On the Islamic purge of female Costa Rican drivers.

The Atlantic published an Islam-apologist spiel by Peter Beinart earlier.

His piece was molded around Marco Rubio’s statements uttered in response to the Paris attacks. Beinart, apparently looking for a foothold upon which to pin his flailing justifications for Islam-apologist platitudes, wrote:

“The attacks in Paris,” [Marco] Rubio began, “are a wake-up call.” Forgive the pedantry, but this is among the stupidest clichés in politics. Wake-up calls are things you plan yourself because you want to be awoken from your slumber at a set time, usually by a hotel clerk. The Paris attack was a horrific surprise orchestrated by France’s enemies. It wasn’t a “wake-up call” unless you believe its ultimate author was France itself.

…there’s the end of Rubio’s statement: “[T]hey do not hate us because we have military assets in the Middle East. They hate us because of our values. They hate us because young girls here go to school. They hate us because women drive. They hate us because we have freedom of speech, because we have diversity in our religious beliefs. They hate us because we’re a tolerant society.”

This is simply false. The Islamic State may hate tolerance, liberty, and women’s rights. But that’s not why its cadres attacked Paris.

A review of the organization’s history makes this point clear. The Islamic State began in 2004 as al-Qaeda’s Iraq affiliate, not because its then-leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, discovered that female motorists populate America’s highways, but because America had just invaded Iraq. When the United States began withdrawing troops from the country, al-Qaeda in Iraq did not follow them home. It instead went to war against Iraq’s Shiite-led government. Then, after the uprising against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad began in 2011, it began fighting his Alawite regime as well, changed its name to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, and declared a caliphate in the territory it controlled. “For more than a decade,” notes the Georgetown University and Brookings Institution terrorism expert Daniel Byman, the Islamic State “focused first and foremost on its immediate theater of operations.”

But a just war is still a war. Contra Rubio, the struggle against the Islamic State is absolutely “geopolitical,” and it has everything to do with America’s “military assets in the Middle East.” Women drive in Costa Rica too, but the Islamic State is unlikely to attack it, because Costa Rica is not contesting ISIS’s control of the Middle East. The United States and France are challenging that control, and as long as they are, the Islamic State will try to attack them. America’s domestic freedoms, precious as they are, don’t have much to do with it.

Now Beinart is guilty of assiduously avoiding the ever-present concept of “escalation beyond original strategic intent,” something SJW’s and other socioliberation American movements have partaken in for decades.

Escalation is the stratagem that, resplendent with common sense and restraint, steers wise social movements, like fleas, to burrow into the civilized skin of larger, antithetical cultures in incremental doses of aggression.

Beinart entertains a fixation about the “Costa Rican women drivers” as if it excuses all the rampant cultural marauding which the innate spirit of such an archaic religion, like Islam, engages in.

Islam is ultimately a genius brand of dogmatic imprinting upon the averse collective spirit of Western culture, and it has, over the centuries, evolved the self-preservation, survival habits that allow it to fester into the guts of the larger, stronger cultures it seeks to usurp.

One such survival mechanism is the incremental escalation of its demands upon the resistant culture.

Firstly, the overt enemies are extinguished; as this assault unfolds, attacks emerge which tear down the host nations, a parasitic march which subsumes traditional societies and distorts civilized liberal ideologies into displays of warm embrace of the invasion which will eventually consume themselves.

Western liberation movements have already perfected escalation of the sort that Beinart seems to cheerfully ignore (most likely because he embraces such dystopia). Anyone checked recently on just how “far” women’s liberation and Black right’s movements have slithered their way into the distorted good sense of Americans?

Islam will extinguish its most powerful enemies first; female Costa Rican drivers are sure to follow, Mr. Beinart.

Dead Paris bodies. Appropriate, inappropriate…neither? A predicament of the future.

There’s a photograph making the rounds. Predictably, of course. It was a matter of time.

It shows the aftermath of the carnage at the Bataclan Theater in Paris. You can see several scattered bodies around the theater floor and bloody swirls where rescue workers moved bodies around. Personally, I don’t find it horribly graphic or offensive, but then again, my offense threshold is quite high. It takes a lot to ruffle my feathers. Still, I’ve learned by this point in life, not everyone shares my lust for the gruesome and inappropriate. And some discussion has begun regarding photographs of the dead in Paris in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks there on Friday. To publish or not to publish?

In this spirit, I’m only posting a link to the photograph rather than publishing it inline here. I believe that people should have the choice to view, or not.

If viewing such photographs offends principles, then the solution is quite simple: don’t look, ie, change the channel. Conversely, if you wish to view such an image, you should have the right to.

This is the photo link.

I believe this is how I will handle similar photos in the future. And the way things are going, I have a feeling we’ll be seeing a lot more such images of mayhem in the future.

Look, the photos are out there. They are in the digital, cyber ether. At what point do we draw the inappropriate/appropriate distinction when appraising their mere existence?

The judgement is too cloudy and it’s better that such decisions are not left to lowly, opinionated humans. The internet’s nature is such that the photographs and other media are “out there.” It’s about access, and the choice to exert said access.

If the photograph falls in the forest…