Special Opinion by Charles Landis.

On Thanksgiving eve, I received a notice from FaceBook that their independent fact-checker, Politifact, has determined that I posted a quotation of Patrick Henry that was partly false as to his position on limited government. Specifically, I posted a picture of Patrick Henry upon which was written the famous quote “give me liberty or give me death.” Also was written. “Not give me free college, free healthcare, free housing, and make my neighbors pay for it.” My crime, apparently, was thinking Patrick Henry would not be supportive of giving a lot of free stuff or, worse, was not a Socialist Democrat.

The famous quote of Henry was reported as given in a speech he gave at the Second Virginia Convention in 1775 . Historians have said there is no record of Henry actually saying  “Give me liberty give me death.” However, there has never been any dispute that Henry spoke about the tyranny of England and that he would fight and die for freedom. A distinction without a difference.

All of this is only an assumption because Face Book did not tell me what  was false or partly false, or why. It is a kind of Mao Tse-Tung thing when he ruled Communist China and said “let a thousand thoughts contend as a thousand flowers bloom”; he then established re-education camps to ensure correct thinking. A refugee from one of these camps explained it to me this way: In the dead of night she was arrested and taken from her home in Beijing  and confined in a “re-education” camp in a remote rural area. She was not charged with a crime other than she had been reported as having false thoughts. That is, thinking as one would as in the old cultural norms of China; not in accordance with the truthful and correct thinking of the cultural revolution.

In the camp, with others, she was re- educated in how to think correctly. There was no sentence for a certain period of time. To be released, you had to convince your leader that you understood what your false thinking was  and what the correct thinking was. Eventually she was released, escaped to Hong Kong, and became an exchange student at a university in Washington.. Another day, the rest of the story.

Being educated in politically correct thinking is not only in communist/socialist countries; we have, for example the NY Times 1619 Project which rewrites all of our history since the founding.  Also, schools from elementary to college level teach revisionist history with abandon.  Even here on the Eastern Shore there are those who think my book “An Introduction to the History of Virginia’s Eastern Shore. A collection of Essays on Important Persons and Events”, was “fake” history. (As opined by a social justice warrior).[CL1] . They do not say what was fake or false, but I have otherwise learned that they believe the “real” history of the Shore was of social injustice and economic oppression of Black people. Here again I was left to figure out what crime of false or incorrect thinking I was guilty of.

In the final banality and commonality of it all, Face Book, Mao, and the social justice warriors on the Shore assert I am guilty of false or incorrect thinking, I must figure  out what my crime is, confess, and do penance for redemption.

Note. In  links provided by FB fact checkers, I am informed both “mechanical and human” means are used to determine whether a post is true or false. It appears that both are programmed to identify and link certain words to flag as untrue or false. In my case, Patrick Henry (patriot)  linked with free stuff (limited government) alarmed/alerted the fact t checker people/thing and thus decided false or not true. Insidious. Perfidious.

Special Opinion to the Mirror by Charles Landis

In 1951, Hannah Arendt published The Origins of Totalitarianism which is considered the most important book written on the subject in the 20th century. In 1963, after attending the trial of Adolph Eichmann in Israel for Nazi war crimes, she wrote a book about him and coined the phrase “the banality of evil.” Her thesis was the evil of Nazism under Hitler and communism in Russia under Stalin, did not happen because of the fanaticism of one dominating man but by ordinary people blindly following orders (or propaganda as of Joseph Goebbels).

While I was familiar with Arendt, I did not understand the importance until, while living in Geneva, a German friend who worked in a Swiss bank, invited me to visit his family’s home in a small village near the Zurich border.

My friend’s father had been a general in WW II and fought on both Eastern and Western fronts in both WWI and WW II . After the War, he was taken to Fort Dix for interrogation where he learned English.

Shortly after arrival, the General took me outside and pointed at a massive chimney on the side of the house which was embossed with a giant Russian white bear. He pointed at the bear and emphatically insisted that WW II was really all about the Versailles settlement after WW I, Russia, and communism. The General grew up in Silesia and was raised in the Prussian military and cultural tradition; a soldier who only followed orders and knew nothing of atrocities.

That evening I was invited to meet the mayor at the local beer hall attached to the mayor’s home. Here I was introduced to a man who offered me a ride to Heidelberg which I intended to visit the next day. While driving through the Black Forest, the man explained he also had learned English at Fort Dix where he had been taken for interrogation after the War. The reason, he said, was because he was in the SS and in charge of the special security unit that guarded Hitler. I asked him to tell me about Hitler and he responded that “Hitler was good old man” and that all the bad things that were done were done by the bad people around him, not ordered by Hitler. Note. In the years since, studies have been done that show there are no written orders given by Hitler to do all the horrendous things that were done. Hitler simply made it clear what he thought and others gave orders believing what Hitler thought was as orders and penalties would be severe for failure to do. Ordinary people followed blindly.

After arrival in Heidelberg, I met a young Jewish couple from Brooklyn who were returning from Israel after working for a year on a Kibbutz (a collective farm). We decided to have a beer at a cave near the University where I had heard students gathered. Note. Heidelberg University was the Nazi university during the Nazi reign. Upon descending into the cave via a spiral stair case into several candlelit rooms, we were invited to join a half dozen students; all tall, blond, and Nordic looking, which contrasted sharply with my black bearded Jewish friend who looked much like an orthodox Rabbi. Shortly, the conversation turned to whether what happened under Hitler could happen again. My Jewish friends said they believed the cultural history of the German people argued against and what happened under Hitler was that a criminal element had taken over the government and Nazism would never happen again. Th e students said yes, it could and in any country and referenced Hanna Arendt and her book The” Origins of Totalitarianism. ”

Over the years I have often reflected on those conversations and my own experience before that visit to Germany when I was assigned as a young 2nd lieutenant to a special mission activity under Headquarters Command at what is now Joint Base Andrews. Initially, I worked at what was then called Suitland Hall, which sounded like a private girls school, but was in fact headquarters of OSI (Office of Special Investigations). At this time, pursuant to an executive order of President Truman in 1947, a requirement was established requiring everyone working for the federal government to report the names of all organizations they were a member of or attended meetings of. These were checked against lists of organizations considered subversive by the House Committee on Un-American Activities and the Department of Justice. If there was a match, a background check was ordered and visits were made to the subject’s neighbors homes and inquires made of neighbors and associates to assess loyalty.

On the HCUA list was the church I belonged to and the United World Federalists, a world peace advocacy group which a friend had invited me to one of their meetings. Under the executive order, anyone could accuse you of being subversive, you could be relieved of duty or discharged, and you would never know what the charge was or who made it. I was then assigned to a special operations group at Andrews as a adjutant to the group commander with a top secret clearance. The commanding General instituted a program which required officers to arrange invitation to subordinates’ homes during a social occasion for purpose of getting to know family members, neighbors, and friends of subordinates to assess loyalty. While I was under an order, required to obey, and not question, I protested as violation of constitutional rights. The order was subsequently suspended. Why did everyone else follow blindly?

As Arendt says totalitarianism/authoritarianisms can come from the right and the left. However it is noted that socialism is the common denominator; Nazism was national socialism, Russian USSR was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, China is the Peoples Republic (certainly not a republican form of government as required of every state in our Constitution). One could as well add Cambodia under Pol Pot, Castro’s Cuba, and others that want-to-be.

Today, the left considers conservatives and Republicans authoritarian/totalitarian fascist Nazis and white supremist. The more convincing argument is the Democrat Socialist Party is where the threat of authoritarianism/ totalitarianism. Is most evident.

Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s masterful minister of propaganda said, if you repeat a big lie over and over again, people will believe it, and “think of the press as a great keyboard the government can play.” This is what the MSN does 24-7. Think also of the lefts suppression of free speech on college campuses, in news reporting, and the intolerance of any opinions other than what fits the narrative of the left. Think of the cancel culture and the efforts to rewrite our history and destroy monuments thereto. Think of all the free stuff they promise and people will blindly follow.

Above all, think of the fundamental changes in or governance the Democrat Socialists strive: control of both houses of Congress that will permit adding two more Democrat states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, with 4 more senators and control for 50 years; elimination of the electoral college and of protection of minorities by reduction of rural areas to fly over; and, think of packing the Supreme Court, which would give one party control of all branches government and a one party country.

Yes, Hannah Arendt was right. The promise of the Democrat Socialist Party will lead to a totalitarian regime wrought by ordinary people persuaded by propaganda and the banality of evil.

Note. This commentary is by Charles Landis and is largely based on recent studies by the Hover Institute and the Heritage Foundation.

It is very probable we will not know who was elected President on No v.4.  Because Trump supporters prefer in person voting  over mail in  ballots, Democrats prefer mail in, and as much as 50 % of electorate will vote absentee, it is probable Trump will   declare victory based on the count at that time.  However, Democrats predict a “blue wave” from mailed in ballots, some of which may not be mailed until days after Nov. 3.

 Some states do not permit verification of signatures of millions of mail -in ballots to begin until Nov. 3., for example such key states as Pennsylvania. Michigan, and Wisconsin. Verification is very time consuming and there will be many contested ballots and demands for recounts based on allegations of fraud or inability to accurately count ballots. It is very possible some states may not be able to certify results by the Dec. 8 deadline. Consider, also, nearly  300 counties have dirty lists where there are more on registrar roll than residents.

Note. The Heritage Foundation study shows 1,300 convictions for voter fraud and related issues since 2016 elections. These are convictions, not allegations, of which there are many more. Hover Institute study reports there are already  279 law suits  filed in 2020 in 45 states.

The Electoral Vote Count Act of 1887establishes  December 8 as the deadline date for states to submit certified lists of electors to Congress. If there are any contests or controversies remaining unresolved, the Act provides for Congress to decide which electors, if any, will cast heir state’s ballots. Then the Electoral College  meets Dec.14. Further, if a state is not able  to certify votes by December 8, , because of  contested after time ballots or other litigation, as opined in SCOTUS decision in Bush v Gore, the state legislatures may take back appointment of elector decision from voters and vest in  the  legislative branch. This would require special superseding legislation which would again entail time and litigation, especially  if legislative bodies are split.

 Again, pursuant to the Electoral Count Act,  the decision will be passed to Congress (House) where each state has one vote and Republicans have a 26-23 majority (Pennsylvania is split). The12^th Amendment, however, requires all certificates of electors be opened publicly by the President of the Senate, Vice President  Pence, in presence of House and Senate and shall be counted. Constitutional issue arises because Act does not say who is to do the counting and the issue has not previously been brought before the Court. It logically follows the Vice president does but this requires him to also  decide if some state’s electors should be counted if controversies and litigation are still not resolved. Democrats would certainly object to a Republican deciding  in case of a closely contested battle ground state.

A new House is seated on January 3, President assumes office Jan. 21.,. but the members elected in 2020 will vote not those elected in 2018.  Some may also be contested or require run offs. One new Democrat representative in Pennsylvania and  a flip in one other state  and the House could be divided 25-25.   Therefore, the Electoral System fails. 

If the Electoral system fails in House, the 12^th Amendment says the Senate must immediately elect a Vice President. The Republicans with 53-47current vote majority would chose Pence Vice President. However, it will be the Senators chosen in the 2020 election not the Senators chosen in 2018. If the Senate is split 50-50, VP Pence decides and he can cast the deciding vote and thus he is elected Vice President. On January 20, 2021, he then become President because of inability of House to break its own deadlock.

However if it is decided Pence should not cast tie breaking vote, then the Presidential Succession Act. Of 1947, amended 2006, comes into play where Speaker Pelosi is first in line, President pro tem,  Senator. Grasley, follows, and then cabinet officers beginning with Secretary of State Pompeo. However, the Act is also considered unconstitutional because neither Pelosi or Grasley are Officers as required and succession falls to Pompeo.

All of this suggests a Constitutional crisis as never before or as imagined by Founders. Just as in 2016 election, Democrats will not accept Trump as President again. Whereas in 2016 there was much weeping, wailing, and thumping of the chest by Democrats, a 2020 re-election of Trump, promises to be met by much civil disturbance in the large blue urban areas. As the Democrat Socialist party has said, the movement is a revolution and  it has started.

These is reason why Republicans/Trump thought it imperative there be a 9^th Supreme Court judge before the Nov. 3 election. A 4-4 Court would mean a return to the appellate court or Congress. Then the confusion really begins.

Have a nice day. MAGA. Res Publica.

To the Editor:

At a time when Metty Pellicer is releasing a book about growing up black in Cape Charles, we are watching the continuing systemic prejudice against the white male in America, and it matters to hardly anyone. 

In fact the law allows it, the law promotes it, and our media is shoving it down our throats.

Affirmative Action has been a government sponsored racist program from it’s very inception about 50 years ago. It is a federal government program that scoffs at the concept where we are all supposedly created equal. Quotas were created where women, minorities, the disabled and veterans were all given quotas of explicit preferential treatment for hiring, housing and government run social programs. 

I myself was told several times I could not be hired, federal quotas had to be filled, and I needed to look elsewhere for work. This federal law continues to be enforced to this day. In a very real sense it is the exact same thing as the attitude that put up a “whites only” sign over a public water fountain. I also cannot fix it. I cannot change the color of my skin.

Does the passage of time fix all such dilemmas ? Who knows ? What I do know is that our media and advertising beat such drums and subtly drive the message home. Want some support for that theory ? L.L. Bean. I bet I am not the only person on The Shore who is on their catalogue mailing list. Open it. Look at it. 64 pages. The models inside ? Full body shots head to toe ? Several oriental women, men and women of color, and some white women. There are zero full body shots of white men. There are some white men in the catalogue modeling pants that are headless, and their entire upper torso cut right off. 

If you don’t think a statement is being made you are quite blissfully naïve.

Me? I am vociferously fighting back. You can follow my F150 to Church or the boat ramp. It’s the one with the new bumper sticker that “White Boots Matter” on the back.

Special to the Mirror by Paul Plante.

In the “Caesar, Letter II” political essay 233 years ago on October 17, 1787, the author stated thusly with respect to where it is we again find ourselves in this country, as designing politicians divide us up into “dregs of society,” in the case of Democrat Joseph “Corn Pop” Biden, or a “basket of deplorables,” in the case of Democrat Queen Hillary Rodham Clinton, versus their followers who are not only perfect in every way, but even more so, to wit:

“I am not one of those who gain an influence by cajoling the unthinking mass (tho’ I pity their delusions), and ringing in their ears the gracious sound of their absolute Sovereignty.”

“I despise the trick of such dirty policy.”

“I know there are Citizens, who, to gain their own private ends, enflame the minds of the well-meaning, tho’ less intelligent parts of the community, by sating their vanity with that cordial and unfailing specific, that all power is seated in the people.”

“There are always men in society of some talents, but more ambition, in quest of that which it would be impossible for them to obtain in any other way than by working on the passions and prejudices of the less discerning classes of citizens and yeomanry.”

“It is the plan of men of this stamp to frighten the people with ideal bugbears, in order to mould them to their own purposes.”

end quotes

And what a segue that gives us, especially the last sentence about “ideal bugbears,” to a recent article in the Des Moines Register by Brianne Pfannenstiel on 18 October 2020 entitled “Iowa Democrats’ 2020 virtual Liberty and Justice dinner is more subdued than spectacle,” where we were treated to the following concerning the demagogue Queen Empress Kamala Harris, the first of her name, to wit:

A year after U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris brought Iowa Democrats to their feet with an impassioned speech at the state party’s Liberty and Justice dinner, the now-vice presidential candidate delivered a far more subdued message Sunday at this year’s event.

end quotes

Now, let me say here that I heard Queen Empress Kamala speaking on the radio news at that event, and what I heard was hardly subdued, which is what brought to my mind the words of Caesar above here about citizens, who, to gain their own private ends, enflame the minds of the well-meaning, tho’ less intelligent parts of the community, as Queen Empress Kamala was clearly doing at the Iowa State Democrats’ recent Liberty and Justice dinner, along with there always being men, and now women like Hillary Clinton and Queen Empress Kamala Harris, in society of some talents, but more ambition, in quest of that which it would be impossible for them to obtain in any other way than by working on the passions and prejudices of the less discerning classes of citizens and yeomanry, which takes us back to the Des Moines Register article as follows:.

“All at the same time, we’re experiencing the worst public health crisis in a century, the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, a reckoning on racial justice, a changing climate that is battering our coastlines setting the west on fire and devastating farmers in Iowa,” she said in virtual remarks streamed at Sunday’s Liberty and Justice dinner.

end quotes

But are we really facing the worst public health crisis in a century?

As of the time of this writing (20 October 2020), there are 1.12 million COVID deaths across the world, and 220,000 COVID deaths here in the USA.

One hundred years ago, President Woodrow Wilson had to face the influenza pandemic of 1918-19 that killed 20 million to 50 million people around the world while it killed 675,000 Americans, so there is the benchmark COVID must be measured by in terms of public health crises.

And then, in my lifetime, we had during the Eisenhower administration the H2N2 virus which was first reported in Singapore in February 1957 and reached the United States that summer.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated the number of deaths from H2N2 at 1.1 million worldwide and 116,000 in the United States.

And then during the Gerald Ford administration, we had the Swine Flu to deal with.

During the Ronald Reagan administration, of course, we had AIDS, which Reagan called the “gay plague.”

By the end of Reagan’s presidency in 1989, the United States had suffered 89,343 AIDS-related deaths.

George W. Bush had AIDS and SARS to deal with, and Hussein Obama had a trifecta of H1N1, Zika and Ebola and the CDC estimated that from April 2009 to April 2010, there were 60.8 million cases of swine flu and 12,469 deaths from it in the United States.

So what exact point was Queen Empress Kamala trying to make here with her shrill screeching about “we’re experiencing the worst public health crisis in a century?”

Doesn’t she realize from our own history (Democrat Franklyn Roosevelt had polio) that we are facing public health issues all the time, and have been all through my lifetime, which is longer than hers?

So what is she getting all hysterical about, other than the fact that she is scared ******** of the immensity of reality and her obvious inadequacy to deal with it, which raises the question of why on earth we would want her in the White House, where the rubber has to meet the road without spinning off into a ditch somewhere?

More to the point, if this is in fact the worst public health crisis in a century that we are now facing, what is it that she plans on doing about it, other than panicking and getting all shrill and hysterical?

And then we come to her shrieking about “the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.”

Oh, really, Queen Empress Kamala!

Since the Great Depression, we have had recessions in 1945, 1949, 1953, 1957, 1960, 1970, 1973-1975, 1980-82, 1990-91, 2001, and the Great Recession, which was a severe financial crisis combined with a deep recession and while the recession officially lasted from December 2007 to June 2009, it took many years for the economy to recover to pre-crisis levels of employment and output.

As the the Great Recession, and you would think someone running for vice president of America would be as familiar with this history as I am, although obviously if you thought that about Queen Empress Kamala, you would be dead wrong, the U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported its findings in January 2011 and it concluded that “the crisis was avoidable and was caused by: Widespread failures in financial regulation, including the Federal Reserve’s failure to stem the tide of toxic mortgages; Dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance including too many financial firms acting recklessly and taking on too much risk; An explosive mix of excessive borrowing and risk by households and Wall Street that put the financial system on a collision course with crisis; Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis, lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels.”

According to the Department of Labor, roughly 8.7 million jobs (about 7%) were shed from February 2008 to February 2010, and real GDP contracted by 4.2% between Q4 2007 and Q2 2009, making the Great Recession the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

So again, people, why the hysteria-mongering?

What message is Queen Empress Kamala trying to send here, other than that she is ignorant of our history, which doesn’t surprise me, and she is too emotionally unstable to be trusted with a position of responsibility in the executive branch of OUR national government?

The following is a correspondence between Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Sarah Haider on Wokeism and The Culture Wars.

Dear Ayaan, 

Let me begin with what I hope is obvious: I’m very excited and honored to have this discussion with you. 

I’m even more thrilled that our correspondence will not be centered on the topic people might expect from us—Islam. Instead, we will be focusing on the phenomenon commonly referred to as “wokeism.” However, as many have pointed out, wokeism is not entirely different from religion, so our experiences in addressing the excesses of Islam will be highly useful.

In fact, it was my activism with religion that first drove me to investigate this issue many years ago. When I first began speaking publicly about Islam, I quickly found (as did you), that those whom I anticipated would be on our side viewed me with suspicion. My criticisms of Islam were based on the very principles that those liberals claimed to champion, and yet I was swiftly rejected by them. This behavior left me stunned and confused, so I set out to understand it.  

Very quickly, it became evident that the hesitancy to critique Islam actually had nothing to do with Islam. Educating my fellow liberals would not be enough—as ignorance was not the root of the problem. 

Over the previous few decades, a new ideology had taken hold throughout liberal and progressive circles: writer and cultural critic Wesley Yang called it “the successor ideology,” but now it’s more usually called wokeism. At its core, this ideology is a delegitimization project—and it targets the very foundations of humanist, Enlightenment values. Wokeism is not the only movement to exploit the same programming that makes us vulnerable to religion. But it has achieved astounding success because it has also managed to neutralize liberals, who might otherwise stand against religious impulses, by hijacking our caring instinct, and by ruthlessly exploiting social dynamics to crush dissent. 

Before we dive in too deeply, I would like to elaborate on a point I made in a private conversation prior to this exchange, which seemed to surprise you. I will repeat it here for the benefit of our audience: I believe that what we are witnessing is not the dawn of open war, but its conclusion. The woke have won, and decisively. But all is never truly lost, and this is not a prelude to submission. My approach is one of pragmatic optimism: In order to fight this—and we must fight it—we need to understand what lies ahead of us. 

Let me briefly attempt to justify my view. 

Wokeism has won because it has captured our cultural and sense-making institutions. 

Nearly all our educational, media, and non-profit institutions (including major grant-making organizations) are advancing in one direction. Meanwhile, the hearts and minds of the global elite are almost uniformly supportive of this new secular faith. 

To give just one example: Although the guillotines posted on his doorstep might indicate otherwise, the richest man in the world is not the enemy of wokeism. Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post not Breitbart, and his former wife has pledged to dedicate nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars to causes relating to social justice. 

Let me also make a brief analogy with a subject all too familiar to us. We know that jihadists do not appear in a vacuum. They require a degree of permissiveness within their larger context to exist in significant numbers. We can therefore use the number of jihadis from a particular country as a crude measure of the overall level of liberal tolerance within it.

Pulling this analogy back to the “woke,” it is no anomaly that the New York Times can hire and stand by an employee who speaks of white people as “dogs pissing on fire hydrants,” but cannot publish an op-ed by a sitting US congressman without a major staff insurrection. The conditions required for the extremists to thrive already exist. The door is open; they only need to walk through. 

One may object, however, and point out that the majority of Americans are not woke. I believe that this is true. I also believe that it doesn’t matter. When so many of our fundamental institutions are in cult-like consensus, when the richest and most powerful among us routinely display public allegiance to one faith, the preferences of the average American are largely irrelevant.

We must adjust our approach accordingly. To put it rather dramatically: we are not meeting the barbarians at the gate; we are rebelling against the empire. 

I’ll end this first letter here. I’m excited to explore this topic with you, and would love to hear your thoughts on how we might tackle this issue.

Dear Sarah,

I am delighted that we are having this conversation. For a while I thought I was the only one who saw the parallels between the Islamists and the woke. I agree wholeheartedly that “wokeism” has quite a number of dogmas, rituals, a dedicated priesthood and a fellowship just like a religion. In that respect, I see what you mean when you say that our experiences in addressing the excesses of Islam are useful in understanding wokeism.

However, I must admit that I was slower than you in connecting the dots of the woke faith. While I found the adherents of purist Islam (and still do, by the way) highly motivated, well resourced, insidious and incredibly dangerous, I thought of the woke at first as just bothersome cowards who wanted to appease the Islamists because they were either scared of them or because they wanted the Muslim vote. Even the term “woke” is still relatively new to me. I may have heard it for the first time as recently as 2018. Certainly not earlier.

I have been cancelled many times. As far back as 2006, a group of Dutch professors and other illuminati wrote a letter as a collective to try stop me from speaking, arguing that I was suffering from phobias. On countless occasions, my attempts with my Dutch and other European colleagues to push for the assimilation of immigrant minorities into their host societies was frustrated by people using language that we would call wokeism today. 

In response to my attempts to criminalize female genital mutilation, child marriage, forced marriages and honor violence, some feminists claimed that we must not impose our Eurocentric views on immigrants.

Activists and journalists put forth arguments they said were derived from multicultural principles to compel us to respect the customs, faith and ways of doing things in immigrant communities—even if they trapped female members of those communities in poverty, illiteracy and domestic violence. Government officials set aside longstanding norms and granted the dole to young immigrant men who refused to work on religious grounds. 

In those decades so called parallel societies emerged in many European countries. 

Yet slowly—painfully slowly—sentiment has changed. Arguments that once got me cancelled are now made openly by the President of France, Emmanuel Macron. German politicians no longer defend multiculturalism; they now actively promote programs of integration for reasons I explore in my forthcoming book Prey. 

In the same way, I think, the tide will turn against wokeism. And I believe it will turn more swiftly, because wokeism is a far less substantial thing than Islam, one of the world’s three enduring monotheistic faiths.

As I said, at first, I paid little attention to wokeism. Thanks to people like Helen Pluckrose, Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay, I now see that it is a distinct and quasi-religious ideology. It is interesting to see the symbiotic relationship there has been between the Islamists and the woke. That may be material for another letter. But for now, I want to respond to your words: 

When I first began speaking publicly about Islam, I quickly found … that those whom I anticipated would be on our side viewed me with suspicion. My criticisms of Islam were based on the very principles that those liberals claimed to champion, and yet I was swiftly rejected by them. This behavior left me stunned and confused, so I set out to understand it.

My understanding is that you and I mistook many of the woke for true liberals when in fact they are anything but.

I found and still receive abiding support from true liberals. Some are world famous like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and the late Christopher Hitchens. You may even recall that Theo van Gogh was murdered for his work to help bring about the emancipation of Muslim women. There are many other true liberals—too many to name here—whom I met over the years in various countries whose views are completely aligned with yours and mine.

I bring up the distinction between the true liberals and the woke because I believe this is the reason you are wrong when you argue that the woke have won—that they are the empire now, and the rest of us are the underdog rebels.

As long as there are true liberals out there, I do not think the woke are anywhere near any kind of victory. The key thing to remember is the resilience of the philosophy of liberalism—the sheer strength of the institutions that evolved based on those principles and the strength of the ideas and ideals of universal human rights, individual freedom, the sanctity of life, the rule of law and property rights, the democratic process, free inquiry, science, and free markets. 

Islam has mounted a partly successful resistance to all these ideas for centuries, at the price of impoverishing Muslim-majority societies around the world (aside from the ones that were sitting on oil fields).

But wokeism is a far less compelling ideology. Let me give just one example, a quotation from a professor named Sunny Singh, who teaches a creative writing course at London Metropolitan University: 

I get regular invites to debate on various platforms. I always say no. Because debate is an imperialist capitalist white supremacist cis heteropatriarchal technique that transforms a potential exchange of knowledge into a tool of exclusion & oppression.

It seems to me that the more the woke turn their fire against true liberals—for example, the author J.K. Rowling—the more they reveal the fundamental intellectual bankruptcy of their cult, and the more they encourage other true liberals to cease the appeasement of wokeism that has characterized the past decade or so. 

In short, I am more optimistic than you because I believe both battles—against the Islamists and against the woke—can be won. And the latter are in fact the much weaker foe.

I look forward to your reply.

Warmest,

Ayaan

Next week, the Cape Charles Town Council will take up the application for funds. The funding will hopefully provide some relief to our businesses that have been effected by the Covid-19.

It is a critical time, and many are on the verge of closing their doors.

At this serious time, as businesses are struggling, this is when the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Nature Conservancy, and Northampton Government chose to attack a blue-chip operation (Kelly’s Gingernut Pub), and send a message to everyone else: get woke, or get closed.

Jay Ford, a spokesman for CBF, organized the attack to shut down Kelly’s, and he was quickly and adamantly joined by Margaret Van Cleaf (Nature Conservancy) and Janet Sturgis (Northampton County Planning Commission).

As a note, Ford despite his actions has been rewarded by Gov. Northam by being added to his administration, appointed to the Soil and Water Board (not sure what the qualifications are).

Sturgis and Van Clief are still in the room, so it is assumed that Northampton and the Nature Conservancy approve of trying to shut down rural, coastal businesses.

For its part, Northampton Count has always been anti-growth, anti-business, and hostile towards Cape Charles’ pro-business model (every member of the Cape Charles Town Council except Steve Bennett is some form of business owner). If you recall the battle over the 2015 zoning changes, the Board of Supervisors quiet approval and applauding of Janet Sturgis’ attempt to put a Cape Charles entity out of business makes more sense.

In 2015, the county was in an uproar over changes to the zoning ordinance that would make the county a tad more business-friendly. The opposition’s argument was couched in the usual rhetoric, “protect Bay Act”, “Don’t turn the Shore into Ocean City or VA Beach”. There were many good folks that had their hearts in the right place, but at its core, the anti-2015 zoning was really about the Wellington Neck crowd keeping people out, the “I got mine, now close the door behind me” syndrome. This led to the ouster of Board Member Hubbard, and the installation of a more amiable Spencer Murray, whose first order of business was to overturn the 2015 ordinance and replace it with most of what had been the more business restrictive 2009 ordinance.

The County’s tacit support for running Kelly’s out of business falls in line with what we have witnessed historically. To say there is some distrust and animosity between Cape Charles and Northampton is an obvious understatement. This goes all the way back to the 90s and the County’s attempt to thwart Cape Charles annexing the land that is now Bay Creek. Relative to Cape Charles, the County tends to behave like the Mexican Cartels–they like the money the town brings in, but they also feel the need to slap them down as a way to reestablish the pecking order. Current BoS Chairman Bennett has complained in the past that tourism (Cape Charles) only benefits a few. Cape Charles gets the cake, but the County only gets to lick the bowl.

If this can happen to Kelly’s, it can happen to any other Cape Charles business.

A local citizen sent the following to the CBF:

To: ltselikis@cbf.org <ltselikis@cbf.org>
Sent: Sun, Aug 9, 2020 10:23 am
Subject: CBF stance on employee community behavior?

Ms. Tselikis,

Below please find an article that has appeared in one of our local online news/opinion sites, The Cape Charles Mirror. It is one of many that has been written in response to the behavior of one of your employees, Mr. Jay C. Ford. Although your response to another local citizen’s concern about his attack on a  Cape Charles man and his business leaves no question as to where your organization stands on this issue, I believe you and the CBF need to be aware of the continued anger that Mr. Ford has caused on the Eastern Shore of Virginia. I personally made phone calls to your Richmond office to express my outrage, but my messages went unanswered. I now see why. However, as a ‘non profit’ entity, I would think that the CBF would be more mindful to the aggressive and controversial behavior of its local representative. I believe many would be donors will think twice in light of this; in fact, I have spoken to many who have contributed financially in the past, but are now withdrawing their support due to this situation, and your organization’s stance.  The CBF needs to stick with its environmental role and stay out of the ‘social justice’ business.  It appears to be counterproductive to your so-called ‘mission.’Good Day.

Here is the response from CBF:

As you can see, Mr. Baker put a lot of time and thought into his “heartfelt” response. The sarcasm and disdain for us “rural racists” is palpable. In a previous response where he praised Ford’s attack, he stated that “Clean Air, Clean Water are rights we all share.”

What does that even mean? As far as we know, we all share the same sources of air and water, anyone can swim, fish, or boat in the Bay, regardless of skin color. So, what is the real agenda of these people? Do they actually think it’s okay to loot, burn, and beat people for the cause of Social Justice? To destroy lives and livelihoods is okay because the ends justify the means?

This is where we are. We’ve confused actors with heroes, currency with wealth, diplomas with intelligence, propaganda with news, indoctrination with education, demands with rights, tyrants with leaders, conformity with diversity, and slander with debate. It’s all fake.

The ‘Progressive’ politics of these people is based on the idea that if you personally believe something to be so it becomes a binding reality for everyone else. These so-called liberals are vicious and ruthless toward anyone who disagrees with them.

On the surface, maybe it doesn’t seem like much, yet, a its core, the actions of these people is chilling and insidious.

Despite the influx of transplants, the Shore is still a working-class community. As a working-class man, you need to understand that these people (Woke, Social Justice Warriors, Progressive Leftists) hate your guts. They hate your patriotism, your masculinity, and your anti-elitist instincts. They hate your guns. They of course, still want your money, but after they get it, they want you to shut up and die quickly.

The fact that Ford, Van Clief, and Sturgis went after the Kelly’s should not be surprising. They understand that their beliefs cannot be implemented without the aid of coercion.

Never forget.

“Study history. Nothing ever lasts, and what comes after you may be far worse than what you’re trying to reform right now” – Camille Paglia