What Orwell Can Tell Us About the Liberal Appeasement of Islam

The West can return to national identity or it can fight a holy war between Islamist Multiculturalism and Progressive Multiculturalism. 

What it cannot do is avoid the conflict. 

That is a lesson that Gillard and all the Gillards of the West still haven't learned 

and 

by the time they do realize it, it may be too late.

Sunday, September 23, 2012

Muslim Multiculturalism and Western Post-Nationalism

Posted by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog 

25 Comments

Responding to the Sydney Mohammed riots featuring bloodied police officers and Muslim children holding beheading signs, Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard said, "What we saw in Sydney on the weekend wasn't multiculturalism but extremism."

Muslim extremism is multicultural. It is the essence of their approach to multiculturalism. Only through, what Gillard calls extremism, do an Egyptian, a Pakistani and a Malay have anything at all in common with one another.

Immigrants from different nations can move to a nation and accept a new national identity. Hundreds of millions of Americans and Australians are the result of such an arrangement. The immigrants can meet up at folk culture festivals where they partake of each other's national foods or they can stick to their own foods-- it doesn't make that much of a difference except for when politicians running for office gain 40 pounds eating bratwurst, pizza and bagels and drinking Guinness at campaign events.

When there is a strong national identity, either former or present, there is rarely a conflict between religious identity and national identity. Those conflicts have usually been settled in the past in some uneasy, but final way, that allows everyone to believe what they want to believe without turning that belief into the defining form of national identity. That way one can be a good Englishman without being a member of the Church of England or a good Frenchmen without being a member of the Catholic Church. Arriving at that point was not easy, but it ended the religious wars of Europe.

Muslims do not have a strong national identity. Their nations are a hodgepodge of military dictators, colonial leftovers and tribal alliances. Their societies are "multicultural" in the sense that they are composed of numerous hostile ethnic groups, tribes and families who are united only by a common religion. This unity is fragile, but it is the most common form of unity that they have and they value it far more than national identity.

To the Muslim, his nation is a fleeting thing, a historical accident by a colonial mapmaker digging up ancient names and drawing lines that cut across the lines of ethnic and tribal migrations, but his religion, though he understands very little of it, is a fine and great thing that has long preceded the nation and means far more to him than the nation does.

Even Muslims in moderate countries poll as identifying more with Islam than with a political faction or national identity. That is why what happened when Muslim democracy was unleashed on the Muslim World was completely inevitable. Muslims chose the one form of identity that they could agree on. It was an identity that excluded Christians, but democracy draws a circle around the largest number of people and outside Lebanon and Israel, those people are all Muslims.

Muslims bridge multiculturalism through religion and they do not accept any form of national identity that is not based on religious unity. That is what the Arab Spring really meant.

Syria, the big sticking point in the Arab Spring, is the place where Islamic unity was impossible because of a split between Sunnis and Shiites, leading to a religious civil war. A similar civil war has been burning in Iraq for ages, occasionally suppressed, before flaring to life again. The successes of the Arab Spring were in countries like Egypt, where Sunni Islamists could count on the support of a majority of the population.

Now when those Muslims are shipped to Europe, America, Canada or Australia, they are expected to become Englishmen, Americans or Australians. But they can't become any of those things because they were never really Pakistanis, Moroccans or Egyptians.

The Pakistani immigrant is a Muslim speaking one of Pakistan's 80 languages and belonging to one of its major ethnic groups (unless he's a descendant of the country's African slaves). The facade of his national identity are just that. On the order of things that he loves or will die for, his country ranks well below his family, his ethnic group and his religion. This does not change when he moves to the UK, especially as Britain is several steps below Pakistan in his estimation, and his estimation of that country was already rather poor.

The Muslim immigrant does not trade one national identity for another. What he does is bring along his local ethnic identity and his global religious identity, and unpacks them both in Sydney or London where he is a member of an ethnic community and a religious community. On top of that he may be an Australian, but he is an Australian in the same way that Sunnis and Shiites are Iraqis or Syrians. All that means is that he will pay taxes, fill out forms and curse the local government officials for being incompetent blockheads, instead of the ones back home. And when his religious identity is at odds with his national obligations, he will do exactly what Sunnis in Syria or Shiites in Iraq have done. He will choose religious identity over national identity.

This concept should not be a particularly foreign one to Gillard. It is likely that she feels a similar identification with fellow progressives in Europe and America, that Hassan feels for his fellow Muslims. Like Islam, progressive politics provides a shared transnational identity based on common goals for an ordered world ruled by an ideal system. Gillard may even feel a greater identification with European Socialists than with more conservative Australians.

This state of affairs is a symptom of the decline of nations. Gillard and Hassan are both consequences of post-nationalism, as are Obama and Morsi, or Hollande and Ahmed in the banlieue. These leaders pay lip service to national identity, but imagine a world without national borders and divisions. That is something they have in common with Muslims, who see nations or borders as abstract entities in the same way that their leftist enablers do.

Gillard subscribes to a post-national identity, and Hassan to a pre-national identity. This is only a technical difference that matters as much as the location of the endpoint of a circle, but in the practical sense they are members of dramatically different identity groups with their own incompatible forms of multiculturalism.

The left's post-national identity is based on a secular political multiculturalism. Islam's post-national identity is based on a religious theocratic multiculturalism. The left has heresies that it prosecutes as hate crimes and Islam has heresies that it prosecutes as blasphemy. Gillard would understand, though condemn, a riot based on some offense to gay rights or aboriginal rights, as an offense against her brand of multiculturalism. The Mohammed riots may be more understandable to her as an offense against Muslim multiculturalism.

The problem with going post-national is that it turns out to be pre-national. Destroy the national identity and you revert to the religious identity, and before you know it, you have a holy war and a theocracy on your hands.

Progressives have been always too stupid to understand that the consequences of their progressivism in undermining the current, more advanced, phase of human society is the restoration of reactionary social and political systems. In Russia, the Bolsheviks toppled an intermediary government and restored a Czar named Stalin and feudalism under the name of collectivism, to the proud cheers of the world's leftists at the progress they were making. In the Arab Spring, they brought back Islamism and they have brought it back in London and Sydney, and Paris and New York as well.

The left destroyed Western national identity and brought back the holy war, but due to Christian and Jewish secularism and Muslim immigration, instead of Catholics and Protestants fighting each other in Paris and London, it's Muslims rioting in the streets and demanding an Islamic theocracy to rule them. And why not? If rule no longer derives from the people or the nation, but panels of judges and rooms of bureaucrats, then the Islamic version is as legitimate as the Socialist version.

Western government that deny both democracy and nationalism are acting as leftist Mullahs, enforcing their beliefs on everyone else. This is their multiculturalism and it is just as backward, reactionary and corrupt as the Islamic version. And why shouldn't Muslims demand that if they are going to be ruled by a philosophy of the way things should be, then it might as well be their own? The only counterargument that can be offered to is that they are foreigners, but it is not an argument that the progressive left can make after championing immigration and the death of nations.

The West was made post-national and then filled with pre-national peoples. Those pre-national peoples are competing to carve it up into tribal fiefdoms and into a theocracy. What Muslims are doing is extremism, in the same way that advocates of a united Italy or Germany were extremist. They are trying to assemble the tribal fiefdoms into a common Muslim multicultural identity in the same way that they tried to do across the Middle East, Asia and parts of Europe.

Extremism is not the issue. Not unless Gillard were to admit that transforming Australia into a Caliphate where women and non-Muslims have no rights is moderate when done politically, but extreme when done by force. The issue, as in so many conflicts, is identity and organization.

The multicultural Muslim world has imported its own competing form of multiculturalism to Europe, Australia, America and Canada. So far its multiculturalism appears to be more potent than the local secular variety because despite being a third-rate bastardized version of Christianity and Judaism, with some tribal customs and pagan elements mixed in, it's still more vital than the thin gruel that the progressives feed their people to keep them occupied while they dig deeper into positions of power.

Most people, Muslim or non-Muslim, do not find an identity based on celebrating every possible identity particularly meaningful or rewarding. Western multiculturalism is a tourist identity that has no content of its own. It is self-nullifying void, the jaded palate of a decadent society constantly searching for novel experiences and exotic flavors. The native elites find touring cultures and sexual identities to be a rewarding experience, but the immigrants are not so bored and jaded, so decadent and comfortable, that they want to play tourist. What they want is a multiculturalism that is based on one similarity and Islam gives them that.

The West can return to national identity or it can fight a holy war between Islamist Multiculturalism and Progressive Multiculturalism. What it cannot do is avoid the conflict. That is a lesson that Gillard and all the Gillards of the West still haven't learned and by the time they do realize it, it may be too late.

--------------------------------------------------

Sunday, September 30, 2012

What Orwell Can Tell Us About the Liberal Appeasement of Islam

Posted by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog 27 Comments

Suppose there were a worldwide movement which openly proclaimed its goal of taking over in your country and every country with the purpose of imposing its system on every human beings on earth. Also suppose that this movement had carried out murders and terrorist attacks in your own country, that members of this group promoted violence while gaining political influence. Suppose also that is was highly unfashionable and politically incorrect to speak out against them.

I am not speaking of Islam here, but of Communism. The current wave of censorship and denial toward Islam is not a new development. It is rather a very old one. Islamophobia, like Red-Baiting, is a political term that serves the function of cutting off any discussion of the subject. It precludes any listing of the facts or debates on the issue, by declaring it to be off-limits. To raise the issue is to expose yourself as a bad person whose ideas are unacceptable for public distribution.

When George Orwell was struggling to find a publisher for Animal Farm, he was repeatedly turned down on the grounds that the book would offend the Soviet Union. One publisher wrote to Orwell that he had been dissuaded from publishing the book by an important official in the Ministry of Information (an agency that would become the Ministry of Truth in his novel, 1984) who had told him that publishing such a book would be ill-advised at this time. That official was, incidentally, a Soviet spy.

The publisher went on to say that the book might be acceptable if it applied generally to dictators, but not specifically to the USSR. Finally the publisher added, "It would be less offensive if the predominant caste in the fable were not pigs. I think the choice of pigs as the ruling caste will no doubt give offence to many people, and particularly to anyone who is a bit touchy, as undoubtedly the Russians are."

Change around a few names and this is exactly the rejection letters that courageous books critical of Islam have received. It's fine to make general criticisms of religious fanaticism, so long as those criticisms are universally applied, and do not offend those touchy people who religious fanaticism occasionally expresses itself in dangerous ways.

In a generally deleted preface to Animal Farm, Orwell wrote, "The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary. Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news — being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact."

There are quite a few sensational facts and news items that are kept out or minimized in our own media because it would not do to mention them. There are rarely any government officials dictating this censorship, certainly in the United States there are no legal codes that make it mandatory, but this censorship is voluntary. It consists of people censoring themselves, of publications censoring people out of fear of violence, of publishers who feel that this is an ill-advised time to stir up tensions and of a larger body of liberal thinkers who feel that we should sympathize with Islam and ignore any of its violent and supremacist activities.

"At this moment what is demanded by the prevailing orthodoxy is an uncritical admiration of Soviet Russia. Everyone knows this, nearly everyone acts on it. Any serious criticism of the Soviet régime, any disclosure of facts which the Soviet government would prefer to keep hidden, is next door to unprintable," Orwell wrote in his Animal Farm preface titled, Freedom of the Press.

"Hardly anyone will print an attack on Stalin, but it is quite safe to attack Churchill...  throughout five years of war, during two or three of which we were fighting for national survival, countless books, pamphlets and articles advocating a compromise peace have been published without interference... So long as the prestige of the USSR is not involved, the principle of free speech has been reasonably well upheld."

So too we still have freedom of the speech. We are encouraged to attack our own government, though not the liberal wings of it, but it is still a safer thing to do, so long as the prestige of Islam is not involved. Only when Islam is offended, does the principle of free speech come apart.

It was always safe to attack Bush, but an attack, even on Bin Laden, was considered tacky at best. And an attack on more "moderate" figures, like Tariq Ramadan, was borderline unprintable. While it was ridiculously easy to publish an essay depicting Bush as a war-crazed chimp invading Iraq for oil, Haliburton and Christian fundamentalism, the cultural elites insisted that doing so was an act of great political courage. Meanwhile publishing an essay critical of Islamic figures was next to impossible and dangerously perilous. And those same elites treated it as a despicable abuse of freedom of speech.

The poisonous vein here goes deeper. With the rise of the Bolsheviks there was a vigorous debate over whether or not to recognize the Soviet Union. Two administrations, Wilson and Hoover, chose not to do so. Their reasoning was fairly straightforward and is best expressed in the words of Bainbridge Colby, the Secretary of State under Woodrow Wilson.

Colby was a liberal who had co-founded Roosevelt's Progressive Party and befriended Mark Twain, nevertheless he laid out a clear rationale for extending no diplomatic recognition to the Bolshevik terrorists. "We cannot recognize, hold official relations with or give friendly reception to the agents of a government which is determined and bound to conspire against our institutions, whose diplomats will be agitators of dangerous revolt, whose spokesmen say they sign agreements with no intention of keeping them."

That policy persisted under two administrations, including that of President Hoover, who had personal experience with the Soviet Union during the Russian relief effort which bailed out the Communists at a crucial time. It was the FDR Administration which was stuffed full of Communists that abrogated it. FDR became the first American president to directly communicate with a Soviet leader and in his first year of office he invited the Soviet Foreign Minister to Washington D.C. and recognized the Soviet Union.

To achieve that recognition, the Soviet Union pledged not to promote or harbor any groups with the aim of "the overthrow or the preparation for the overthrow of, or bringing about by force of, a change in the political or social order of the whole or any part of the United States, its territories or possessions." This agreement was never honored in any way, shape or form.

Colby went on defending his policy until his death in 1950 as the right thing to do. And the pace of events only proved him right. The USSR used diplomatic recognition to extract aid, plant saboteurs and conduct espionage. It kept agreements only for so long as they suited it.

The pro-recognition lobby backed of diplomats, businessmen and politicians exploiting argued that only engagement would reform the Soviet Union. That same argument was still being made during the Reagan Administration which was berated for its warmongering obstructionism every time it refused to give in to Soviet demands.

We are back to that same debate today between engaging our enemies or accepting their hostility as a fact. The modern diplomatic corps is full of advocates of engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood, with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. There isn't anyone they won't engage with so long as they hate the United States and seek to destroy it.

Four years of Obama has shown once again that engagement does not work. Not only doesn't it work, it actually emboldens the enemy and allows the enemy to infiltrate deep within our societies and to corrupt our institutions. That very engagement leads to censorship in the name of friendship. It leads to news articles and books that cannot be printed because they might sabotage the chances for peace.

The hope for peace is the greatest force of censorship there is. Once engagement is passed off as a fairy that you must believe in lest she will die, then censorship becomes absolutely mandatory to keep peace alive. If a book critical of Communism might offend the USSR then it is best not to print it or to water it down. If Muslims riot over cartoons of Mohammed, then it is a civic duty not to print them in the name of peace and understanding.

When we marvel at the Dhimmism in modern cultural life, at the extent to which Islamic viewpoints are presented unchallenged as the establishment devotes its fullest efforts to inveighing against any opposing views, this too has its red precedents.

"The servility with which the greater part of the English intelligentsia have swallowed and repeated Russian propaganda from 1941 onwards would be quite astounding," Orwell wrote. "On one controversial issue after another the Russian viewpoint has been accepted without examination and then publicised with complete disregard to historical truth or intellectual decency."

Modern day examples of this surround us on all sides and as a doctor of totalitarianism, Orwell aptly diagnosed the corruption of the elites and their descent into totalitarian expediency.

"If the intellectual liberty which without a doubt has been one of the distinguishing marks of western civilisation means anything at all, it means that everyone shall have the right to say and to print what he believes to be the truth... It is only, or at any rate it is chiefly, the literary and scientific intelligentsia, the very people who ought to be the guardians of liberty, who are beginning to despise it, in theory as well as in practice.

"The word ancient emphasises the fact that intellectual freedom is a deep-rooted tradition without which our characteristic western culture could only doubtfully exist. From that tradition many of our intellectuals arc visibly turning away. They have accepted the principle that a book should be published or suppressed, praised or damned, not on its merits but according to political expediency."

That principle is now the primary one on the left. This totalitarian cowardice that Orwell inveighed against has been elevated to an unchallenged moral standard.Animal Farm is widely reprinted, but without Orwell's preface. Like 1984, a book whose composition effectively killed him, it has been treated according to the original plan of that publisher, stripping away most acknowledgements that it is a vicious satire of Soviet Communism, rather than a generic commentary on tyranny.

Orwell's preface, so rarely published, concludes with his motivation for writing it, "It is the liberals who fear liberty and the intellectuals who want to do dirt on the intellect."

Muslim Violence is Our New Law

Posted by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog 22 Comments

Over two centuries ago a group of British colonists huddling amid the forests and rivers of a new continent decided what they could and could not say by killing enough soldiers and mercenaries that the people who had been in charge of their speech decided they should try their luck somewhere where the regulating was easier.

This state of affairs in which the country that those colonists formed became and remains one of the very few places in the world, even among Western democracies, where freedom of speech is absolute, came about through stirring speeches, deeply felt debates, classical ideas and a passionate political culture-- but most of all it came about because large numbers of people were willing to kill over it.

Currently large numbers of people are willing to kill over the idea that Islam is the supreme religion, that Mohammed is a deity whom all mankind should respect and that the infidels living in the suburban sprawl of a thoroughly explored continent should accept that or die. Our government calls those people a tiny minority of extremists. Our unofficial name for them is, "Muslims."

Laws are decided by many things, but sweep away all the lawbooks, the pleas from tearful mothers, the timed publicity campaigns, the novel legal theories and the greedy bureaucrats expanding their turf, and under the table you will find a gun. The first and final law is still the law of force. The law begins with the power to impose its will on others. It ends with the enforcement of that power.

Law either has force behind it or it does not, and if it has no force behind it then it is an optional thing that is subject to custom. And every now and then the law is challenged, not with novel legal theories or with petitions, but with force, and it either responds with force or submits to a new law. That is what we call revolution.

Islam has made laws that it expects all of mankind to abide by. These laws are not backed by novel legal theories or by petitions, though its practitioners are willing to offer both, they are backed by the naked practice of force. And the imposition of these laws can only be defended against by force.

We are no longer led by revolutionary believers in the freedom of man, but by revolutionary believers in the submission of man to the higher principles that make their utopian sandcastles possible. They cannot honestly draw a red line on freedom, not when they have crossed it so many times themselves for their own agendas. They believe in a variety of rights, but all of those rights involve imposing their ideas and beliefs on others, and that is something they have in common with the Muslim lawyers waving guns and black flags over our burning embassies. They might contemplate killing and dying for gay marriage or the right to put tobacco warnings on cigarettes, but not for the pure idea that anyone should be able to say anything that they want without regard to ideological alliances.

The lawyers who run all our national affairs have chosen to respond to the Islamic legal briefs of bombs and bullets with the equivocation with which they meet all difficult questions. They will not abandon the principle of freedom of speech, but they will lock up the filmmaker whose imprisonment the murderous Muslim legalists called for. They will not censor YouTube, but they will encourage YouTube to censor itself. They will not ban speech that offends Islam, but they will strongly condemn and discourage it.

These equivocators offer to abandon the practice of freedom so long as they are allowed to retain the theory of freedom. The Bill of Rights will not change, but as in the Soviet Union it will not apply. The authorities will pay lip service to the freedoms that we only think we have until we actually try to use them and then we will discover that we don't actually have any of these freedoms left in stock.

In theory America will be an independent country, in practice it will be a vassal state of the Muslim world whose displays of outrage will be our law telling us what we can and cannot say, what we can and cannot think, and what we can and cannot do.

This is the typical kind of bargain that decadent empires make with the barbarous warlords on their doorstep. The empire will keep its splendor and its titles, while the barbarians will tell the empire what to do. Eventually the warlords will rule the empire, but that will only come as a shock to the citizenry who were too dazzled by the pageantry of power to realize that power is not defined by its display, but by its usage. Power is law and where there is no power, there is also no law, and those who have the power also make the laws.

What is the difference between American law and Muslim law? There are a great many differences, but the only one that matters is the difference between Constantinople and Istanbul. The only reason that we do not have Muslim law is that Muslims have not yet succeeded in forcing it on us, as they have already done to a sizable percent of the peoples and cultures of the world. That difference will be eliminated the moment that they succeed in doing so.

Law is not some mystical or technical affair. At its most basic it is the school bully demanding a cut of your lunch money in perpetuity. It is the ability to force someone to do something for some reason. Law can be high-minded, it can be moral or it can be a mob demanding that you imprison anyone who offends Mohammed. This is school bully law and it is as valid as any other kind because the distinctions that legal theorists make have no relevance in the face of the law of force.

A demand for a code of conduct backed by violence is law. It is not our law, it is not the law of the civilized man, but it is the law that we are slowly adopting. It is the law of the decadents appeasing the savages. Its only real content warns against offending the savage on the grounds that this will have negative consequences for our soldiers, our billboards, our image in the world and our embassies. And that is the law of the savage mediated by all the fine useless intellectualization of the decadent.

Under this code, Muslim violence dictates our permissible forms of speech. To know whether a thing may be said, drawn or filmed, we must first determine how Muslims will react to it. If they will react with violence, as they do to a sizable percentage of things, then it becomes incitement, retroactively, that must be punished and condemned.

Muslim violence has become our law. It is the law of action which determines our laws of speech. To understand what we can say, we first have to decide what Muslims will do about it. A long long time ago, perhaps less than twenty years ago, our government would meet their action with an action of its own, it would meet force with force. The British government did not do that with Salman Rushdie, instead it got him to read a statement apologizing for his book, but perhaps ours would have done better. Probably not.

When we were revolutionaries, our government saw force as a way of dealing with other countries who wanted to tell Americans what to do. But since then our government has really gotten used to telling us what to do. Occasionally it invades other countries in the name of some global consensus that claims to be able to treat countries the way that our government treats us and tell them what to do.

Lately that consensus, which we can call the United Nations, the International Community or an International Disease of Corrupt Bureaucrats and Power Mad Utopians, has been telling our government that it needs to tell us what we can and cannot say. And our government has no response except to mumble something about the First Amendment, which it doesn't really believe in anymore, but since it's had no luck getting rid of the Second Amendment, it isn't about to try with the First, and urges the consensus and the murderous mobs to work with us to arrive at an agreement that we can all live with. And by "we", I don't mean us.

In a world where jet planes rapidly crisscross the planet and bombs can be embedded in anything, where companies and non-profits both lust for immigrants and unstable Third World societies export their instability to First World societies as immigration, where corporations have offices everywhere and national interest is just a fancy way of saying international trade relationships, the primary law becomes maintaining the stability of a broken system and containing its inherent violence.

The lawyers running the system will not defend national interests because they don't believe in them, they won't defend freedom because they don't believe in it, they will defend the system because it is the only thing that they do believe in. And they will defend it at the point where it is easiest to defend, not from the attacking Muslims, but from the natives who appear to be making them angry.

Would you rather fight a billion violent madmen or arrest a filmmaker? The answer is very simple. Forget Theodore Roosevelt's "Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead". The Obama motto is "It's okay if Perdicaris is dead, so long as Raisuli isn't too mad at us."

Forget the Bill of Rights, a document thrown together by agrarian utopianists worried about central government. Our new breed of lawyer-kings is composed of urban utopianists ruling through central government. To them the Bill of Rights is a piece of incomprehensible lunacy that prevents them from getting anything done. They are not concerned with rural government trespasses, they are worried about bombs and riots in their cities and they are terrified of their global goals being sabotaged by some movie trailer.

They are making Muslim violence into our new law, just as they made urban violence into our new law, just as they have made their own bureaucratic mandates backed by SWAT teams and prisons into our new law.

The age when laws were made by men, rather than machines of social progress composed of lawyers and activists, bureaucrats and think-tanks, lobbyists and judges, is long since gone. There is no law in our laws, but the law of force. The Constitution sits on a dusty shelf while the judges bang their gavels and practice the law that mandates something because those in power want it that way.

And now our utopian lawyer-kings, our armies of bleeding-heart social justice activist, our legions of bureaucrats stamping their papers over our skulls, our grinning black-robed activist judges wielding their gavels like swords, are cringing in terror before a Muslim mob. The bullies who have bullied us for so long have proven to be cowards. While they dismantle our army to sell it for scraps so that the EPA and HUD and the cowboy poetry festivals can get their billions, they order us to fall on our knees before the Army of Allah.

The liberal bullies who bullied us for so long have been successfully bullied and have handed us over to the bully's bully. But bullies, of the liberal or Muslim kind, are cowards. Their bullying only works until they are successfully bullied and without their threat of force, their laws wither and blow away on the wind.

Friday, September 28, 2012

Friday Afternoon Roundup - Making the World Safe for Terror

Posted by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog 8 Comments

MAKING THE WORLD SAFE FOR TERROR

As they ran past a Japanese tourist, she said, one of the men fired into the woman’s face from a range of about 15 inches.

“They made us get down on our knees,” Ms Dousse said. “And then they started shooting. A man who was very heavy fell on me and the lady behind me also covered me … They shot me in the arm and leg, and then they started again shooting those who were still alive in the head.

The gunmen “took all the young women, the girls, and disappeared with them. I don’t know where they went with the women, but they hurt them. We could hear screams of pain,” Dousse said.

“It went on for a long time, an hour or an hour and a half. The terrorists came back again and again; they danced and sang,” she said.

Among the horrors, the marauders cut off the ears and noses of several of their victims. A note praising Islam was found inside one disemboweled body.

The foreign dead included 31 Swiss, 10 Japanese, five Germans, four Britons one a child a Bulgarian, a Colombian and a French citizen. The Japanese victims were four newlywed couples and an elderly couple on their second honeymoon.

The man who ordered that atrocity, Mustafa Hamza was just pardoned by Mohammed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood President of Egypt.


THE LEFTY RICH GET RICHER

In 2008, before a certain Chicago community organizer completed the left’s long march into the institutions of national power, a former Nazi collaborator named George Soros had a mere 11 billion dollars and was a mere 28th on the Forbes 400 list.

Now after a few years of Obama, millions of Americans are out of work, the economy is toast, and George Soros has moved up to No. 15 on the Forbes 400 with a total of 19 billion dollars.

Soros made twice as much under Obama as he did under Bush. He made more money during one term of Obama than his entire net worth in 2004 under Bush.

Soros' 1 million kick-in to a pro-Obama PAC? That's going to net him astronomical returns.



ONE WITH THE TIGER

In the Bronx Zoo, David Villalobos was rescued from a tiger den after leaping inside to, in his own words, "Be one with the tiger."

British, French and German leaders did not hop into tiger enclosures in the London Zoo, the Parc Zoologique de Paris and the Berlin Zoological Garden. Instead they turned these cities into open air safaris where the natives were encouraged to mingle with the tigers. The multicultural safari has not been going well, with the tigers mangling the natives, burning their cars and chewing on their police officers. The European Union zookeepers have been wondering loudly what they can do to fix their oneness integration project, while releasing still more tigers into the streets of London, Paris and Berlin.

The United States did not jump into a tiger den in the Bronx Zoo. That would have been fairly sane compared to its leap into Libya. With the Arab Spring, the tigers were freed and men like Christopher Stevens jumped inside. The bloody marks on the walls of the Benghazi consulate are a grim reminder of what tigers eventually do to the men who move into their dens.

...you can see my full article, "US and Europe's "Oneness" Integration Project" here.



RACING AWAY FROM JUSTICE

New York State’s radical Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman, who during the election promised to give Al Sharpton his own office, has been restructuring the drug laws to produce racially equal outcomes. Schneiderman had waged war on the Rockefeller Drug Laws that cracked down on street drugs and pushed aggressively for drug laws that target white offenders by criminalizing prescription drugs.

As a Senator, Obama was one of the sponsors of the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act. That name may not ring a bell, but it’s how cold and allergy medicines became criminalized, why you need photo identification to buy them and why buying more than a 30 day supply can bring a SWAT team to your door if you show up on the cold medicine registry.

A year after the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act was passed; Tim Naveau was arrested in Illinois for buying the Claritin-D tablets that his son needed to take along with him to church camp. The arrest and humiliation of a man for buying slightly more allergy medication than the legal limit was another victory for the new racially redistributive war on drugs.

...that's an excerpt from my article, "The New Racial Justice System"



WHY, OH WHY DO THEY HATE US?

Like gawky teenagers, Americans are far too obsessed with what people thousands of miles away think of them. The first reaction of the ordinary man in the street on December 7, 1941, was not to wonder why the Japanese hated him. It was not even his tenth reaction because at that point he was much too busy hating the Japanese to care why they hated him.

FDR was unconcerned with Japanese emotions, let alone their hearts, minds and livers; because he knew that the conflict did not come down to emotions but to a power struggle between a Japanese empire in the Pacific and the only Western country with a view of the Pacific capable of standing up to the land of the rising sun.

The study of Muslim rage, its wellsprings and tides, is as worthless as the study of Japanese rage in the dying days of the 1930s. Despite the showy displays of violence in the last week by inflamed Chinese mobs attacking Japanese properties and Muslim mobs attacking American properties, the conflicts do not revolve around the axis of emotion, but of power and territory.

From my article of the same name, Why Do They Hate Us? (Hint: It's not a movie trailer.)



AND THE QUESTION FEW ARE ASKING

Was the planned attack on the Benghazi consulate truly unknown ahead of time or was it a known element that was not taken seriously enough and allowed to go forward for political reasons?

If things had not gone wrong in Benghazi, then the attacks would have humiliated the United States but caused no physical harm. Obama would have benefited from the crisis and did benefit from it through the “Rally ‘Round the Flag” effect that bumps up the poll numbers of White House occupants when a foreign military crisis takes place. From our perspective the attacks showed Obama’s weakness, but his poll ratings actually rose due in part to the attacks.

During the Iran Hostage Crisis, Jimmy Carter’s approval ratings rose from 32 to 58 percent. Obama’s campaign-oriented administration was likely hoping for at least a modest bump from the riots. What they did not expect was that the attacks would go beyond limited assaults on embassies and lead to an actual slaughter in Benghazi.

Did Obama Know the Embassy Attacks Were Coming?



AND NOW ANYTHING BUT THE NEWS

Did you know that racist chair lynching is America's fastest growing hit game show?

The real problem here is the color of the chair. Offhand the chair appears to be metallic gray, rather than black or brown, but this may have been Bud Johnson’s fiendishly racist way of disguising the true race of the chair.

Also we don’t know the national origin of the chair. It probably did not come from Africa. The White House claims it was manufactured in Hawaii, but there are no ownership details to establish that. Some speculate that it’s actually a Manchurian chair from China.

MTA will now only run ads that Muslims aren't likely to vandalize

If Muslims declare that they will react violently to something. If they demonstrate that they will behave violently in response to something, that thing can now be treated as inciting and provoking violence. Muslim violence, once again, becomes the determinant of what can and cannot be said in this country.

Dead voters aren't enough for the NAACP. Now they want felon votes too.

Integration disintegration is really going well in the UK.

They also reveal that one young white girl, known by social services to have been sexually abused by Asian men from the age of 12, was offered language lessons in Urdu and Punjabi by Rotherham council.

On that note, J.K. Rowling's next book is a left-wing screed tackling class warfare and racism.


ADIOS CALIFORNIA

If California were a country, its debt would actually be the 25th largest in the world, right behind South Korea and ahead of Brazil. Despite only having a population of 37 million, California’s debt is bigger than those of much larger and poorer countries like Brazil, with a population of nearly 200 million, India, with a population of 1.2 billion and Pakistan, with around 176 million people. It’s half the debt of China.

Give it a little time and California will be China, minus the productivity, but plastic grocery bags will be punished by public steamrollering.


GUESS THE SPEAKER

“My statement to the United Nations would have been, “The future does not belong to those who attack our Embassies and Consulates and kill our Ambassadors. The Angel of Death in the form of an American Bald Eagle will visit you and wreak havoc and destruction upon your existence”

Allen West or Barack Obama?


MEANWHILE

Meanwhile, Obama shuts down Radio Liberty and Six Million Jews must die for a Palestinian State. France has its own Atlas Shrugs and our national defense is in the best of hands.

This bad news is sponsored by ObamaPhone (available only at The People's Cube)



AND NOW THE NEWS

the U.S. Marine Corps has suffered its worst air squadron catastrophe since Vietnam, and its prized VMA-211 squadron has taken its worst hit since its defense of Wake Island in World War II.

It happened on September 14, 2012, northwest of the city of Lashkar Gah in southern Afghanistan. A team of fewer than two dozen Taliban fighters attacked the USMC's massive Camp Bastion base there, killing VMA-211 squadron commander Lt. Col. Christopher Raible and destroying or permanently disabling eight of the ten top-of-the-line Harrier AV-8B attack aircraft stationed under him. Out of production for more than a decade, these aircraft can never be replaced.

By the time the smoke cleared, roughly 7% of the total harrier fleet operated by the USMC had been wiped out on a single day by a small force of ground combatants whose most potent weapon was the suicide vest, one of which was used to breach the camp's perimeter fence.

Under Obama, the U.S. has taken 1,491 casualties in Afghanistan, over 70% of the total 2,121 casualties sustained since the fighting there began. Helmland Province, where Camp Bastion is located, has been the grounds for the lion's share of them, twice as many as any other region of the country. Things have gotten so bad that, in the wake of the attack on Camp Bastion, the International Security Assistance Force, which trains Afghan citizens to defend their country against the Islamic fanatics of the Taliban, suspended operations.

...the really bad news that is.

After Gulf War I, the media kept trying to find ways to make a victory look like a defeat. CBS strained so hard that it put out a 5 Years Later special that couldn't really make the case, but did its best to put on its gloomiest tones.

Now the media is trying to turn a defeat in Afghanistan into a victory.



THE FUTURE BELONGS TO MUSLIMS AND NON-MUSLIMS WHO REFRAIN FROM OFFENDING MUSLIMS

Sorry, old chap, but the future belongs to me, a slanderer, mocker, blasphemer, and critic of Muslims and Islam and its pedophilic icon, Big Mo. What's the government going to do about it? Ask Huma Abedin to send some ski-masked jihadist thugs to beat me up? Give me the Daniel Pearl treatment? Or perhaps Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will request that a joint DHS/TSA Swat team swoop down on me and take me in for questioning.

The criminalization of speech about Islam is a proposed exercise in people management and Platonic guardianship by elitists ensconced in the ivory tower of indemnified statism. It is supposed to combat violence and bridge the gap between Western and Islamic civilizations. But Islam isn't a "civilization"; it is an ideology hell-bent on conquest.

...that's part of Edward Cline's commentary on that freedom of speech thing we've been taking for granted...

...and see his Howls of Anger commentary as well

There you are, having been brought into the station to be "interviewed" by the thought police for having "offended" Muslims by "defaming," "denigrating," "mocking," "dis-respecting" Islam. They've not arrested you – they want you to understand that, and you're free to go any time you wish, except that the interrogation room door is locked and there are cops in riot gear guarding it outside – they've only manhandled you into the police car and driven you to the station so you can offer your point of view so they can better understand "where you're coming from." They wouldn't have done that if they hadn't received complaints and warnings from the offended parties that you are hovering close to "inciting violence" by bad-mouthing Islam.

The world-weary, jaded-looking guys just want you to admit responsibility for having caused recent riots. They want to go home and get some sleep, even though they have roused you from a deep sleep at 1 a.m. They commiserate with you about exhaustion and working odd hours. Then you can go, once you recant and sign a lengthy letter of apology to the rioters and to the dead and maimed the rioters have caused and to all Muslims for having "insulted" their faith. They want you to distance yourself from other "offenders." They want you to repudiate your convictions. After all, what's a conviction worth. You can't eat one, or deposit it in the bank. What are you, obsessed or something? Get with the program.

The offended parties wish to see justice done. They keep shouting that they "don’t get no respect," except they're not trying to be funny like Rodney Dangerfield and wouldn't emulate him if they could, because Dangerfield was Jewish. They want "respect" and they want restitution. They wish to silence you on the matter of Islam while not restricting your First Amendment rights. You'll be allowed to denigrate Jews and Christians and atheists and Buddhists and other non-believers to your heart's content, as they do. Muslims are a protected "minority" and have been granted dispensation and a variety of legal indulgences. But the offended parties have warned the authorities that they cannot calm their collect for too much longer, as their outrage is real and cannot be contained indefinitely. They might begin to riot and harm the police sent to preserve the peace, and it'll be all your fault. 

A GENERAL MALINVESTMENT

If that is too technical, let me simplify. Money represents work. A dollar in the hand is worth more than a dollar to you tomorrow, and the difference between a dollar in the hand and a hypothetical dollar tomorrow is interest. When people have a lot of money to lend and spend, the law of supply and demand drives the interest rate, the price of money, down. When the people have little money to lend and spend, the interest rate goes up.

When the state interferes with the credit cycle, it creates a low interest rate by fiat. This is like the state commanding you to sell some good or service at a rate or wage lower than it is naturally worth. Business can borrow money from the bank, which is where are the workingmen store their money, to start a business or erect a factory, hire men, make widgets. When it comes time to find customers, however, it turns out there that is not a lot of money to lend and spend after all. The businessman was given a false signal: the red light of the economy was made to flash green, telling him it was safe to go.

Well, not just one or two unwise businessmen are affected by this state-mandated traffic wreck, all businesses that borrow money or sell goods. The whole economy is affected. It is fashionable to blame greedy businessmen, but a moment’s reflection should show that the businessmen are just as greedy before and after a bust, and that if it were caused by unwise investment, the industries where the investment was more cautious would not be effected. No, scientifically speaking, the cause must be proportional to the effect. Only the government has the ability to create malinvestments across all sectors of the economy at once.

From John C. Wright's Journal



GOOD NEWS FROM IRAQ

In spite of our promises to the Awakening Movement, the Sunni tribesmen who fought al Qaeda with us, Iraq's Sunnis have been marginalized and treated as secodn class citizens by the newly ascendent Shi'ites, who are in th eprocess of turning Iraq into an Iranian Shi'ite satellite.

The last election, which was essentially stolen by Maliki and the Shi'ite bloc with the aid of Iranian proxy Moqtada al-Sadr, Sunnis in the military and police have largely been disarmed and dismissed from service, and the Sunni Vice President of Iraq, th ehighestr ranking Sunni in Iraq has fled the country and is under a death sentence by the Maliki regime on trumped up charges

Al-Qaeda's resurgence in Iraq is no accident. They are gearing up for a renewed civil war. 

But don't worry, according to Obama we left behind a stable Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.



GOOD NEWS FROM IRAN

The Obama administration has done everything they can do to keep the pressure on Israel by not supporting the green movement in Iran and not stopping the carnage in Syria. Why?

Both Iran and Syria, along with their stooges, the Palestinian authority, Hezbollah and Hamas, are the pressure points on Israel. This pressure  that  Mr. Obama needs to force the creation of the Palestinian State during his watch as US President. Mr. Obama has done everything to make Israel feel that they are on the defense, as anyone with a brain knows they have been since May 15th, 1948 to this very day. 

...from an article at Right Truth by CBPO Jon A. Underwood, CBP, (Ret.)