like that conducted at the Pulse Nightclub.  It’s also true that Hillary Clinton and the entire Progressive Left includes discussion of the threat posed by Political Islam under the category of “hateful rhetoric against Muslims.”

sally-kohn-pulse-statementProgressive commentators further down in the hierarchy made no bones about the primary goal of protecting Political Islam.  One example of this perspective is the tweet by Sally Kohn.  Note how she attempts to tar every other religion in the world with the sin of extremist violence.  It’s not that her statement can’t be deemed as “true” if we look over all history.  However, she utterly ignores and seeks to obfuscate the fact that in this current time it is Political Islam that is conducting the vast majority of terror attacks world-wide (and the primary victims are Muslins who follow a different theological line than do the terrorists).

Unfortunately, the worst example of protecting Political Islam at any cost (to my knowledge) comes from the current Co-Moderator of the PC(USA), the Rev. Denise Anderson.  She, on June 12, 2016 released a post titled “You Are the Man! Or Why the Church Should Feel Convicted Right Now.”  In it, aside from briefly describing the carnage at the Pulse Nightclub to create context (consisting of 53 words), she had only the following words of sympathy for the victims.

Let Christians be confounded by (or, worse, silent in the face of) such a vile act. Let the church offer prayers and sympathy

Let’s be generous and add these 23 words (although the first 12 are preparing the ground for her accusations against Christianity) to the above 53, to count 76 words consumed that can reasonably be associated with a sympathetic reaction to this ghastly, evil event.

However, she spends 615 words preemptively attacking any Christian that might dare to wonder about a tie between this murderous event and Political Islam.  And she attempts to accomplish this goal by claiming that the Christian Church is the source of far more murders of gays than is Political Islam.

Church, we are the man!

This particular gunman took out fifty people in one night. How many LGBT sisters and brothers have we — the Church — gradually and systemically killed over a longer period of time?  He and we have been in the same business.  We’re simply not as efficient as he was.

Let’s be clear, this Christian leader who so deeply supports gay rights barely touched on the terror and suffering of the Pulse Nightclub victims because she was so monomaniacally focused on giving cover to Political Islam.

You see, it’s not Political Islam — that sends to the gallows, beheads, stones and throws gays off of tall buildings (in front of enthusiastically cheering crowds) — that needs to do any soul-searching. No, perish the thought (after all, Political Islam is the victim here)!  Rather it’s the Christian Church in the United States, where gay marriage has peacefully become the law of the land, that must repent of evil!

This is what happens to a mind addled by postmodern ideology / theology and addicted to virtue signaling.  And finally, just to be clear, the fact that a huge majority of General Assembly Commissioners enthusiastically voted the Rev. Anderson into office shows this mindset to be dominant in the PC(USA)’s national leadership.

So, when Political Islam reached out and did to gays in the United States what it does under Sharia Law wherever it holds power, the Progressive Left chose to provide cover rather than, finally, identifying and speaking out against this ideology.  That response is a clear tell that Political Islam sits atop their pathetic pyramid.

The Progressive Pyramid of “Moral Authority” (8c)

current-top2The Appalling Elevation (continued)

Unfortunately it will require a second post to plumb the depths of President Obama’s appalling betrayal.  In the previous post I focused on the message sent to and heard by the people under threat from Political Islam.  In this post I’ll focus on this message’s content from the point of view of Political Islam.

For the reader’s convenience, this is what he said (emphasis added).

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.  But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.

When Christians think about “slander” against their religion what typically comes to mind are intentional, extreme provocations such as “piss Christ” and “dung Madonna.”  However, the criticisms and contemptuous comments regularly made in the normal flow of social discourse about Christianity certainly don’t rise to the level of “slander.”  That is, in the general Christian understanding, there is a wide-ranging scope for legitimate debate.

However, when adherents of Political Islam hear the word “slander,” a much broader definition and severer application applies.  This issue was well covered in a 2008 post in the American Thinker, from which I provide the following excerpts.

Thus writing in the early 1990s, the esteemed Pakistani scholar Muhammad Asrar, whose opinion was accepted by Pakistan’s Shari’a Court, defined “blasphemy”, focusing on the Muslim prophet, as:

Reviling or insulting the Prophet (pbuh) in writing or speech; speaking profanely or contemptuously about him or his family; attacking the Prophet’s dignity and honor in an abusive manner; vilifying him or making an ugly face when his named is mentioned; showing enmity or hatred towards him, his family, his companions, and the Muslims; accusing, or slandering the Prophet and his family, including spreading evil reports about him or his family; defaming the Prophet; refusing the Prophet’s jurisdiction or judgment in any manner; rejecting the Sunnah; showing disrespect, contempt for or rejection of the rights of Allah and His Prophet or rebelling against Allah and His Prophet.

And in accord with classical Islamic jurisprudence (for example, The Risala of al-Qayrawani [d. 996]), Madani argues that anyone who defames Muhammad — Muslim or non-Muslim — must be put to death.
Intrepid historian David Littman has been chronicling, nearly alone, for almost two decades, the concerted efforts of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to Islamize international human rights instruments, and apply the Shari’a “standard” for blasphemy — pace the current Kambakhsh and Halabjee travesties — to all nations. Littman warned, for example, about the development of the Shari’a-based 1990 Cairo Declaration (i.e., the so-called Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam), to which all member states of the OIC are signatories, publicizing the immediate objections of a brave Senegalese jurist, Adama Dieng. Dieng, a Muslim, who subsequently became a United Nations special rapporteur, then serving as secretary-general to the International Commission of Jurists, declared forthrightly in February 1992  that the Cairo Declaration, under the rubric of the Shari’a,

…gravely threatens the inter-cultural consensus on which the international human rights instruments are based; introduces, in the name of the defense of human rights, an intolerable discrimination against both non-Muslims and women; reveals a deliberately restrictive character in regard to certain fundamental rights and freedoms..; [and] confirms the legitimacy of practices, such as corporal punishment, that attack the integrity and dignity of the human being.

So, when President Obama speaks of “slander” to the adherents of Political Islam what they hear is submission by the President of the United States to their totalitarian interpretation of the word.  In particular, since it is “blasphemy” to (see more above):

  • refuse the Prophet’s jurisdiction or judgment in any manner
  • reject the Sunnah (i.e., the record of the prophet Muhammad’s teachings, deeds and sayings, silent permissions (or disapprovals)
  • show disrespect, contempt for or rejection of the rights of Allah and His Prophet or rebelling against Allah and His Prophet

how can a non-Muslim possibly live without slandering, let alone blaspheming against Allah and His Prophet?  And, those who purposely mock Allah and/or His Prophet clearly should be put to death.

raheel-raza-diary-logo

Raheel Raza: Moderate Muslim Activist

Yes, I understand that a huge number of practicing Muslims do not adhere to the above ideology.  I give thanks to God for their kindness, peacefulness and wisdom.  But the fact remains that there is a significant portion of Islam, which I here call “Political Islam,” that believes these things and actively seeks their imposition by many means, including extreme acts of violence.

But you need not take my word for it.  Here is how Raheel Raza of the Clarion Project describes the Islamic extremism that I am here calling Political Islam.

Islamic extremism is driven by an interpretation of Islam that believes that Islamic law, or sharia, is an all-encompassing religious-political system. Since it is believed to be proscribed by Allah (Arabic for “God”) sharia must be enforced in the public sphere by a global Islamic state. As such, Islamic extremists consider it to be the only truly legitimate form of governance and reject democracy and human rights values.

Why, you may well ask, would our President have made such a disgraceful statement to the United Nations?  Are he and his advisors utterly ignorant of Political Islam’s ideology?  Are they trying to appease the violent irrationality of Political Islam?  Are they purposefully signaling their submission to Political Islam’s project?  Who besides the President himself can possibly know?

insult-islamHowever, the practical consequence is definitely knowable — the encouragement of Political Islam’s project to obtain submission of Western Civilization to their theocratic totalitarian ideology by any and all means.  Thus, regardless of if President Obama’s statement was “well intentioned” or “ill intentioned,” the practical consequences are demoralization and destruction of the flesh and blood human beings who are fortunate enough to live within Western Civilization’s confines.

15france-ss-2-superjumbo-v3

Aftermath of Islamic Terror Truck Attack in Nice France

The Progressive Pyramid of “Moral Authority” (8b)

current-top2The Appalling Elevation

A Parable

A family lived between two houses. The house on the right was occupied by a family who followed religion A and the family on the left religion B.

The family in the middle house had utter contempt for both religions.  So they placed signs that ridiculed both religions in their front yard.  A member of the family on the right confronted a member of the middle house family, saying that their actions were disrespectful, ignorant and cruel; but that was the end of it.  A member of the family on the left told a member of the middle family that their action had slandered their religion, and, in a highly emotional outburst, said that the entire family deserved death for their actions.

As you might expect, this threat caused great concern to the middle family.  They called the local police chief and asked him to make a statement regarding this developing situation.  A short time later the police chief, at a public event, made the following statement.

The future must not belong to those who slander religion B.  But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see towards religion A.

The middle family was shocked and demoralized.  For, here they were, under credible threat of being murdered by a neighbor, and the police chief had said that “the future must not belong” to them.  Their futures would certainly be taken from them were the the family on the left to act on their murderous threats.  And, this ultimate destruction of their futures had to all intents and purposes been implicitly affirmed by the police chief.

The Elevation

Throughout the 2000’s the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, located in Paris France, had been publishing cruel comments and cartoons about many world religions, including Islam.  These actions sparked outrage in many of these religion’s followers.  However, across the Islamic world the outrage included official threats of death.  In mid-September of 2012 Charlie Hebdo published satirical cartoons of Muhammad.  Once again, many in the the Islamic world responded with emotional demonstrations and threats of murderous violence.

Thus, on September 25 2012, when Barak Obama, President of the United States and leader of the free world, ascended to the podium of the United Nations General Assembly, all were listening with great intensity.  And, this is what he said.

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.  But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.

Let’s be absolutely clear.  When Charlie Hebdo mocked Christianity, or when Andres Serrano displayed a photograph of a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of his urine, or when Chris Ofili displayed a painting depicting a black Madonna decorated with elephant manure, there was outrage.  However, no leader of Catholicism or the Eastern Orthodox Church or the Anglican Communion or any other Protestant denomination called for their execution.  Nor did Christians riot demanding that they be executed.

So, when President Obama spoke to the United Nations, Charlie Hebdo and other mockers of Christianity were under no threat from that religion.  However, they were under credible and imminent threat from Political Islam.  And, in this charged environment the President chose to specifically condemn slanderers of the “prophet of Islam” and to say that “the future must not belong” to them.  Yes, he threw in the second sentence regarding Jesus Christ, churches and the Holocaust, but once again, no-one from these religions was demanding that people be put to death.

By this statement President Obama implicitly raised Political Islam to a higher moral plane than all of the other world religions.  For, whereas all religions other than Islam were to be respected, only Political Islam could demand that the disrespectful be put to death.  Thus, when citizens of Western Civilization were found to be under Political Islam’s death penalty for speech, the President of the United States singled these citizens out for condemnation and rejected their right to a future.  It is hard to imagine a more complete or cold abandonment of specific human beings or of Western Civilization.

At the time, embedded as it was in the final stages of a Presidential election campaign, this troubling statement by President Obama passed by as just one in a torrent of events.  However, looking back, I have concluded that this moment is a credible candidate for when the elite Progressive Left announced the ascension of Political Islam to their pyramid’s top position.  Few if any took note, particularly not the gay community, who continued to falsely imagine that their hold on the top position was secure.

Postscript

In early January 2015 France experienced a series of terrorist attacks conducted by radical Islamists that included a massacre at the offices of Charlie Hebdo.  Twelve people were murdered in this incident.  The Islamist terrorists who carried out this atrocity were heard to shout “We have avenged the Prophet Muhammad” and “God is Great” as they carried out their gruesome work.

After these attacks, in a wholly symbolic act, leaders of the Western World gathered in Paris to march in solidarity with the murdered.  Neither President Obama nor John Kerry could be bothered to attend.  It’s hard to imagine the demoralization caused by the leader of the free world not caring enough about a direct and vicious attack on Western Civilization to attend this event, or to at least send his Secretary of State.  It did , though, put a clear period on President Obama’s 2012 abandonment.

charlie-hebdo-offices

Charlie Hebdo office after the January 2015 massacre

The Progressive Pyramid of “Moral Authority” (8a)

current-top2
2012 – Present

Sometime after 2010 the elite Progressive Left demoted the gay community from their pyramid’s top position and replaced them with a group that believes homosexuals should be executed.  However, it is not just homosexuals who were betrayed by this vile act, but also women, children, all religions (or lack thereof) other than Islam, and any vestigial pretense of support for Western Civilization.

2010-11-22-iran_gayexecution

Execution of accused homosexuals in Iran, 2005

That Political Islam supports the execution of homosexual persons is beyond debate.  According to the Washington Post, the following ten countries can punish homosexuality by death:

  1. Yemen (Sharia Law)
  2. Iran (Sharia Law)
  3. Mauritania (Sharia Law)
  4. Nigeria (Sharia Law)
  5. Qatar (Sharia Law)
  6. Saudi Arabia (Sharia Law)
  7. Afghanistan (Sharia Law)
  8. Somalia
  9. Sudan (Sharia Law)
  10. United Arab Emirates (Sharia Law)

Another site adds Iraq (Sharia Law) and Pakistan  (Sharia Law) to this list.  Note that, of this dozen countries, eleven are governed by Sharia Law, which is defined as

the religious law forming part of the Islamic tradition. It is derived from the religious precepts of Islam, particularly the Quran and the Hadith.

The following quotes from the Hadith (a collection of traditions containing sayings of the prophet Muhammad that, with accounts of his daily practice, the Sunna, constitute the major source of guidance for Muslims apart from the Koran) and Sira (the traditional name for biographies of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad) make it absolutely clear why adherence to Sharia Law absolutely requires such punishment.

gayisis-640x480

Homosexual being executed by ISIS

Abu Dawud (4462) – The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, “Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.”.

Abu Dawud (4448) – “If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death.”

Sahih Bukhari (72:774) – “The Prophet cursed effeminate men (those men who are in the similitude (assume the manners of women) and those women who assume the manners of men, and he said, ‘Turn them out of your houses .’ The Prophet turned out such-and-such man, and ‘Umar turned out such-and-such woman.” 

al-Tirmidhi, Sunan 1:152 – [Muhammad said] “Whoever is found conducting himself in the manner of the people of Lot, kill the doer and the receiver.” 

Reliance of the Traveller, p17.2 – “May Allah curse him who does what Lot’s people did.”

I will leave discussion of women, children, all religions (or lack thereof) other than Islam, and Western Civilization for another time, though here too are appalling betrayals.  However, I do note that, of all the countries that the Washington Post shows as supportive of gay (and women’s, children’s, religious, etc.) rights, most are directly or indirectly tied to Western Civilization and none are Muslim majority.

For anyone unfamiliar with the elite Progressive Left’s ideology this turn of events seems absurd, if not impossible.  How could they possibly justify such an (apparently) illogical and (apparently) treacherous act?  In fact, even the holders of the 2000+ pyramid’s peak were gobsmacked when events revealed that this demotion/promotion had certainly occurred.

The explanation for and implications of this development will require a fair number of posts to cover.  The following post will explain why I have chosen 2012 to be the year in which Political Islam was elevated to the top spot.

The Progressive Pyramid of “Moral Authority” (7b)

2000s-maskfalls2012-2016: The Mask Falls

I ended the previous post with the following observation.

The stunning rapidity of success in achieving gay marriage combined with the apparent ascendency of a permanent Progressive national majority under Barack Obama had profound consequences for the Progressive Left, those being that they:

  1. Concluded U.S. public opinion was under their control, enabling them to do as they pleased
  2. Assumed Hillary Clinton was assured to be elected President, ushering in eight more years of a weaponized Federal Government assaulting all in resistance
  3. No longer needed to hide their true beliefs.

These beliefs led to actions by many gay marriage supporters that appalled a large segment of the nation’s citizenry.

Events

As is so often the case, the earliest signs that something was amiss occurred in California.  Between 2000 and 2008 the state was roiled by numerous political controversies associated with gay marriage.  In 2008 the California Marriage Protection Act received enough signatures to be placed on the November ballot. It passed with 52% of the vote, but ultimately is struck down by the courts.

While this could be the story of Judicial overreach (which it is), the issue relevant to this current discussion is the violence and intimidation tactics used by the gay marriage movement both during and after this exercise of legitimate political debate.

A good overview can be found in this Heritage Foundation paper.

Supporters of Proposition 8 in California have been subjected to harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, at least one death threat, and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry. Arguments for same-sex marriage are based fundamentally on the idea that limiting marriage to the union of husband and wife is a form of bigotry, irrational prejudice, and even hatred against homosexual persons. As this ideology seeps into the culture more generally, individuals and institutions that support marriage as the union of husband and wife risk paying a price for that belief in many legal, social, economic, and cultural contexts.

brendan-eich-firedThese assaults culminated in the 2014 forced resignation of Mozilla CEO and co-founder, Brendan Eich.  His resignation was forced due to the discovery that he had contributed  $1,000 in support of Proposition 8.

Events such as these, occurring on the “Left Coast” likely didn’t appear relevant to most people living in the Midwest.  However, that sense of security was about to change in a big way.

chick-fil-a-valdosta-georgia-n-saint-augustine-road-chick-fil-a-chicken-sandwich-fast-food-restaurant-lowndes-county-valdosta-gaIn 2012 the Chick-fil-A fast food company was attacked for, as described in Wikipedia (as of this post date):

The Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy was a controversial topic focused around the American fast food restaurantChick-fil-A following a series of public comments made in June 2012 by chief operating officerDan T. Cathy opposing same-sex marriage.

The gay rights movement, with the full support of numerous major city mayors, attempted to boycott and intimidate the company.  However, unlike in California, this onslaught was met and repulsed by a groundswell of popular support.

One might have thought that this defeat would have given pause to the Progressive Left.  However, with the 2013 Supreme Court ruling in support of gay marriage, they came roaring back with a vengeance.

sweet-cakes-comIn 2013 a lesbian couple asked Sweet Cakes bakery to provide a wedding cake for their marriage.  The owners declined to participate in a gay wedding on religious grounds. Rather than just going to another bakery that didn’t have these issues, the couple filed a complaint with the State of Oregon that eventually led to the imposition of a $135,000 fine for “damages” to the couple in question.  This vindictive response to the shop owner’s exercise of their deeply held religious beliefs shocked many people.  They began to realize that there was no “live and let live” philosophy at work in the aftermath of the gay marriage victory.  Rather, there was what looked to all intents and purposes like a “scorched earth” policy in which the religious freedom of Christians was being openly assaulted.

memories-pizza-indiana_0That concern rose to outrage with the Memories Pizza incident in 2015.  This event occurred within the larger battle over Indiana’s Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).  Memories Pizza underwent a vile campaign of hatred and intimidation, carried out by radical progressive groups. The whole sorry affair was initiated when Crystal O’Connor, owner of Memories Screen-Shot-2015-04-01-at-17.09.07-188x300Pizza in Walkerton, IN was trusting enough of a reporter to share how she would live out her Christian beliefs in a hypothetical situation that she had never actually experienced.  She said that while Memories Pizza would not refuse anyone service, they would refuse to cater a same-gender wedding.

Cropped-Walkerton-Pizza-TweetThe Progressive left’s outrage machine switched into high gear, generating a campaign of hatred and potential violence that caused the shop to close down.  Although they were eventually able to reopen, this event, occurring as it did in the heart of the Midwest, was noted and considered by many citizens in surrounding states.

Discussion

The events of 2012-2016 opened the eyes of many citizens who had previously not given much thought to, or even generally accepted the Progressive Left’s narrative that they were the kind, honest, wise people who were seeking everyone’s common good.  In point of fact, the very public actions and statements of the Progressive Left showed them to be vindictive, cruel and dishonest.  In particular, they showed a hatred for traditional Christianity that burned brightly enough to be noticed by even those who were not normally focused on things political.

The conclusion of many was that they had been lied to.  While the “Ozzie and Harriet” label was certainly applicable to some specific gay couples, the media narrative was nothing other than a falsehood that hid the true nature of the Progressive Left.

Although Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 Presidential election for many reasons, who can doubt that a significant component of her Midwest debacle arose from voters in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania taking note of the Progressive Left’s vile hatred of and cruelty towards anyone who dared to say or act against their policies.  Candidate Hillary Clinton only confirmed those concerns when she spoke of those ‘irredeemable’ ‘basket of deplorables’.

The falling of the Progressive Left’s mask might have been recoverable had they quickly realized the problem and firmly replaced it.  However, so cataclysmic was their loss of the Presidency to Donald Trump that all rational thought disintegrated into reactions far more primal, and true to their actual character.

However, prior to this something truly extraordinary occurred with respect to the Progressive moral pyramid’s top position.  This occurrence was just as revealing of character, but of far greater immediate danger to the nation.

The Progressive Pyramid of “Moral Authority” (7a)

2000sThe 2000’s+

After elevating President Bill Clinton to the top of the pyramid in the 1990’s the Progressive Left’s credibility had been severely diminished.  With the controversial election of George W. Bush to the presidency in November of 2000, the stage was set for a change in the top position.

However, the radical Islamic terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 disrupted all normal political / propaganda operations.  The sheer magnitude of the attacks, the loss of life and the nation’s temporary unity disrupted the Progressive Left’s work.  Eventually they would regroup around the so-called “peace movement,” leveraging intelligence failures and chaos of war into a cohesive opposition.

Although these peace groups (e.g., Code Pink) were placed near the top of the progressive pyramid, I don’t believe that they ever achieved the pinnacle.  The Progressive Left’s experience from the 1950’s to the 80’s had likely convinced them (temporarily it turns out) that elevating people or groups to the top who directly or indirectly support the goals of the nation’s mortal enemies was a losing strategy.

Rehabilitation and success required the elevation of a group who were credibly both a minority and victims of discrimination.  The Gay Rights movement was a viable candidate due to their already established political / social organization and history of experiencing actual discrimination.  The problem was that their public image from Gay Pride parades and other in-your-face lifestyle behaviors didn’t necessarily generate a sympathetic response in many citizens.

The answer, brilliantly conceived and executed upon, was to recast Gays as “Ozzie and Harriet,” but who just happened to be the same gender.  What followed was an avalanche of TV and movie characters who, while being Gay were otherwise the kindest, coolest, most reasonable and decent people on the planet.  For example, of the “The 50 Greatest Gay TV Characters” at least 45 fall into the 2000+ time span.  While it’s certainly true that these are the actual characteristics of many Gay people, the falsehood here is that being Gay somehow makes it far more likely that you have these positive traits.  Thus was the Gay Marriage Movement moved to the very top of the Progressive Pyramid.

The payoff for this ascension was nothing less than the destruction of a central pillar of Western Civilization — the institution of Christian marriage.  The goal was to erase the definition of Christian marriage.

To understand just why this erasure was so important, let me share a conversation that I had with someone who was an early adopter.  I was speaking with a person who had leadership in a local church of a mainline denomination.  Although gay marriage wasn’t officially legal then, their church decided to “bless” same-gender relationships, in effect declaring them to be marriage from a religious perspective.

Numerous same-gender couples came forward, and their relationships were enthusiastically blessed by the congregation.  All was well, as love had triumphed.  However, some time later three men approached the pastor and asked that their relationship be blessed.  This unexpected extension caused consternation and confusion.  Their last comment about this situation was that since the definitional boundary for marriage had been erased, there were no grounds on which to oppose blessing a threesome.

My point here isn’t that the acceptance of polygamy is a certain consequence of same-gender marriage.  Rather, it is that, by destruction of this boundary, our culture’s ability to maintain any stable definition of marriage or family has been powerfully undermined.  The resulting social chaos and personal suffering will create fertile ground for growth of the Progressive Left’s social and political power.

The strategy of persuasion via social and media hype was successful beyond all expectations.  For, whereas in 2008 Democratic presidential candidates still claimed to support the traditional definition of marriage (wink, wink), by 2013 the Supreme Court had made same-gender marriage the law of the land.

Certainly, many citizens were outright convinced that gay marriage was only right and proper.  However, I contend that another large segment retained deep concerns, but acquised anyway with the hope that this act would encourage social cohesion.  That is, just as many citizens voted twice to elect an African-American to the presidency in the hope that this would finally remove the horrific stain of racism, so too they accepted gay marriage in the hope that this would somehow bridge the gap between straight and gay peoples.

The stunning rapidity of success in achieving gay marriage combined with the apparent ascendency of a permanent Progressive national majority under Barack Obama had profound consequences for the Progressive Left, those being that they:

  1. Concluded U.S. public opinion was under their control, enabling them to do as they pleased
  2. Assumed Hillary Clinton was assured to be elected President, ushering in eight more years of a weaponized Federal Government assaulting all in resistance
  3. No longer needed to hide their true beliefs.

Events would eventually show all three of these conclusions to be wrong.  We will take up one thread that unraveled into the Progressive Left’s current mental breakdown in the next post.