Tsarizm
Opinion

The Hi-Tech Traditionalist: Judge Pirro Was Right

Judge Pirro correctly sensed that Islam as a political ideology is incompatible with freedom, but it is precisely why Western globalist elites are so in love with it

Fox News anchor Judge Jeanine Pirro
Image by Gage Skidmore

A Fox News host dared utter the words “hijab” and ‘”Sharia” in the same sentence and, of course, her show is now cancelled. Or suspended. Or something. But why? Does Fox News Channel think that it has a significant Muslim audience that Judge Pirro’s remarks are going to drive away? I doubt it. On the other hand, judging by Twitter and by the response of one person who does represent FNC’s core audience, president Trump, FNC’s action does put it in danger of parting ways with large swaths of its “demographic”. 

FNC’s action, few could argue otherwise, is in direct contradiction to its business interests. And yet it was as predictable as the bans on guns and on free speech that are now being enacted in New Zealand. So why did they do it? They did it because they wanted to do it and because they could do it, of course. They wanted to do it, because remaining members in good standing of the Muslim-enamored globalist elites is of primary importance to the owners and the top management of FNC. They could do it, because their audience has few other options and is in love with those anchors who are still shilling for an employer who routinely spits in the face of their loyal audience. Will there be a viewership ripple? Maybe. Will it be of any significance? No. 

Why are the globalist world elites pro-Muslim and was Judge Pirro right in her assessment that the hijab and Sharia law present a danger to America. These questions are related and can be answered as follows: Judge Pirro was indeed right and that is precisely why the globalist elites love Muslims. Muslims are the globalist elites’ hired hands, they are their Hessian Grenadiers, their front line troops for the destruction of America and the rest of the West. 

Most of the world religions do not care who you worship as long as you also worship whomever is in their pantheon. In Japan, I saw plenty of Japanese wearing crosses around their necks ringing bells in Buddhist temples and visiting Shinto shrines. When offered the chance to ring the bell, I declined. Why? Because I belong to one the three religions, religions that are all children of Ancient Temple Judaism, that do require exclusivity. The main tenet of these religions is the the God you worship is the one and only. Acknowledging the existence of another, even if it is a spirit of a mountain, is blasphemy. 

The three so called “Abrahamic”, or “monotheistic” religions of Rabbinical Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, were pretty much established before the dawn of the 8th century AD and each chose a different path. Judaism and Islam developed a rigid set of rules for their believers, rules that governed every aspect of human behavior from what and when to eat to how and when to have sexual intercourse. In Judaism, this is called “the way” or “halachah”. In Islam, it’s called Sharia. Christianity and Islam chose to spread, often by force of conquest. Judaism chose to make entrance to its ranks difficult for Gentiles. 

Modernity saw a great secularization in the large swaths of the planet that were home for the three Abrahamic faiths. Most Jews stopped following the halachah, and even in the Jewish state of Israel, only two thirds of Jews follow it today. In the diaspora, the number is much smaller still. Christianity stopped being the driving force behind policy decisions in Europe already during the Renaissance, and was entirely irrelevant as a political force by the dawn of the 20th century. In many Muslim countries like Egypt, Iran, Iraq, and even Afghanistan, the cities became quite secular. Women wore short skirts and didn’t bother to hide their hair and even the bikini made a brief appearance. 

But there was a difference. Secularization of Judaism and Christianity came from the grass roots. Jews and Christians of all walks of life began to see the role of their respective religions more and more limited to the churches and the synagogues and the family hearths rather than to the public square and to the halls of government. The opposite was true of the Islamic world. There, secularization was handed from the top down as a decree from an often tyrannical and never democratically elected government. Be it Kamal Ataturk’s forced secularization of Turkey or a similar effort a few decades later by Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt, Muslim were told to shave their beards and discard their traditional garb if they wanted to serve in the military or get that government job. 

The countryside in the pre-industrial world of Islam where most Muslims lived resented this forced secularization, but they gave it a chance. What happened next brings us directly to 9/11/2001 and to Judge Pirro. Everywhere, in every case, secular governments in Muslim countries failed and failed with panache. They mismanaged vast natural resources, engaged in internecine warfare such as the wars between Egypt and Yemen, Iraq and Iran, West and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), and most of all, they failed to remove the tiny Israel from the map of the Middle East. As the secular governments were failing, popular unrest grew, inviting oppression, which in turn made the unrest worse. The result was the destruction of moderate Islam while it was still lying, stillborn, in the centers of great Islamic cities, be it Kabul or Tehran. 

What followed was a planetary tantrum of unprecedented proportions by what we may call Sharia Islam. The fundamentalist radical Islam that so successfully married modern technology with loosely organized command structure and a burning hatred towards anything non-Muslim, giving us the scourge of our times, Islamic Terrorism. As passenger planes were being hijacked or blown to pieces, as hostage taking and the murder of innocent civilians became routine, finally, as the twin towers collapsed, most Westerners, most non-Muslims were appalled. But where us simple folk who still cringe at the slaughter of innocent children were crying and clinching our fists, our Harvard and Oxford and Sorbonne educated betters were seeing a great opportunity.

These elites have become fabulously rich during the industrial revolution of a century ago, but they knew that these riches were peanuts compared to what they could grab from the just beginning information revolution. All such money grabs have one thing in common; abundant cheap labor. Whether labor to build railroads or Model T’s or labor to write untold number of lines of code, there are two ways one can do it: share the wealth equitably with the people you have, or import people who are willing to do it for much, much less. In both cases, our elites didn’t skip a beat; they opted for door Number 2. A century and a half ago it was imported Chinese labor in America and displaced farmers in Europe. Now it is immigrants from India and China and the Muslim world. Then as now, this blatant robbery of the middle classes by the elites every time a technological paradigm shift occurs, created tensions and unrest. This time, unlike a hundred years ago, our elites have decided to take not only our share of the common pie, but also our freedom. 

To do this, they already have the unprecedented spying capabilities that are the result of the information revolution. That is the necessary condition. But, unfortunately, knowing when someone is up to no good is not the same as doing something about it. Boots on the ground, so to speak, are also needed. And who would be better enforces of this new attempt by the Western elites to not fall behind their Chinese counterparts than the people who are already weaponized against westerners, who already hate them with a burning passion, and who are accustomed to extreme violence: radicalized Muslims. 

Judge Pirro may not be highly sophisticated when it comes to Islam and to the Muslim world, but she has a judge’s sharp instincts. She looks at the hijabed faces of Omar and Tlaib, she sees their condescending smirks and their glib misappropriations of the language of American freedom, a language that they use only to deceive for as long as deception is needed, and she knows, she feels, the mortal danger that they represent to the America she grew up in. An America that is already on the ropes, that is already down for the count, an America that she deeply loves. 

She uttered her words on live TV not because she was unaware of what may happen; she said them because she believed in them and at least for that brief moment she could gather the courage to go against the people who employ her, people who cannot wait to feast ever more efficiently on America’s corpse. 

Defeating Islam as a religion is neither possible nor desirable. Defeating it as a political force, as a fascist ideology of conquest and enslavement is essential for everyone’s survival as a free human being. Let us hope that Judge Pirro’s example will be followed by many more and that the sacrifice of her job will not be in vain.

Related articles

The Hi-Tech Traditionalist:The Bolsheviks Destroyed Russia, America Is Next

Baruch Pletner,PhD,MBA

Opinion: How The US Should Deal With Russia

Tsarizm Staff

China Is Behind Much Of What Is Happening To America

L Todd Wood

2 comments

Avatar
Alabaster McGillicuddy March 17, 2019 at 8:27 pm

I stand behind the Judge and look forward to watching the show next Saturday.

Omar is a representative of the people. Asking a question about her position on a subject such as Islam is within the bounds of politics since Islam is not only a religion but a framework of a political structure.

Reply
Avatar
David Sweeny March 17, 2019 at 9:55 pm

Feminists in Iran and elsewhere are fighting for the right to not wear the hijab or a head scarf in public. They are beaten and imprisoned. They claim, correctly or incorrectly, that orthodox Christians, Jews and Muslims have traditionally suppressed women; they believe the requirement to cover the head being one of the signs of submission for all three religions.
…Orthodox women are free to follow the traditional rules of their respective religions in the West. We protect Freedom of Religion. Feminists and members of reformed religious groups are not required to publicly comply with traditional religious rules of dress, and are also allowed to criticize those who do. We respect Freedom of opinion and expression.
…So who cares if Judge Pirro asked if Oman is a traditionalist who advocates replacing the American Common Law and Constitution with the Sharia Law of her own religion? Pirro spoke publicly, i.e., on a public platform on a public issue. It’s a valid question of public concern. It also deals with the issue of assimilation of immigrants, refugees and their offspring.
…So why was Pirro removed? Was Freedom of Speech the issue? Gee, I’m sorry if someone was offended or embarrassed, but shouldn’t the question be allowed? We need to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. We need to have a conversation about Liberty to speak your mind, and the right and need of the public to know what the elected officials really believe. Really

Reply

Leave a Comment