Socialism and Human Misery

How anyone with a modicum of knowledge regarding the political history of the world can champion socialism, unless they believe they will be the one with the power, is beyond me.  Socialism leaves nothing but human misery in it’s wake, and often it’s implementation.  The apologists always seem to have an excuse why socialism didn’t work in a particular instance, they never can connect the dots and understand that socialism is simply a failed political ideology.  I have been watching Venezuela for years with their dissent into chaos and blood shed.  History repeats itself!

From lifezette.com by Kathryn Blackhurst updated 5/21/2017 entitled, “Media Yawn at Venezuela’s Spiraling, Socialist Nightmare“:

Study finds ABC, CBS, NBC barely cover left-wing catastrophe, avoid word ‘socialism’

Out of approximately 50,000 total evening news stories on ABC, CBS and NBC combined in the last four years, just 25 have covered the ongoing crisis in socialist Venezuela, according to a Media Research Center study published Tuesday.

After Venezuela’s former socialist president, Hugo Chávez, passed away in March 2013, the country has spiraled into economic disaster and civil chaos. So far in 2017, more than 50 Venezuelans have been killed during protests against current Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his socialist policies. Many Venezuelans are starving due to shortages of food and other essentials. The country’s inflation rate is set to surpass 700 percent and 25 percent of Venezuelans will be unemployed.

“The few times they have managed to cover the widespread poverty, starvation, and government oppression … they somehow find ways to do that without [saying] the word ‘socialism.’”

“Yet the Big Three evening newscasts have tried to pretend this crisis does not exist, offering virtually no coverage as the situation has deteriorated over the past four years,” MRC Research Analyst Mike Ciandella wrote.

“The networks have also been reluctant to attach the ‘socialist’ label to Venezuela’s government, and have utterly failed to criticize liberal politicians and celebrities who have praised the Chávez and Maduro regimes,” Ciandella added.

Indeed, out of the 50,000 total evening news stories on the three networks, just 25 covered Venezuela, and only seven mentioned “socialism.” In addition, NBC Nightly News only broadcast 13 stories spanning 16 minutes and 54 seconds, ABC’s World News only covered 8 minutes and 34 seconds over seven stories, and CBS Evening News only offered 3 minutes and 11 seconds over five stories.

“The network evening news programs seem allergic to reporting on the ongoing crisis in Venezuela,” Ciandella told LifeZette in an email. “Even worse, the few times they have managed to cover the widespread poverty, starvation and government oppression in that country, they somehow find ways to do that without mentioning the word ‘socialism.’”

Ciandella noted that the three networks aired no stories when Maduro took advantage of a countrywide power outage to stamp out as much opposition as he could in September 2013. When Maduro used the powers he gave himself to rule the country in a state of “emergency” that superseded the National Assembly’s voice, the media networks were silent.

After the anti-socialists elected a majority to the National Assembly in December 2015 and Maduro’s loyalist Supreme Court decided to strip the Assembly of its power on May 18, the media yawned.

On occasion, one of the three major news networks will drop a rare mention of the word “socialism” in connection with the Venezuela crisis in its coverage. As MRC noted, one of those exceptions was correspondent Jacob Rascon on April 20’s NBC Nightly News.

“The Venezuelan economy has been in freefall for years … protesters blamed President Nicolas Maduro and his socialist government,” Rascon said.

CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley offered another exception on May 4, when he said, “Running battles continue in Venezuela’s capital. They broke out a month ago when the socialist president tried to grab more power. At least 37 have been killed.”

But all too often, the media turn a blind eye to the atrocities and tragedies that fester in Venezuela, along with the root causes underlying them.

“In fact, ABC’s ‘World News Tonight’ hasn’t mentioned the words ‘socialism’ or ‘socialist’ in connection with Venezuela even once since Chávez’s death in 2013,” Ciandella told LifeZette. “This is completely inexcusable. The networks seem intent on distancing the socialism of the Chávez and Maduro regimes with the idealistic socialism of Bernie Sanders and liberal academia.”

The socialism that Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and many Hollywood celebrities champion appeals — in theory — to many U.S. college students and struggling young adults.

“I often say only half-jokingly to students on college campuses who are all in with Bernie Sanders that if they think socialism is such a wonderful economic model: How about a one-way ticket to Caracas?” Stephen Moore, an economic policy analyst and Distinguished Visiting Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, wrote of Venezuela’s capitol in a Washington Times op-ed published May 21.

“You’d be a fool to go there today. Venezuela is a human-rights crisis of epic proportions, with mass hunger, mass poverty, despair, ghetto upon ghetto, and a mass exodus of private businesses and anyone with money,” Moore added.

“The burgeoning resistance throws Molotov cocktails, rocks, and even human feces at the security forces during the nonstop rioting. ‘I don’t fear death because this life is crap,’ one protester told the WSJ,” Moore added. “It turns out that ‘share the wealth’ eventually means there is no wealth, and the egalitarian dream means everyone becomes equally poor. Venezuela is on its way to becoming the next North Korea.”

Starbucks TURD

starbucks

I have very infrequently patronized Starbucks but since I have a Keurig at home and at work and I do not particularly like their coffee, about once a year is more than sufficient.  But considering:

On January 24th, 2012, Starbucks issued a memorandum declaring that same-sex marriage ‘is core to who we are and what we value as a company’.

Starbucks Corp has asked U.S. customers to leave their guns, including legal concealed and open carry,  at home.

Starbucks has removed all symbols that are associated with Christmas, such as reindeer, snowmen, snowflakes and ornaments, from their cups. Taking their place is a plain red cup that features Starbucks’ iconic logo in the center. The more pathetic move as since when did reindeer, snowmen, snowflakes and ornaments had anything to do with the birth of Christ?

Howard Schultz, CEO took a stand against President Donald Trump’s executive order barring immigrants from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the US.  On Sunday, Starbucks announced it planned to hire 10,000 refugees worldwide in the next five years.

And now some pencil-necked, moronic snowflake would not put ‘Trump’ on a coffee cup?!

Too much for me.  Never again Starbucks.  Lots of other places to get much better coffee.

Starbucks TURD. And no, they won’t miss my $3.50 a year but nor I their product and politics.

Cogent Social Sciences Isn’t

Peer review for the ‘journal’ Cogent Social Sciences did not help in ferreting out a complete BS article.  Cogent: Appealing to the intellect or powers of reasoning; convincing: a cogent argument.

Really!  This tells you something about the social ‘sciences’ and those who claim professional expertise therein.  What a crook.

If you would like to read the ‘paper’ that was published May 19, 2017 in Cogent Social Sciences as a ‘research article’ entitled, “The conceptual penis as a social construct” it is HERE.  I have a copy if they remove it.

Here is the Editorial Director of CSS, and her favorite fact, which should tell you all you need to know (oh, and11 of the staff of 13 are female) :

  • Emma Greenwood
    Editorial Director
    Favorite fact
    Venus is the only planet that spins backwards relative to the other planets.

From breitbart.com dated 5/20/2017  by James Delingpole entiled, “‘Penises Cause Climate Change’; Progressives Fooled By Peer-Reviewed Hoax Study“:

Gender studies is a fake academic industry populated by charlatans, deranged activists and gullible idiots.
Now, a pair of enterprising hoaxers has proved it scientifically by persuading an academic journal to peer-review and publish their paper claiming that the penis is not really a male genital organ but a social construct.

The paper, published by Cogent Social Sciences – “a multidisciplinary open access journal offering high quality peer review across the social sciences” – also claims that penises are responsible for causing climate change.

The two hoaxers are Peter Boghossian, a full-time faculty member in the Philosophy department at Portland State University, and James Lindsay, who has a doctorate in math and a background in physics.

They were hoping to emulate probably the most famous academic hoax in recent years: the Sokal Hoax – named after NYU and UCL physics professor Alan Sokal – who in 1996 persuaded an academic journal called Social Text to accept a paper titled “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity”.

Sokal’s paper – comprising pages of impressive-sounding but meaningless pseudo-academic jargon – was written in part to demonstrate that humanities journals will publish pretty much anything so long as it sounds like “proper leftist thought;” and partly in order to send up the absurdity of so much post-modernist social science.

So, for this new spoof, Boghossian and Lindsay were careful to throw in lots of signifier phrases to indicate fashionable anti-male bias:

We intended to test the hypothesis that flattery of the academic Left’s moral architecture in general, and of the moral orthodoxy in gender studies in particular, is the overwhelming determiner of publication in an academic journal in the field. That is, we sought to demonstrate that a desire for a certain moral view of the world to be validated could overcome the critical assessment required for legitimate scholarship. Particularly, we suspected that gender studies is crippled academically by an overriding almost-religious belief that maleness is the root of all evil. On the evidence, our suspicion was justified.

They also took care to make it completely incomprehensible.

We didn’t try to make the paper coherent; instead, we stuffed it full of jargon (like “discursive” and “isomorphism”), nonsense (like arguing that hypermasculine men are both inside and outside of certain discourses at the same time), red-flag phrases (like “pre-post-patriarchal society”), lewd references to slang terms for the penis, insulting phrasing regarding men (including referring to some men who choose not to have children as being “unable to coerce a mate”), and allusions to rape (we stated that “manspreading,” a complaint levied against men for sitting with their legs spread wide, is “akin to raping the empty space around him”). After completing the paper, we read it carefully to ensure it didn’t say anything meaningful, and as neither one of us could determine what it is actually about, we deemed it a success.

Some of it was written with the help of the Postmodern Generator – “a website coded in the 1990s by Andrew Bulhak featuring an algorithm, based on NYU physicist Alan Sokal’s method of hoaxing a cultural studies journal called Social Text, that returns a different fake postmodern ‘paper’ every time the page is reloaded.”

This paragraph, for example, looks impressive but is literally meaningless:

Inasmuch as masculinity is essentially performative, so too is the conceptual penis. The penis, in the words of Judith Butler, “can only be understood through reference to what is barred from the signifier within the domain of corporeal legibility” (Butler, 1993). The penis should not be understood as an honest expression of the performer’s intent should it be presented in a performance of masculinity or hypermasculinity. Thus, the isomorphism between the conceptual penis and what’s referred to throughout discursive feminist literature as “toxic hypermasculinity,” is one defined upon a vector of male cultural machismo braggadocio, with the conceptual penis playing the roles of subject, object, and verb of action. The result of this trichotomy of roles is to place hypermasculine men both within and outside of competing discourses whose dynamics, as seen via post-structuralist discourse analysis, enact a systematic interplay of power in which hypermasculine men use the conceptual penis to move themselves from powerless subject positions to powerful ones (confer: Foucault, 1972).

None of it should have survived more than a moment’s scrutiny by serious academics. But it was peer-reviewed by two experts in the field who, after suggesting only a few changes, passed it for publication:

Cogent Social Sciences eventually accepted “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct.” The reviewers were amazingly encouraging, giving us very high marks in nearly every category. For example, one reviewer graded our thesis statement “sound” and praised it thusly, “It capturs [sic] the issue of hypermasculinity through a multi-dimensional and nonlinear process” (which we take to mean that it wanders aimlessly through many layers of jargon and nonsense). The other reviewer marked the thesis, along with the entire paper, “outstanding” in every applicable category.

They didn’t accept the paper outright, however. Cogent Social Sciences’ Reviewer #2 offered us a few relatively easy fixes to make our paper “better.” We effortlessly completed them in about two hours, putting in a little more nonsense about “manspreading” (which we alleged to be a cause of climate change) and “dick-measuring contests.”

No claim made in the paper was considered too ludicrous by the peer-reviewers: not even the one claiming that the penis is “the universal performative source of rape, and is the conceptual driver behind much of climate change.”

You read that right. We argued that climate change is “conceptually” caused by penises. How do we defend that assertion? Like this:

Destructive, unsustainable hegemonically male approaches to pressing environmental policy and action are the predictable results of a raping of nature by a male-dominated mindset. This mindset is best captured by recognizing the role of [sic] the conceptual penis holds over masculine psychology. When it is applied to our natural environment, especially virgin environments that can be cheaply despoiled for their material resources and left dilapidated and diminished when our patriarchal approaches to economic gain have stolen their inherent worth, the extrapolation of the rape culture inherent in the conceptual penis becomes clear.

The fact that such complete drivel was published in a social science journal, the hoaxers argue, raises serious questions about the value of fields like gender studies and the state of academic publishing generally:

“The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct” should not have been published on its merits because it was actively written to avoid having any merits whatsoever. The paper is academically worthless nonsense.

But they do not hold out much hope for it having any more effect on the bullshit in the social sciences industry than Sokal’s hoax did – because leftist stupidity in academe is so heavily entrenched.

As a matter of deeper concern, there is unfortunately some reason to believe that our hoax will not break the relevant spell. First, Alan Sokal’s hoax, now more than 20 years old, did not prevent the continuation of bizarre postmodernist “scholarship.” In particular, it did not lead to a general tightening of standards that would have blocked our own hoax. Second, people rarely give up on their moral attachments and ideological commitments just because they’re shown to be out of alignment with reality.

If you think they’re going to give you your country back without a fight, you’re sadly mistaken

Steve Bannon is absolutely right.  The way the media and Dems are besieging DT feels like a coup in progress.  DT’s right, “Fight, fight, fight!”  MAGA!

From breitbart.com by Penny Starr dated 5/18/2017 entitled, “GOP: Steve Bannon Is Right About The Fight To Save America“:

Steve Bannon by Gage Skidmore.jpg

The Republican National Committee sent out a fund-raising email asking for assistance on President Donald Trump’s “Drain the Swamp” agenda.
The email notes the ongoing battle against a hostile press while offering words of wisdom from a top Trump adviser, Steve Bannon.

“You already knew the media is out to get us,” the email said. It continues:

But sadly it’s not just the fake news — there are people within our own unelected bureaucracy that want to sabotage President Trump and our entire America First movement.

Steve Bannon was right when he said, “If you think they’re going to give you your country back without a fight, you’re sadly mistaken.”

“Every day is going to be a fight,” Bannon said. “That is the promise of Donald Trump.”

The email points out that the people opposed to Trump and his policies do not want to put America first.

“They want it to be Special Interests first to enrich themselves all while the citizens of our country remain an afterthought,” the email said.

“We have no choice but to completely DRAIN THE SWAMP,” the email said, noting that Trump is “already started cleaning house.”

The email concludes: “But every day will be an uphill battle — and we need to be prepared to go into the trenches to FIGHT BACK.”

CA Gov. Jerry ‘Moonbeam’ Brown Calls Angry Taxpaying Citizens, “Freeloaders”

Hide illegals, hand out freebies, ignore/encourage drug abuse, and spend money like hell while calling non-lib protesters, “freeloaders”.  I left CA for good in December 1995.  Going through Moonbeam’s first governorship was painful enough.  Jerry Brown, TURD.

From constitution.com dated 5/17/2017 by Onan Coca entitled, “California’s Governor calls Angry Taxpaying Citizens “Freeloaders”“:

Jerry_Brown_Moonbeam_C4P.jpg
A few days ago we told you that some of California’s voters had finally reached their breaking point and were fighting back against yet another massive tax increase in one of the nation’s most taxed states.

Californians are pushing back against the Democratic lawmakers who passed the largest gas tax in the state’s history last month.

Citizens have signed signatures for a recall effort against Democratic state Sen. Josh Newman for his vote in favor of for the Road Repair and Accountability Act, and another lawmaker is moving forward on an initiative to repeal the unpopular gas tax.

The law, passed April 6, imposes a 12 cents a gallon hike on citizens and raises the tax on diesel fuel by 20 cents a gallon. It also implements an additional charge to annual vehicle license fees ranging from $25 to $175 depending on the car’s value.

Democrats in the state legislature forced the measure along party lines.

Well, it seems that the actions of these TAXPAYING VOTERS has angered the tinpot dictator who leads California’s liberal fascist oligarchy. Sure, California’s citizens are ALREADY among the most tax-burdened in the nation. Sure, the poor dupes who live there pay 1/3 of their income to the federal government, and 1/3 of their income to the state government… but at least the government “let’s” them keep the last 1/3 of their money! Governor Brown wants to know just how much of their own money those greedy, hardworking, taxpayers think they deserve?

When asked about the effort of his citizens to unseat a few Democrats in an effort to keep them from ramming through these any more tax increases, Governor Brown began spouting more illogical and irrational commentary. He called the people footing the bill for all of his tax increases “freeloaders” and said that the Republicans wanted to force people to drive on “gravel roads” again.

“Roads require money to fix,” Brown said during a Friday visit to Orange County. “Republicans say there’s a magic source of money — it doesn’t exist. … You want to borrow money and pay double? Or do nothing? Or take money from universities?”

“The freeloaders — I’ve had enough of them,” Brown said, adding that the approved tax and fee hikes bring those charges to the level they were 30 years ago if adjusted for inflation. “They have a president that doesn’t tell the truth and they’re following suit.”

Except that the state GOP has offered a solution to the road funding issue:

Republicans says budget cuts should be made to fund road maintenance. A failed GOP plan proposed last year would have tapped into cap-and-trade money used to lower greenhouse gas emissions, cut Caltrans positions and eliminated other positions that have been vacant. It identifies other funding sources, but doesn’t specify what programs would be cut if that money was diverted to roads.

Brown said the plan is unrealistic.

The GOP plan was “unrealistic” because it used money the California government was already wasting on other ridiculous issues. More “realistic” simply take more of the money from the already heavily tax-burdened citizens of California.

Kira Davis perfectly sums up the incongruity of Brown’s “freeloader” commentary:

Let’s review this statement, in case you’re having trouble interpreting his meaning. If you work and pay taxes, if you struggle to pay your most basic bills while “owing” the California government a third of your paycheck (or more), Jerry Brown thinks you’re a freeloader.

The 1,000,000 citizens in Los Angeles county alone who collect food stamps provided by taxpayers are not freeloaders. The millions of illegal immigrants being harbored in California’s sanctuary cities to the cost of taxpayers are not freeloaders. Illegal immigrants being provided “free” legal help by the state on the backs of taxpayers are not freeloaders. The bloodsuckers in the Sacramento legislature who get paid $178 a day in per diem funds on top of their bloated salaries just for walking in the door to their job every day are not freeloaders.

No, you – the burdened, law-abiding taxpayer are the freeloader for simply asking the government of California be more fiscally responsible with the money they already have instead of stealing more of your money without your consent to pay for programs that are already funded but have been raided for pet projects and personal enrichment.

Governor Brown claims we’ll all be driving on gravel roads if we don’t give up our incomes at gunpoint as he is demanding.

Dear California Republican, why are you still living on the fascist West Coast?

Do yourselves a favor; pack up your belongings and move to Idaho, Texas, Arizona, Colorado, or Utah. Sure, the beaches may not be as nice but the living is far easier and the governments are far smaller.

Gloria Steinem: We Can Stem Anthropomorphic Climate Change By Sacrificing Babies to Molech

Long ago I thought this woman, Gloria Steinem, to be crazy and Gloria never disappoints.  Gloria Steinem, TURD, Extraordinaire.

steinem-molech-2

From breitbart.com by Thomas D. Williams dated 5/15/2017 entitled, “Gloria Steinem: Forced Childbirth ‘The Fundamental Cause of Climate Change’“:

Lack of ready access to abortion is the primary cause of global warming, according to a new interview with radical feminist Gloria Steinem.
The founder of Ms. magazine had no trouble linking two of the emblematic leftist causes into one mega issue, arguing that lack of access to “reproductive health services” leads to overpopulation, which in turn causes the earth to warm uncontrollably.

Asked by Refinery29 whether climate change wasn’t also a “feminist” issues, Ms. Steinem ran with the question, connecting a series of invisible dots into a diatribe against the evils of patriarchy.

“Are you kidding me? Listen, what causes climate deprivation is population. If we had not been systematically forcing women to have children they don’t want or can’t care for over the 500 years of patriarchy, we wouldn’t have the climate problems that we have. That’s the fundamental cause of climate change,” she said.

“Even if the Vatican doesn’t tell us that,” she added.

It wasn’t immediately clear why Ms. Steinem limited the effects of a heavy-handed patriarchy to the last 500 years, since ancient Greece, Rome, China and India were arguably more “patriarchal” than the Christian Europe of the Renaissance, but this wasn’t really the core of her argument.

The 83-year-old Steinem has made an entire career out of fusing feminism together with the abortion industry, regularly shilling for Planned Parenthood and insisting that women will never be “fully equal” to men unless they have unlimited abortion rights.

By Steinem’s definition of feminism, Ivanka Trump—though a liberated, successful career woman—is not a true feminist because she doesn’t actively promote abortion rights.

“I have not seen her standing up and saying women should have a right to control their own bodies and decide when and whether to have children, no,” Steinem said in the interview. She then proceeded to compare Ivanka to Adolf Hitler, because the maternity leave at her company is “only if you physically give birth.”

“It’s not for adoptive parents, not for fathers,” she said. “That happens to be the same policy as every authoritarian regime on Earth that I know of, including Hitler’s Germany. I’m not saying that she knows this, but [the Nazis] were paying women to have children. By accident, perhaps, that’s her policy.”

This was not the first time that Ms. Steinem has blamed global warming on a lack of abortion rights.

As the keynote speaker at a Planned Parenthood fundraiser in September 2016, Steinem reiterated the same message. “Forced childbirth is the single biggest cause of global warming,” she proclaimed, while also discussing the connections between feminism and anti-racism.

Moreover, in 2015, Steinem extended the blame even further in an interview with Cosmo’s Prachi Gupta, declaring that the Pope and all “other patriarchal religions” were responsible for global warming, because they restrict women’s reproductive rights.

“I had this thought that we should have this massive education campaign pointing out that the Pope and all of the other patriarchal religions that dictate to women in this way, accusing them of global warming,” Steinem said.

“Because the human load on this earth is the biggest cause of global warming, and that is because of forcing women to have children they would not on their own choose to have … I’m glad the Pope spoke out about global warming and it was very helpful, but does he know he’s causing it?” she added.

Cecile Richards, One Sick Puppy

From Oct. 1, 2012 to Sept. 30, 2013, Planned Parenthood performed 327,653 abortions. Over the course of those 365 days (or 8,760 hours), that averages out to 898 abortions per day and 37 abortions per hour.

 

@CecileRichards

Nothing says “I love you, Mom!” like standing up for the right of mothers everywhere to get the care they need. http://time.com/4777924/mothers-day-gift-health-care 

The Cassius Clay AKA Muhammad Ali We Didn’t Know

Cassius was a great boxer but also a two faced racist saying, “Blacks superior to blue-eyed devil white people”.  Another icon crumbles.

muhammed-ali

From wnd.com dated 5/2/2017 entitled, “Muhammad Ali’s Racist, Mosque Tirades Revealed In New FBI Files“:

A release of FBI files on the late Muhammad Ali sheds damning new light on the legendary boxer’s views about race and politics after immersing himself in the teachings of the Nation of Islam.

Ali referred to Caucasians as “white devils” and “crackers” and told mosque worshipers that “black women have the best sons and daughters in the world,” according to Federal Bureau of Investigation records obtained by Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information lawsuit.

Ali, known as Cassius Clay before converting to Islam, also said “programs of integration are useless,” that blacks want separation not integration and that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a “swindle.”

The three-time heavyweight champ also told fellow Muslims during a mosque rant that “the so-called Negro is the original man and is superior to the white devil” and that he’d rather be with his own people than “blue-eyed devil white people,” JW reported.

“The FBI files present a picture of the late heavyweight champion that is clearly at odds with much of the image portrayed at the time of his death last year,” the JW report concludes in its evaluation of the files, adding:

His deep involvement with the Nation of Islam and its racially divisive rhetoric and behavior is part of a record that deserves to be revealed and contradicts Ali’s image as a civil rights icon. The hundreds of pages of documents are related to the FBI’s investigation of Ali for evading the draft and the government’s monitoring of the Nation of Islam, which is described by the agency as an “all-Negro, quasi-religious organization which espouses a line of violent hatred of the white race, Government, law and law enforcement.”

According the one FBI document, Ali told a crowd of Muslims gathered at a Washington, D.C., mosque that he preferred “dying outright” or going to jail to going into the Army.

At a Cleveland mosque, the boxer said the American flag “represented death and destruction,” but the “Muslim flag” represents “life and prosperity, justice for all black men.”

Ali was eulogized by former President Obama, the Rev. Jesse Jackson and many other iconic civil rights leaders and media personalities after his death in June 2016.

As recently as July 2015, current Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan encouraged his followers to kill white cops in an explosive speech delivered at Mt. Zion Baptist Church in Miami. Astonishingly, WND inquired at the time with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for South Florida, which told WND that Farrakhan’s instruction for followers to “stalk them and kill them and let them feel the pain that we are feeling” fell squarely within the realm of protected First Amendment speech and did not cross any legal boundaries.

The records obtained by Judicial Watch reveal the great threat the FBI perceived the Nation of Islam to be in the 1960s. And as a member of that organization, Ali was closely monitored by the agency as a “security matter” due to his associations with Nation of Islam leaders Elijah Mohammad and Malcolm X.

The Nation of Islam followed Mohammad’s interpretation of the Quran, the FBI records say, which taught that white people are “white devils” to be destroyed in a coming “War of Armageddon.”

In April 1964, Ali’s plan to travel to Muslim countries alarmed the FBI to the extent that agents searched his passport files and recorded that while in Accra, Ghana, Ali said he planned to bring four wives back to the U.S.

Jack Cashill, author of the Ali biography “Sucker Punch: The Hard Left Hook that Dazed Ali and Killed King’s Dream,” said Ali was transformed from a solid American kid into an anti-American extremist by the Nation of Islam.

“You don’t need the FBI to know that Ali held racist views,” Cashill told WND. “As late as 1975, Ali was telling Playboy magazine that he believed interracial couples should be lynched.”

Cashill was one of several guests last year on ESPN’s “The Stephen A. Smith Show” who spent an hour discussing Ali. NFL great Jim Brown was also one of the guests, along with Thomas Hauser, who wrote the definitive biography on Ali, “Muhammad Ali: His Life and Times.”

“I said to Hauser, who really knows his stuff, it seems to me the left had no use for Ali, and it definitely had no interest in boxing, which is a working-class, sort of blue-collar sport, and the left had no interest in him until he dodged the draft.”

The theory Cashill puts forth in his book is that Cassius Clay had a chance to advance race relations well beyond any of his peers.

“But instead he joined Nation of Islam, and he was a pariah in the media until he rejected the draft,” Cashill said. “I think it was a phase he went through. He was not naturally a racist at all. And that’s why he was so attractive as a personality. He grew up in a nice sort of middle-class household in Kentucky.”

His contemporary, heavyweight boxer Joe Frasier, acutely felt the sting of Ali’s racist wrath. Ali called Frazier “ugly,” an “Uncle Tom” and a “gorilla.”

Who from that era can forget Ali leaning over Howard Cosell and saying: “It’s going to be a thrilla in Manila when I kill that gorilla.’”

Frazier reportedly never forgave Ali for the comments.

“He had a horrible 10-year period as a human being and the left celebrated him for it, all because he ducked the draft,” Cashill told WND.

‘America don’t have no future’

Ali gave a “curiously intemperate interview” to Playboy, as Cashill describes it, that would appear a month after his Manila fight.

In that interview, he continued to make the case for a separate African-American nation and declared: “America don’t have no future. America’s going to be destroyed.”

In his book “Sucker Punch,” Cashill said that kind of incendiary talk “was still rote Elijah Muhammad.”

“By the mid-1970s, such expressions of national self-loathing had ceased to be provocative. What did provoke in this newly feminized era was his view on sex and gender.”

Cashill further observed:

In comparing Muslims to the allegedly war-worshipping Christians, Ali made the point that Muslims “live their religion – we ain’t hypocrites.” He continued, “We submit entirely to Allah’s will. We don’t eat ham, bacon, or pork. We don’t smoke. And everyone knows we honor our women.” As he went on to explain, Muslim men honor their women by keeping them “in the background” and protecting them from the predations of other men, especially white men. “Put a hand on a Muslim sister,” said Ali, “and you are to die.” When asked if he believed that lynching was the answer to interracial sex, Ali answered, “A black man should be killed if he’s messing with a white woman.”

Ali came into his own as a sports icon during what Cashill calls the era of the “grievance narrative,” which emerged in the latter half of the 1960s following the death of John F. Kennedy. America’s black sports heroes would forever after be defined by their grievances of growing up “a descendant of slaves” and post-slavery oppression, rather than by their unique accomplishments.

In a series of articles about Ali, Cashill further writes:

The heroic possibilities of the grievance narrative did not fully emerge until the latter half of the decade after the death of John Kennedy and the escalation of the war in Vietnam. As told by those who have mythologized the sixties, the youth of America rose up to throw off the shackles of racial paternalism, sexual repression, and imperial ambition. In this context, heroism was achieved not so much through individual accomplishment as through individual awareness of grievances and a collective reordering of the society.

Ali came as close to fulfilling this idea of the hero as any public figure of that era. Indeed, as seen through the looking glass of this fabled decade, his life has taken on the quality of myth.

Fleeced by the mosque

Ali’s ex-wife, Sonji Roi, informed the FBI that the Nation of Islam received 80 percent of the boxer’s earnings. The records obtained by Judicial Watch also state that Ali was arrested for assault and battery in July 1960 at his parents’ home in Louisville, Kentucky, and that his mother witnessed the crime.

Judicial Watch had to sue the government to get the records, which are decades old but come to light as Ali’s family ironically uses his name and legacy to launch a national campaign to end racial and religious profiling.

Just weeks ago, according to JW, Ali’s second wife, Khalilah Camacho-Ali, and son, Muhammad Ali Jr., announced they are launching an anti-discrimination initiative called “Step into the Ring.”

The inspiration for the campaign came from getting detained and questioned at a South Florida airport where mother and son claim they were racially and religiously profiled.

“The Alis were returning from a Jamaican Black History month event in February and assert that federal immigration officers harassed them,” JW reported. “As part of their ‘Step into the Ring’ campaign, they traveled to Capitol Hill in March to make a plea to end racial and religious profiling.”

When Ali died in Phoenix, Arizona, last June, establishment media published glowing obituaries recounting his boxing exploits and status as a civil rights hero. One news outlet called Ali a “civil rights champion” and “an emblem of strength, eloquence, conscience and courage.”

Another wrote that, along with a fearsome reputation as a fighter, Ali spoke out against racism, war and religious intolerance.

Obama issued a statement saying Ali fought for everyone.

“He stood with King and Mandela,” Obama said in a White House statement, adding that the boxer “stood up when it was hard; spoke out when others wouldn’t.”

“His fight outside the ring would cost him his title and his public standing,” Obama said. “It would earn him enemies on the left and the right, make him reviled, and nearly send him to jail. But Ali stood his ground. And his victory helped us get used to the America we recognize today.”

But the other side of Ali’s life is apparent in the newly released FBI files, which, as Judicial Watch states, “paint a vastly different portrait of the boxer.”