The promised democracy in Egypt is an infection from an outbreak of democracy in Tunisia.
Yet strangely, Tunisia has fallen off the headlines. How is democracy working out in Tunisia, you might ask?
Thousands of Tunisians have also arrived by boat to the Italian island of Lampedusa prompted Italy to declare a humanitarian state of emergency and ask the European Union for 100 million euros in aid to bring the situation under control.
Earlier I argued that no Muslims should be allowed to vote anywhere in the world, least of all in Muslim majority countries.
Brutally honest has some interesting survey results on what the Egyptian majority will vote for:
• 84% favor the death penalty for people who leave the Muslim faith.
Now 84% is an interesting number, considering that something like ten or fifteen percent of Egyptians are Christians (the number is rapidly diminishing due to rape, murder, and flight). So, supposing that no Christians support the death penalty for those that leave the Muslim faith, looks mighty close to 100% of Egyptian Muslims support the death penalty for those that leave the Muslim faith.
The survey neglected to ask how many supported Egypt going to war with the nearest infidels, but since 54% favor suicide bombings of civilian targets, chances are a considerable majority favor war.
When the US accepted the Karzai government it snatched defeat from jaws of victory.
There is not point in continuing the war in Afghanistan unless we start by killing Karzai and everyone near him.
A government that executes people for converting to Christianity is always going to be a safe place for people to organize terror against infidels.
Is there a difference between “Islamic extremism”, and Islam?
The British prime minster proposes Egypt as a test case:
This highlights, I think, a significant problem when discussing the terrorist threat that we face. There is so much muddled thinking about this whole issue. On the one hand, those on the hard right ignore this distinction between Islam and Islamist extremism, and just say that Islam and the West are irreconcilable – that there is a clash of civilizations. So, it follows: we should cut ourselves off from this religion, whether that is through forced repatriation, favoured by some fascists, or the banning of new mosques, as is suggested in some parts of Europe . These people fuel Islamophobia, and I completely reject their argument. If they want an example of how Western values and Islam can be entirely compatible, they should look at what’s happened in the past few weeks on the streets of Tunis and Cairo : hundreds of thousands of people demanding the universal right to free elections and democracy.
The point is this: the ideology of extremism is the problem; Islam emphatically is not. Picking a fight with the latter will do nothing to help us to confront the former.
It looks to me that those hundreds of thousands of people are demanding free elections, democracy, guaranteed government jobs, government subsidized food, war with Israel, and the right to rape infidel women.
Those who want to believe there is a difference between Islam and Islamic extremism, and that we are at war with one but not the other, are going to wind up telling themselves that Jews need killing, infidels need raping, and the masses need government jobs and government food.
The reason there are so few Islamic democracies is that the majority of Muslims vote for war, rape, murder, and terror, with the result that democracies with substantial Muslim populations tend to be short lived. Muslim democracy is dangerous because Muslim voters are dangerous, and should not be permitted.
Egypt looks like it will produce more of the same – the winners will likely be the Muslim Brotherhood, which will unleash terrorism and rape against the Christian minority, and resume war against Israel as a first step towards war against all infidels everywhere. The Stratasphere calls US policy “Jimmy Carter Diplomacy”. The vast majority of Egyptians will vote for the Muslim Brotherhood, which organization assures our gullible ruling elite that they are moderates, while everywhere pursuing a policy of terrorism.
At best, Islamic democracies produce governments that look the other way on terrorism, and go easy on terrorists, for example Indonesia. At worst they elect regimes that propose to murder everyone everywhere who is not as passionately Muslim as those elected, as for example Algeria, where the Algerians freely and fairly elected a party, the Islamic Salvation Front, that thought that very few Algerians were sufficiently Muslim to be allowed to live.
Usually, however, they elect merely terrorist regimes, like Hamas. The Hamas regime has merely executed a few hundred Gazans for witchcraft, and few thousand for apostasy, but has applied most of its energies to terrorism against its neighbors, so it is pretty much in the middle as Islamic elected regimes go, though more extreme than is typical for long lived Islamic elected regimes.
What is a “blood libel”? It is an irresponsible and frivolous accusation of murder, like the one made against Sarah Palin, made with the intent of justifying real murders.
The left have long been issuing exterminationist rhetoric, and this blood libel has led to an explosion of calls for the murder of alleged rightists. x
This blood libel looks to me like preparation for the real murders that the left hopes to commit during the coming Cloward–Piven crisis.
The left is, of course, outraged at the term “blood libel”. It perceives only the right as using violent rhetoric. It sees nothing violent and menacing about its own rhetoric, because, after all, supposedly everyone knows rightists need killing, hence supposedly nothing controversial about saying so. And so, the use of the term by Sarah Palin and numerous bloggers and commentators seems to them ludicrously inappropriate.
Since Sarah Palin supposedly knows how peaceful and benevolent the left is, the fact that she used such a term supposedly proves she cannot possibly know what it means. That she implies that the wonderfully peaceful left is violent and murderous is surely an accident, and proves how stupid she must be.
To progressives, who can see no violence or threats coming from anyone progressive, the term seems obviously inappropriate. Sometimes they say it is inappropriate in mild, civilized, and reasonable language, sometimes in language so incendiary as to prove the term is entirely appropriate.
In considering the entire screaming match, one must keep in mind that we are approaching a crisis in the next decade or two in which political violence is possible, likely, and may well be necessary. Someone is going to get defunded, and they will likely resist it.
So, as Sarah Palin said, keep your powder dry.
If someone is a called a “moderate Muslim”, he is probably part of the establishment, part of our ruling elite, or spends much of his day in their circles.
If someone is a Muslim, and part of our ruling elite or close to it, he is probably a terrorist, or spends much of the rest of his day in their circles.
There is at most one degree of separation between the elite, and Islam. In contrast, there are several degrees of separation between the elite, and conventional Christianity.
Exhibit A in this story is Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi, who spent a great deal of time walking and talking with US presidents Clinton and Bush and the usual parade of the good and the great – and who also addressed terror rallies demonizing the US. In 2004 was an unindicted co-conspirator in a plot to assassinate the man who is now King of Saudi Arabia. So Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi is zero degrees of separation between the Cathedral and the terrorists.
Well, perhaps the Cathedral just happened to have one bad apple? But it’s other Muslim apples have smelly connections also.
Suhail Khan: Wikipedia tells us “Khan serves on the Board of Directors for the American Conservative Union, the Indian American Republican Council, the Islamic Free Market Institute, and on the interfaith Buxton Initiative Advisory Council. He speaks regularly at conferences and venues such as the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), the Council for National Policy (CNP), the Harbour League, and the National Press Club and has contributed to publications such as the Washington Post/Newsweek Forum On Faith, the Washington Post, Foreign Policy, and Human Events.”
Suhail Khan is Senior Fellow at the Institute for Global Engagement, a Christian organization dedicated to religious freedom worldwide.
And yet this same Suhail Khan, moderate, pillar of the establishment, advocate of tolerance, also seems to spend a lot of time with people dedicated to blowing up infidels.
So Suhail Khan is one degree of separation between the Cathedral and terrorism.
Similarly for Imam Feisal Adbul Rauf, of the ground zero victory mosque. So of three Muslims that I noticed as being Cathedral insiders, three had ties to terror.
It does not appear the Cathedral is consciously and cynically cozying up to terrorists – Suhail Khan put quite a bit of effort into appearing to be moderate. Rather, they turn a blind eye to terrorist connections, because to do otherwise would be racism and discrimination – while quite slight and vague connections to conventional Christianity cause them to reel back in shock and horror, like a vampire at the sight of the cross, as they do from Sarah Palin.
They want to include Muslims, but terrorism is as central to Islam as the Eucharist is to Christianity, and so if someone is an important Muslim, he is apt to have important connections to terror, and if a Muslim is in with the Cathedral, he is an important Muslim. In contrast, if a nominal Christian knew what the Eucharist was, the Cathedral would treat him with extreme suspicion.
This is not a pro terror bias, but an anti discrimination bias – which bias in practice means we are not allowed to discriminate against people trying to kill us.
Wikileaks Cable 10Paris58 reveals the extent of US rule over Europe. If Europe is further left than the US, broker than the US, and more $@$%# than the US, this primarily that the American ruling elite has a freer hand in ruling Europe than in ruling the US, due to the US constitution, and the American tradition of liberty.
In Cable 10Paris58, the writer announces that France is insufficiently left wing, therefore an American program of intervention in French internal affairs is required to move France further left.
“Gay Pride” is another illustration of the same process. When the US implemented “Gay Pride” in the US, it implemented “Gay Pride” world wide. And what is a gay pride parade called in Spanish? el día del Orgullo Gay
The use of the American neologism “Gay” reveals who is calling the shots, who planned and organized this event.
Let us reflect on Aristide’s rule in Haiti:
The US intervened in Haiti to install Aristide at gunpoint and it also intervened in Haitian society and culture to convince Haitians that this was a good thing, was benevolent and progressive.
The US demanded an election. It then demanded an election rigged in Aristide’s favor. He won, was overthrown. US demanded with threat of violence that he be reinstated. He was reinstated again, overthrown again. US invaded, installed him on the presidential throne with the guns of US marines, and, just to make sure Aristide did not get up to any mischief, surrounded him with an all white praetorian guard.
You will probably read all over the internet and the mainstream media that the numerous occasions in which Aristide was removed from power were evil American plots by evil America to deprive Aristide of his immensely popular and well deserved power. Each of the supposedly anti American sources saying that stuff is a US state department muppet – someone from the state department has his arm up the speaker’s @$$ and his fingers are moving the speaker’s lips – pretty much in the way the praetorian guard were moving Aristide’s lips.
They are indeed anti American – because the US state department and the US ruling elite is anti American.
Just look at the races of the actors. The people who installed Aristide were white Americans. The people who guarded him were white people of undisclosed nationality. (Not all that undisclosed – when everything fell apart, Aristide’s praetorians were rescued from black Haitians by the US marines) The people Aristide fled were black Haitians.
It is not the Joos, it is Harvard and the State Department, not a sinister Jooish plot, it is a sinister Harvard plot. It is a government conspiracy to impose more government on those who can least resist it – the French being less able to resist than Americans, and the Haitians being less able to resist than the French.
The 1994 intervention in Haiti is not in itself all that important, Haiti being just a small pimple, but it is important in what it reveals – like Cable 10Paris58 it reveals the true face of US imperialism.
Hayek, in “The Road to Serfdom” predicted the welfare regulatory state must inevitably become the totalitarian terror state.
Observe: We have arrived. America is now a totalitarian terror state.
In 1992 I visited Cuba. Thereafter, I argued it was a totalitarian state, because when I asked certain questions some people fled, fearing that merely hearing the question would result in them being punished for the thoughts it might elicit, and others answered furtively.
Yesterday, I asked someone very close to me a question apt to have a politically incorrect answer (I cannot identify him further, for he swore me to secrecy)
He looked around furtively. We were on top of a hill overlooking the Coral Sea in a semi rural area, the other side of the world from his workplace. He lowered his voice. He then proceeded to utter a series of politically correct platitudes, with gestures and grimaces reversing their meaning, his grimaces implying the opposite of the ostensible meaning, the same sort of communication coded against possible eavesdroppers and hidden microphones that I encountered in Cuba, where they would swear loyalty to communism, while making a gesture of their throats being cut.
Like Havel’s green grocer, the truth would destroy his career.
This is the behavior that in 1992 I saw in Cuba and thereafter used as evidence that Cuba was a totalitarian state, a state of omnipresent fear.
So if Cuba was totalitarian in 1992, America is totalitarian in 2010. We have arrived at the end of Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom”.
In America, unlike Soviet Russia, we don’t send dissidents to Alaska, and although lots of American psychiatrists are eager to diagnose political deviation as mental illness and treat it with electroshock and lobotomy as they do in Cuba, government has as yet declined to employ them in this capacity. But what government does do is ensure that political deviation blights your career. If a company knowingly employs political deviants, it is apt to be sued by quasi governmental organization for a “hostile work environment”, in which lawsuit, no evidence will be presented of anyone saying unkind things to those for which the work environment was supposedly hostile, but evidence will be presented that employees had subversive thoughts – often evidence that they expressed subversive thoughts far from their workplace, as perhaps on a hill overlooking the Coral sea the other side of the world from his workplace – so the company will be punished, for failure to punish subversive thoughts.
Hayek, in “The Road to Serfdom”, argued that regulatory welfare state must inevitably become totalitarian. Lo and behold, totalitarianism has arrived. Most people, everyone with some position in society, everyone with something that could be taken away from them, are very, very frightened.
And what is totalitarianism? Hayek’s totalitarianism seems to be pretty much Havel’s totalitarianism, and here is Havel on totalitarianism:
The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: “Workers of the world, unite!”
Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment’s thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?
I think I can safely assume that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and the carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be.
If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life “in harmony with society,” as they say.
Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone.
The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: “I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace.”
This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer’s superior, and at the same time is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan’s real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer’s existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?
Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan ‘I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient,’ he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth.
The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, “What’s wrong with the workers of the world uniting?”
Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the façade of something high. And that something is ideology.
If you go into an institutional environment – a government office, a school or college, a hospital or doctor’s surgery, a museum, public transportation – and you observe posters adorning the walls on politically-correct topics such as diversity, fair trade, global warming, approved victim groups, third world aid – remember Havel’s essay, and that the correct translation of such posters is as follows:
“I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient”
Such posters are a coded admission of submission to ideology – except in the rare instance where they advertise genuine corruption by ideology.
The frequency of such posters nowadays, compared with a generation ago, is a quantitative measure of the progress of totalitarian government.
Pajamas Media has a long list of notable and obvious terrorists, who, as moderate Muslims, were invited into the highest reaches of the US government.
They only tell stories of high terrorists in the bosom of authority, simultaneously in authority in the US government, and in authority in Al Quaeda, neglecting to mention lowlier foot terrorists who actually carry out the killing, for example Hasan: the first terrorist to give an academic lecture with Power Point – to an Army audience – explaining his intention to commit a terrorist attack against his audience for the glory of God and the destruction of the infidel.
Pajamas media piously tells us that it does not want to see Muslims profiled – oh no, heaven forbid, the horror, the horror – merely held to the same standards as normal people.
But, of course, that is exactly the problem. Because profiling is such a horrible sin, because making generalizations on the basis of available evidence is such a horrible horrible horrible sin, people are bending over backwards to avoid drawing the conclusion that a particular Muslim is a terrorist when it is glaringly obvious that the particular Muslim is a terrorist.
Fear of profiling not only means we strip search and grope three year old girls from Pasadena. It means that we wave through people covered in a Burkha. There is no middle ground. If you allow people to use all available evidence, they are profiling. If you don’t allow them to use all available evidence, there is no limit to what evidence they are required to ignore.