Identity politics: The polite and the rude versions

Very strong Image Of a afro American woman Crying  isolated on B




Since the Trump victory a number of articles have been published decrying the left’s reliance on “identity politics” as a causative factor in the election. One of the politer versions is Matt Ridley’s in his blog here.  Jim Goad published the ruder version of this repudiation in TakiMag. Even the New York Times emerged from its doctrinal slumbers after the election and allowed the publication of Mark Lilla’s “The End of Identity Liberalism”.

Says Lilla:

“But the fixation on diversity in our schools and in the press has produced a generation of liberals and progressives narcissistically unaware of conditions outside their self-defined groups, and indifferent to the task of reaching out to Americans in every walk of life.”

and later:

But it is at the level of electoral politics that identity liberalism has failed most spectacularly, as we have just seen. National politics in healthy periods is not about “difference,” it is about commonality. And it will be dominated by whoever best captures Americans’ imaginations about our shared destiny. Ronald Reagan did that very skillfully, whatever one may think of his vision. So did Bill Clinton, who took a page from Reagan’s playbook. He seized the Democratic Party away from its identity-conscious wing, concentrated his energies on domestic programs that would benefit everyone (like national health insurance) and defined America’s role in the post-1989 world.

Unfortunately for the health of the polity, I see no end to the catering to identity politics. It has taken a blow to the head, but it retains its strength as an ideology. Why? Because blaming white people, males and Christians is the core of Leftist thought at this stage. Capitalism? an evil system devised by dead white males on the backs of slaves to erect an economy poisoning the earth with carbon dioxide. Racism? can only be exercised by white people, by definition, because only white people have hegemony. And so in self-referencing circular closed reasoning.

In the ruder version of Jim Goad, it goes like this:

“Listen up, dimwits: When you encourage racial pride in all groups except whites, you aren’t exactly making a case against “racism.” If you have even a semblance of a spine, sooner or later you’ll hear this nonstop sneering condescension about how you were born with a stain on your soul and say, “Hey, fuck you. I’ve done nothing wrong, but you’re really starting to bother me…”

Instead, a large swath of voters grew so tired of being actively hated, they struck back and said “enough.” They didn’t “vote against their interests,” as is so often patronizingly alleged; they voted against the condescending, scolding, sheltered creampuffs who try to dictate their interests to them.

I am not asserting that Trump won exclusively or even predominantly because white people got pissed off at the racial profiling of the Left, but it had to be a significant factor in the repudiation of their views which have accompanied the repudiation of Clinton.

I will go further, and venture onto ground which is sure to be attacked and supported for the wrong reasons. I read many news aggregators. One of them is American Renaissance, which goes well beyond Trump’s American nationalism to a confidently expressed white racial consciousness. By this I mean that it is based on a number of premises:
  • white people exist, and though a loose category, a fuzzy set, they have characteristics
  • they have made a disproportionate contribution, relative to their global numbers,  to the evolution of science, arts and politics for the past  millennium, maybe longer.
  • It may be the result of cultural, religious, or biological reasons, in any combination.
  • This heritage has been broadly beneficial to mankind

Now it should be stated that I have no idea whether there is a biological underpinning to this relative but not exclusive excellence, or not. I think the contribution of Christianity to this state of affairs is at present underrated, but biology may be a factor. I do not know.

I do not think that the relative accomplishments of white civilizations are the moral basis of superior rights for white people, whoever they may be. That way lies stagnation, slavery and its religious-political expression, Islam.

 My point is that such discussion is banned. The result is that many disadvantages of other peoples are treated as issues of wrongful discrimination rather than the obvious fact that some people are a few bricks short of a load. This could be permanent, or, as I believe, a result of the current stage of their cultural evolution.
 A racial viewpoint – whether cultural, biological or both – is inadequate to explain everything and perhaps even most things, but the total exclusion of this point of view from public and private  discourse is, and will be seen to be, insane. Like pretending the sexes are the same in every respect.
Now, back to the issue of what we have in common, which is where a sane politics must start from. Here is President-elect Trump talking about commonalities rather than diversities at his post victory rally in Cincinnati. [Skip the warm-up acts]. He gets the vital need to bring people together, as has every successful democrat.

“I am only the messenger”, he says at one point, and then in a moment of pure Donald, says: “but a pretty great messenger”.

Something’s happening here, and you don’t know what it is, do you? Mr. Jones

The issue many people are wondering about is this: how big is the change that is going on? Is it merely – and I use that word ironically – the election of Trump, the vote for Brexit, and associated political changes that will likely follow in Europe? Or is it bigger? And if bigger, of what does it consist?

Caol Islay held forth at lunch yesterday that what we were witnessing was akin to the would-be revolutions of 1968, which did not succeed, but which marked the breakup of the consensus of post-World War 2 societies. Are we witnessing the beginnings of a vast mood change? And what would  happen if we were having one?

Take Obama’s recent meditations with David Remnick of the New Yorker, as  quoted in Breitbart:

What frustrated Obama and his staff [in the 2016 campaign] was the knowledge that, in large measure, they were reaching their own people but no further. They spoke to the networks and the major cable outlets, the major papers and the mainstream Web sites, and, in an attempt to find people “where they are,” forums such as Bill Maher’s and Samantha Bee’s late-night cable shows, and Marc Maron’s podcast. But they would never reach the collective readerships of Breitbart News, the Drudge Report, WND, Newsmax, InfoWars, and lesser-knowns like Western Journalism—not to mention the closed loop of peer-to-peer right-wing rumor-mongering.

… That marked a decisive change from previous political eras, [Obama] maintained. “Ideally, in a democracy, everybody would agree that , because that’s what ninety-nine per cent of scientists tell us,” he said. “And then we would have a debate about how to fix it. That’s how, in the seventies, eighties, and nineties, you had Republicans supporting the Clean Air Act and you had a market-based fix for acid rain rather than a command-and-control approach. So you’d argue about means, but there was a baseline of facts that we could all work off of. And now we just don’t have that” …

“I have complete confidence in the American people—that if I can have a conversation with them they’ll choose what’s right. At an emotional level, they want to do the right thing if they have the information.” And yet in an age of filter bubbles and social-media silos, he knew, the “information” that reached people was increasingly shaped by what they wanted to be true. And that was no longer in his hands or anyone else’s.

  1.  The liberal media could not reach those who were not already persuaded.
  2. Obama remains convinced that “climate change is the consequence of man-made behavior.” No discussion no debate, it is a fact.
  3. If he could only speak to the American people they would see the wisdom of his positions: “if I can have a conversation with them they’ll choose what’s right”.

Let us start with that hideous word “conversation”. It is not a conversation with one person holding the megaphone and when the listener is hounded, defunded, reviled and attacked for disagreeing – see global warming as the archetypal liberal “conversation”.

Hence it is only to be expected that, when the issue is a matter of fact, and one side holds it out to be a question of religious belief, there can be no error, there can only be heresy.

The Left has been treating dissent as heresy for decades. The number of undiscussable items is only added to with every passing  year. You name it: ecology, crime, race, IQ differentials, heritability of traits, and the adequacy of Darwin to explain everything, the nature of Islam, the benefits of multiculturalism. You could think of four or five additional major areas of life where the Left treats disagreement about facts as worthy of social shunning and job loss. Of being labeled a racist, exist, fascist, homophobe etc.

They have been shouting through megaphones for decades, and the noise level only got more intense under Obama. But Trump elicited yet further disparagement from the bien-pensants. The surprize for me was the extent to which apparently well educated people, not usually associated with politically correct persecutions,  have completely lost their minds about both Trump, his supporters, and nationalist economics.

To the constantly growing chorus of PC was added the upper-middle class howls about free trade. Personally I support free trade. I think it makes us richer, but while it makes us some of us richer it clearly has negative effects on our domestic working class. It was perfectly within Trump’s right to speak for the displaced and the disadvantaged in this titanic economic transformation. There was an element in the financial press that continues to shriek “How dare he?!” “Who are these peasants and how dare they revolt?”

So in answer to my question, I see that something is going on larger than the immediate policy changes consequent to nationalist electoral victories. I see a vast mood change. Once you lift the lid of political correctness in one place, it will be lifted everywhere. That is my belief. We can only hope.


Yes, Rebel Yell, Trump is the President-elect!




Rebel Yell and I repaired to the Fortress of Solitude yesterday, ostensibly to split some firewood. The evening’s discussion turned to the significance of Trump’s election. These were our thoughts.

  • All media were wrong, massively, and in two ways, as predictors, and as participants in what became the electorate’s massive repudiation of the Democratic candidate.
  • Trump is a temporary window  that allows for push-back against the rising tide of cultural bolshevism and related evils.
  • Clinton promised the continuation and intensification of every current negative tendency: anti-white racialism, gender confusion, global warming catastrophism, war mongering against Russia, pandering to Islam, and so forth.

Changes to be expected include:


  1. A decline in the influence of political correctness, when American society’s leader has so radically broken with it.
  2. A toughening of attitudes towards Islam. (It was related to me this week by a Pakistani Muslim of sound judgment that all of political Pakistan was aware that Hillary diverted her plane during a trip to India in order to lecture the Pakistani military leader on his treatment of an ousted Pakistani civilian prime minister, after a donation on the latter’s behalf had been made to the Clinton Foundation. People from more corrupt cultures are quicker to understand the deep corruption of the Clintons. They have seen how it works for ever. We are just learning the art of bought politicians.)
  3. A toughening of attitudes all around, towards whingers, social justice warriors, and the undeserving, and increased social authorization to speak out against evil.
  4. The consistent media-transmitted disrespect for ordinary people’s concerns, particularly white people’s concerns, will be diminish.

Climate catastrophism

  1. Anthropocentric global warming as a basis of energy policy is toast. Trump correctly sees it as the pretense for a massive takeover of every portion of the economy by organs of state planning, and nothing more. Windmills,  carbon capture, “green” energy, and measures against using fossil fuels will suffer the lingering death they deserve. The parasites who have benefited by income transfers from users  to the producers of subsidized of energy will, alas, not be executed.

Market ideology

  1. There will be a more realistic attitude towards the benefits of markets, and their negative consequences. The idolatry of markets has been repudiated,
  2. It will be realized that, for there to be conservatism, there must be conservatives living to experience it. Thus immigration policy in the United States will be toughened, and its borders defended.

Foreign Policy

  1. The agitation for war against Russia will cease. US involvement in Syria will be coordinated in some measure with Russia’s.
  2. Turkey may become the target of animosity.
  3. Iran will be punched out if it steps out of line.
  4. The US will cease to be anti-British and anti-Brexit.

Health Care

  1. Obamacare will be overturned and a better (somewhat socialized) medical scheme will be installed in its stead. The American insurance market for health is not organized nationally, but on the basis of fifty state-sized mini and micro-markets. Trump may use his majority to assert national jurisdiction over health insurance, and get the necessary economies of scale and levels of competition into health insurance delivery. (The effects of health insurance price rises on the voters has yet to be sufficiently appreciated).

Policing and American blacks

  1. The Ferguson effect will be dissolved. Police will be encouraged once again to enforce the law on black criminality. Trump will not find pseudo-kinship with violent blacks who have been shot by police or citizens. It will be possible to state in public that vastly more American blacks are shot by their fellow blacks than by police, and not be fired for it.

At the end of our discussion, Rebel Yell banged the table, and asked: “Tell me, is Trump, President-elect?” Yes, Rebel Yell, he is.


Then came news of the death of Leonard Cohen. We put on his CD “Live in London” and listened to the perfection, and thought about mortality and Cohen’s greatness.

Matt Ridley on global greening



Matt Ridley’s address to the Global Warming Policy Foundation must be read by people concerned to find a sane view of global warming, climate change, and what the arguments are.

We’re told that it’s impertinent to question “the science” and that we must think as we are told. But arguments from authority are the refuge of priests.

Thomas Henry Huxley put it this way: “The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”

What keeps science honest, what stops it from succumbing entirely to confirmation bias, is that it is decentralized, allowing one lab to challenge another.

That’s how truth is arrived at in science, not by scientists challenging their own theories (that’s a myth), but by scientists disputing each other’s theories.

These days there is a legion of well paid climate spin doctors. Their job is to keep the debate binary: either you believe climate change is real and dangerous or you’re a denier who thinks it’s a hoax.

But there’s a third possibility they refuse to acknowledge: that it’s real but not dangerous. That’s what I mean by lukewarming, and I think it is by far the most likely prognosis.

I am not claiming that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas; it is.

I am not saying that its concentration in the atmosphere is not increasing; it is.

I am not saying the main cause of that increase is not the burning of fossil fuels; it is.

I am not saying the climate does not change; it does.

I am not saying that the atmosphere is not warmer today than it was 50 or 100 years ago; it is.

And I am not saying that carbon dioxide emissions are not likely to have caused some (probably more than half) of the warming since 1950.

I agree with the consensus on all these points.

I am not in any sense a “denier”, that unpleasant, modern term of abuse for blasphemers against the climate dogma, though the Guardian and New Scientist never let the facts get in the way of their prejudices on such matters. I am a lukewarmer.

Read the whole speech here.

I am a Deplorable




The British Army of 1914 was called “a contemptible little army” by the German Kaiser, and so they called themselves “the Old Contemptibles”. “Quaker”, “Protestant”, and “hippie” were all originally terms of derision that stuck, and were neutralized with the passage of time. I think Trump supporters should embrace being called “deplorable” especially when you see what the liberal media call deplorable.

  • 79% of Clinton supporters thought treatment of racial minorities in the US was a “very important” issue. Only 42% of Trump supporters felt that way.
  • 47% of US voters appear to think the Donald is a racist. 42% do not. (nothing about the Deplorables’ values here)
  • 60% of US voters believe the Donald is biased against women and minorities. (ditto)
  • Are you bothered when you come into contact with immigrants who speak little or no English? 50% of Americans in general are bothered. 77% of Trump supporters are.
  • Is Islam at odds with American values? All American voters: 57% Deplorable Trumpians: 83%

So, as to the values held by Trumpians, they significantly are less concerned with American racial (read black grievance) obsessions, and are somewhat more concerned with Islamic aggression against the values of a liberal society than the already intolerant 57%. And I would  certainly be bothered when I come across an immigrant who speaks neither English nor French, but I never come across them, so sheltered am I.

So I am definitely a Deplorable. You probably are too, with your two university degrees if you are reading this website. Imagine what all those coal-mining hillbillies feel like. Deplorable, indeed.

This is your mind on “diversity”

The picture is of the editorial board of the Huffington Post, the leftwing website aggregator. It was posted in all unconsciousness by its Executive Editor as an example of “diversity”.


It is unclear whether, when Liz Heron posted this photograph on Twitter, that she was even aware that it showed an all female board with two or three Asians among the whites. No blacks, of course, and no men, of course. If I am right, Heron invoked the term “diverse” the way a Spaniard in the 16th century would have invoked the Virgin Mary or the Holy Spirit, where rote mental formulas have supplanted thought, or self-awareness. Irony has been abolished, because irony requires an understanding that there is a gap between reality and our aspirations.

Hence, my interpretation of of the totalitarian slogans of our time:

Diversity = uniformity

Inclusion = exclusion

Multicultural – monocultural

It is the purest Bolshevism.

We are in a totalitarian age, and it did not stop with the destruction of fascism and the repudiation of soviet communism. No sir. It has transmuted into political correctness, which is anti-male, anti-white, and anti-Christian, among other things. Its real nature is explored in this article by Frank Ellis from 1999 found at American Renaissance. I recommend that you read it because it captures the essence of the cultural transformation which is being tried out in North America, and which, in my mind, goes from strength to strength.

What we call “political correctness” actually dates back to the Soviet Union of the 1920s (politicheskaya pravil’nost’ in Russian), and was the extension of political control to education, psychiatry, ethics, and behavior. It was an essential component of the attempt to make sure all aspects of life were consistent with ideological orthodoxy — which is the distinctive feature of all totalitarianisms. In the post-Stalin period, political correctness even meant that dissent was seen as a symptom of mental illness, for which the only treatment was incarceration….

Today, of course, we are made to believe that diversity is strength, perversity is virtue, success is oppression, and that relentlessly repeating these ideas over and over is “tolerance and diversity.”

This, of course, is the beauty of “racism” and “sexism” for today’s culture attackers — sin can be extended far beyond individuals to include institutions, literature, language, history, laws, customs, entire civilizations. The charge of “institutional racism” is no different from declaring an entire economic class an enemy of the people. “Racism” and “sexism” are multiculturalism’s assault weapons, its Big Ideas, just as class warfare was for Communists, and the effects are the same. If a crime can be collectivized all can be guilty because they belong to the wrong group. When young whites are victims of racial preferences they are to-day’s version of the Russian peasants. Even if they themselves have never oppressed anyone they “belong to the race that is guilty of everything.”

The purpose of these multi-cultural campaigns is to destroy the self. The mouth moves, the right gestures follow, but they are the mouth and gestures of a zombie, the new Soviet man or, today, PC-man. And once enough people have been conditioned this way, violence is no longer necessary. We reach steady-state totalitarianism, in which the vast majority know what is expected of them and play their allotted roles.

The longer I watch this phenomenon in action, the more I am persuaded, nay, convinced, that such apparently extreme descriptions of political correctness are exact, precise, correct, and right. It makes me want Trump to win, just to break through the carapace of political correctness.

“Communism would not last a minute if we just spoke the truth,” said Solzhenitsyn. I am appalled that what he said about Communism has become applicable to our own society, and it needed neither war nor revolution in the conventional sense to impose this totalitarianism on us.




Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, on why there is no CO2 crisis

Greenpeace co-founder pens treatise on the positive effects of CO2 – says there is no crisis

This is a straight lift from Watts Up with That

Moore looks at the historical record of CO2 in our atmosphere and concludes that we came dangerously close to losing plant life on Earth about 18,000 years ago, when CO2 levels approached 150 ppm, below which plant life can’t sustain photosynthesis. He notes:

“A 140 million year decline in CO2 to levels that came close to threatening the survival of life on Earth can hardly be described as “the balance of nature”.

Now, with 400ppm in the atmosphere, the biosphere is once again booming (see figure 8 below). He also points out how environmental groups and politicians are using the “crisis” of CO2 increase to feather their own nests:

“A powerful convergence of interests among key elites supports and drives the climate catastrophe narrative. Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations; politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; scientists and science institutions raise billions in public grants, create whole new institutions, and engage in a feeding frenzy of scary scenarios; businesses want to look green and receive huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be economic losers, such as large wind farms and solar arrays. Even the Pope of the Catholic Church has weighed in with a religious angle. Lost in all these machinations is the indisputable fact that the most important thing about CO2 is that it is essential for all life on Earth and that before humans began to burn fossil fuels, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was heading in a very dangerous direction for a very long time. Surely, the most “dangerous” change in climate in the short term would be to one that would not support sufficient food production to feed our own population.”

The link to the full (24 pp) report is below.



The picture of the Lauterbrunnen (loudstream) valley in Switzerland is pretty and relevant. Do you see the shape of that valley? It is in the shape of a steep “U”, characteristic of the erosion pattern formed by ice. Within near-historical time, some 9 to 12,000 years ago, that valley was filled with ice, all the way to the top of the steep walls. Solid, grinding, flowing ice, at a latitude of Canada’s capital, Ottawa, 46 degrees north. There has been global warming.

Elite opinion going nuts

James Taub of Foreign Policy Magazine says it all: “It’s time for the elites to rise up against the ignorant masses”.

The issues are not between left and right he says, but between the wise and knowing elites and the angry know nothings who voted  for Brexit and who will he fears vote for Trump.



Given Mr. Taub’s description  of what ails the masses, it is to be expected that they are in revolt. He writes:


The issue, at bottom, is globalization. Brexit, Trump, the National Front, and so on show that political elites have misjudged the depth of the anger at global forces and thus the demand that someone, somehow, restore the status quo ante. It may seem strange that the reaction has come today rather than immediately after the economic crisis of 2008, but the ebbing of the crisis has led to a new sense of stagnation. With prospects of flat growth in Europe and minimal income growth in the United States, voters are rebelling against their dismal long-term prospects. And globalization means culture as well as economics: Older people whose familiar world is vanishing beneath a welter of foreign tongues and multicultural celebrations are waving their fists at cosmopolitan elites.

If my long term prospects were ‘dismal’, to use his words, I too would revolt.

The schism we see opening before us is not just about policies, but about reality. The Brexit forces won because cynical leaders were prepared to cater to voters’ paranoia, lying to them about the dangers of immigration and the costs of membership in the EU.

It is customary in argument to assert that the view of reality held by one’s opponents must be wrong. Usually left wingers assert that opposition is informed by wrong attitudes, ideologies, and values. It never occurs to writers like Taub that the systematic cover-up by British police and social workers of Islamic rape culture in Rotherham has come home to roost, as it were. It never seems to occur to them that the price of imposing political correctness – which is not to perceive or speak about what is in front of one’s nose – is that the pressure must build up to the point of explosion. Through miscalculation, the Tory government handed the masses a clearly worded question that asked them in effect if they wanted

  • to be irrevocably committed to unlimitable immigration and
  • the permanent subordination of their political institutions to un-elected and unaccountable foreign ones.

Despite many material advantages of the current arrangements, the people answered ‘no’. Now the elites are going bonkers. Go figure.



what if Mateen had been a Nazi?

The discourse on the Islamic gay terrorist in the Orlando night club is proving to be the usual Rorschach test of political beliefs: gun control, Islam, immigration, homophobia.

To those obsessed with the absence of American gun control, I have a few simple questions:

What if a man claiming to be a follower of Adolf Hitler had done the same thing, in the name of cleansing the species of decadence?

Would anyone give a damn whether he had used an AR-15 rather than a Kalashnikov? Would the issue be considered the lack of suitable gun control?

No, obviously. Gun control speaks to means but not the motivation. No amount of European gun control prevented the massacre and attacks in Paris.

And if he had turned out to be a self-conflicted gay Nazi, would it make a difference to anyone’s estimate of the man and the crime?

It would elicit the same response:  deviant or minority sexuality in both Islamic and National Socialist ideologies is so savagely repressed by one’s society and one’s culture, that the incompatibility between self and ideology causes explosions of rage.

I have been appalled and amazed, even at my advanced stage of cynicism, by the extent to which the discourse is shifted by liberals to things about which nothing can really be done, such as gun control in the US, to things about which everything can be done: changing our views on the real nature of Islam.

More and more I understand what Churchill went through in the 1930s, as he railed against the Nazi menace. People in the ruling class did not want to know about Hitler. They blamed the barking dog for provoking the behaviour of the wolf pack, which was hunting the sheep in the meadow.

Certain menaces are so existential, and challenge so many assumptions of the comfortable liberal world view, that it is easier to talk about gun control than Muslim control.

Islam is not a religion; it is a totalitarian social ideology.


Islam at work for Trump

The apostasy of our intellectuals and politicians will shortly be on display. The recent massacre of over 50 people in an Orlando gay bar by a Muslim, born in America, and incidentally a registered Democrat, will bring forth the usual nonsense that Islam is the religion of peace.

Yes, for those who have already submitted, Islam promises the peace that passes all understanding. Brain death awaits them, or has already reduced them to mechanistic obedience to the mind killer which is Islam.

As a friend remarked:

Well I guess that puts the Trump presidency into concrete. Done deal.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has written several books on here experience growing up as a Somali woman Muslim. She is waging the fight to get western liberals to understand that what we see in the papers is not an aberration, it is Islam itself. I take this extract from her latest, called Heretic.

After describing how her half sister lectured her for hours and sought to involve the extended family in having Ayaan sent away for having questioned the need for prayer five times a day, Hirsi Ali writes:

This illustrates how the practice of commanding right and forbidding wrong functions in Islamic society. Debate and doubt are intolerable,deserving of censure, with the questioner reduced to silence even ins command me to do right and to forbid me to do – or even think – wrong.

This is only part of the larger truth about Islam. It is almost always the immediate family that starts the persecution of freethinkers, of those who would ask questions or propose something new.Commanding right and forbidding wrong begins at home.From there it moves out into the community at large.Totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century had to work quite hard to persuade family members  to denounce one another to the authorities . The power of the Muslim system is that the authorities do not need to be involved. Social control begins at home.

The constant personal and intellectual unease that many of the Muslim students at my Harvard seminar felt with any discussion of the political organization of the Islamic world is directly connected to this over arching concept  of commanding right and forbidding wrong.

-at page 154

OmarMateen2-640x480“No one could have predicted this,” Islamic Society of Central Florida official says:

On the contrary, murders by Muslims of others whom they believe to committing wrong are enjoined, ordained, and commanded by the Prophet.