:: Saturday, July 30, 2011 ::
Comic Cosmological Relief
Posted by Edward Cline at 10:05 PM
Ah, cartoons! And comic books! They could be so much fun to read, often educational, but perhaps even more fun to create. But those days are gone. Now American children will be offered the chance to read of the adventures of the Silver Scorpion, a wheelchair-bound Muslim “superhero.” He can alter metal, you see, and presumably cause gangsters’ guns to jam and American Predator drones to miss their targets.
And for a while kids have been enthralled (well, maybe not) by the quest of “The 99,” a bigger gang of proselytizing Muslim “superheroes” after the alleged ninety-nine qualities of Allah. These are now magical stones that contain the wisdom of the Bagdad Library (not the Alexandrian one). Imagine a glorified Muslim Easter egg hunt. You wouldn’t catch the League of Justice wasting their time looking for talking rocks. This has also been turned into an animated feature that would make NPR proud (“made possible by viewers like you – thanks for your tax dollars and contributions”).
The editor of Family Security Matters a year ago ran a comprehensive exposé on how Islamic comics are infiltrating the culture, and with the encouragement of President Obama (see the video in this link to the article; he boasts in his best multicultural manner that Superman and Batman have shaken hands with Islamic superheroes). I will not try to top that excellent article. But every panel and frame of this propaganda is intended to indoctrinate children about the putative goodness of Islam. The Ninety-Nine are all children, including glib-tongued teens, crafted to appeal to modern sensibilities. Those sensibilities allow for creeping dhimmitude, prepared and propagated by American educational policies.
Cultural jihad and creeping dhimmitude aren’t just about banning Voltaire, imposing politically correct Newspeak in politics and journalism, including Islamic holidays on calendars, and demonizing critics of Islam. It’s also about conditioning children to be passive manqués who will obey the state (or the caliphate) and never presume to think for themselves. Imagery has proven to be a powerful ideological weapon. B.F. Skinner would lavish praise on the phenomenon. Communists and Nazis would be envious.
In the meantime, my sketching and blocking skills being rusty, I invite anyone to illustrate the following story. Turn it into an animated short, with special CGI effects, á la Avatar.
Picture fierce-looking, never-smiling Allah, always in a nightgown and sandals, slightly bald but boasting a flowing white beard, with a kosh tucked inside his belt and a scimitar sitting at his feet (just in case), playing celestial poker with his buddies Moragu, Saturn (snacking on one of his own children), Zagaga, Lord Shiva (recently divorced from Kali, whom he finally realized was a dominatrix), and Yahweh. In between hands, and in between sips of Dazzle Dust Chablis, Allah and Yahweh reminisce about the good old days, or the good old eons when the universe was young and they had the run of the place. They went back a long way. They were the cause of the “Big Bang.”
Yahweh and Allah are best friends. They weren’t always. You see, long ago (in another dimension not detectable by mere mortals), when they were all pubescent kids, Yahweh was the original alpha-male god of all gods and the neighborhood bully. Nobody knew who appointed him to that station, he just was; his and everyone else’s origins were the subject of many a heated, contentious, and often violent debate among the student body at the Universal Academy of Supreme Power and Metaphysical Manipulation (much like the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry). The issue was never resolved.
However, Yahweh once tried to steal Allah’s lunch money in the school playground. Allah, being a possessive and obnoxious little brat anyway – he was parentless, as well, having had no role model on which to fashion his character, and this may have contributed to his crankiness and aggressive behavior – beat the Beejesus out of Yahweh after a vigorous game of kick-the-can (a tie between the teams). For the longest time, Yahweh was “It.” That had abruptly and unexpectedly changed during the course of the game. It was not well received by Yahweh.
Yahweh, a moody and gnarly person himself, was resentful that he had only tied. He had failed to spot Wontonka, a totem-sized future American Indian god, who was hiding in plain sight behind a boxwood. He did not believe in good sportsmanship. So he attempted to channel his frustration by bullying Allah into surrendering his four-and-six-pence.
Allah, not lacking in arrogance, forthwith delivered a powerful knee to Yahweh’s groin and soon was thrashing the Anointed One with a hail of blows. Yahweh stumbled back in shock and confusion.
When the latter added insult to injury as Allah had him pinned down, and accused Allah’s mother of having mated with a scorpion (Yahweh knew that David Lean’s movie, Lawrence of Arabia, would be made six billion years hence, and he really liked that line of Anthony Quinn’s), Allah laid into Yahweh with even more furious blows, yanking painfully at Yahweh’s peach-fuzz beard for extra measure, screaming, “You offensive, insensitive, callous brute!” Yahweh at last had to cry uncle and plead for mercy. “Yahweh concedes to Allah!”
Spectators of this match thought they had heard, “Allah concedes to Yahweh!” so similar were their names in pronunciation. They were confused. It made no sense. They argued amongst themselves as Allah continued to pummel Yahweh. But, these were up-and-coming deities, who did not need to make any sense.
Hovering in the background was God (nicknamed “Bog”), a shy, quiet little gamin whose constitution caused him to flit from recognizable humanoid form to a dove. All the other students avoided him, even Yahweh and Allah, because there was something strange and unsettling about him. It was his mesmerizing eyes. Allah envied those eyes. But he knew that eventually God or Bog would cause trouble in the future. He had once remarked to Baal, “Better look out for that one. It’s always the wallflowers who make the most trouble later.”
“He gives me the creeps,” agreed Baal, the demon god, munching on a piglet. He was nothing to look at, either, resembling as he did the Rancor in Star Wars, a silly movie about magical powers Allah knew would be shot six billion years hence. Baal didn’t know that, for he could not see into the future. His talents lay elsewhere. There would be a falling-out between him and Allah.
Back to the schoolyard dust-up. Allah relented, released Yahweh from his hold, and stood up. “Allah is merciful,” he said, shaking a finger down at Yahweh, who was near tears, “and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise!”
Thus, the Big Bang, which didn’t happen that instant. It took time for the energy expended by Allah and Yahweh in that terrible fight to gather enough pressure and molecular dissonance for the temporal realm to explode, and time hadn’t been invented yet. By Allah.
And that was how Allah became the only true God (so gossips say). All the other Academy’s male students more or less conceded Allah’s supremacy and offered no challenges to his new-found title as Numero Uno of the Firmament.
There were some future goddesses in the school, too, but Allah didn’t like girls, especially not those pretty little Greek ones, showing off in their skimpy robes and behaving like they were Someone’s gift to men. It was just an expression, but no one could say who that Someone was; no one wanted to “go there” on the matter of the infinite regression of First Causes; the subject was not in the school’s curriculum and forbidden to discussion. Allah harbored a special dislike of the Cretan girl-goddesses, who traipsed around wearing nothing at all on top. When he accused them of immodesty and of being a distraction during class, they would usually retort, “In your dreams, Kilroy. We caught you looking.”
Allah, being a natural prude who could not brook rejection, because he knew he was perfect, complained to the headmaster about the girl-goddesses. But this venerable person (no one knew where he came from, either, or how he acquired his knowledge and powers; he just was) advised Allah to be patient. “This school has a policy of diversity, and welcomes students from all cultural and belief backgrounds. But someday your time will come, and you will set the rules. In the meantime, you must be tolerant.” He paused and added another admonition. “You must stop teasing Kali about her four arms. You mustn’t make fun of others’ disabilities.”
The headmaster studied Allah’s petulant face. He noted that the child’s beard was growing thick and would soon need some trimming, and perhaps a shampoo. “By the way, you have been tardy in deciding how many Imams will deliver humankind from its misery. And when. You must decide soon. Will it be the seventh, or the twelfth, or the thirty-first? I cannot award you a diploma if you continue to be so indecisive.”
“I’ll do what I wish,” muttered Allah. “I will nominate the Mahdi or the Expected One when I’m damned good and ready.” From that day onward, Allah brooded, and brooded, and brooded, and thought many dark thoughts. Not deep thoughts, just dark ones. It was his foremost and governing quality. He had ninety-eight to go.
Allah graduated with honors from the Universal Academy. Immediately upon receiving his diploma, he dove into his work with an enterprising passion. As the temporal realm unfolded in the Big Bang, he staked claims to large portions of it, planned the demise of the other Academy graduates (all false gods anyway, he was “It,” but he might keep a few around, just for company), and contrived a way to make himself known to humankind without really showing himself . He was very sensitive about his personal appearance. “I will invent a prophet, and his name will be Mohammad!” he exclaimed triumphantly to the void, which was slowly coalescing into the heavens.
It came to him, just like that, although the thought confounded him for a moment, because he should have known about it beforehand, eons ago. That was when Allah learned that he was also omnipotent, as well as omniscient, and could change his own predestined knowledge of what was to be and what he might and might not do about it. “It is the will of Allah! It will be written!” But, where? Ah, yes, a holy book! Full of fairy tales and blood and gore and rapine and slaughter for the gullible and impressionable. Appeal to their prurience. And sacred stones! And commandments! Dozens of them! I’ll make them genuflect – No! Bow five times a day – in submission to a rock he would cast from the sky! And then have the fools swathe it in silver!
But, the book? – No illustrations! He would keep them guessing! What would he call the holy book? Allah snapped his fingers. The Recitation! The story of Allah as told by Gabriel to a brigand! And it’ll be a bloody miracle if Mohammad could memorize it all! So, he’d have to make Mohammad an idiot savant!
Allah cackled to himself, and rubbed his hands together, and began imagining the likeness of Mohammad the Prophet. And he remembered the mesmerizing eyes of Bog. “Yes. Svengali! He’ll put the fear of Allah in a rhinoceros!” Which he hadn’t invented. Still, he did a merry jig in celebration of his own almightiness.
The rhinoceros was Bog’s doing. Bog, you see, was busy in another quadrant of the universe.
Allah was right. That one was going to be trouble.
But, that’s another story.
0 Comments ::
:: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 ::
MSM Thuggees Run Amok Over Breivik
Posted by Edward Cline at 8:03 PM
Call me Gunga Din. Or at least the Gunga Din who stood on the pinnacle of the Temple of Kali in the 1939 movie production of Kipling’s poem, and sounded the alarm of danger for the approaching British-Scottish troops of the Thuggee ambush that lay ahead of them. Or perhaps I should hand the bugle to Adrian Morgan of Family Security Matters, or to Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, or to Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs, or to Steven Emerson of IPT, or to Daniel Greenfield of Sultan Knish, or to Daniel Pipes and Raymond Ibrahim of the Middle East Forum….
In my previous commentary, “The Oslo Factor: Blame Free Speech” I noted half-way through that The Washington Post was leading the way to government regulation or suppression of speech by hammering its nail in the coffin of “Islamaphobia,” and added:
There will be a chorus of hammering by the Main Stream Media (MSM), and calls for “responsible” speech. Which is not the same thing as free speech.
“Responsible” speech is not freedom of speech. Enforcement means force, with concomitant penalties, fines, and jail time. Only the government can define and enforce “responsible” speech. One is either free to speak, or one is not. Denmark, Britain, and other countries have already broken ground with overt or covert censorship, and have penalized individuals who have “irresponsibly” spoken out against Islam and against the “Camps of the Muslims” who are immigrating into their countries at government invitation in the names of multiculturalism, indiscriminate tolerance, and moral equivalence.
I noted that:
You see, he [Breivik] was “Islamaphobic.” He was also crazed and insensitive and insulting and perhaps even saw his country being stealthily taken over by the enemy in the guise of Muslims and Marxists. So, anyone who criticizes Islam or Muslim behavior in Western countries – or even in Muslim countries – will be branded by association with Breivik. Well-reasoned arguments, evidence of stealth jihad, connections between multiculturalism, Islamic hubris, and the Islamification of the West, impeccable scholarship, reputations for truth-telling and fact-finding, will be dismissed as “Islamaphobic,” intolerant, bigoted, and hateful.
To my knowledge, my warning was one of the earliest in the current avalanche of commentaries about the unintended consequences of Anders Behring Breivik’s act of terrorism in Norway. Critics of Islam, anti-jihadist and counter-jihadist writers and thinkers are all now the liberal-left’s “fall-guy,” having been the “inspiration” of Anders Behring Breivik to do what he did.
Now we know, courtesy of Breivik’s 1,500-page manifesto, “2083,” that he was not in essence a “Christian fundamentalist,” but an alienated, nihilist lone wolf who seized upon virtually any anti- or counter-jihadist thought to buttress his psychological disorder and sanction his admitted criminality. Imagine an alleged advocate of capitalism concocting a Brunswick stew of the economics John Law, John Maynard Keynes, Adam Smith, and Frédéric Bastiat and calling it “capitalism,” and then car-bombing the General Motors tower in Detroit.
Sultan Knish has a brilliant and revealing analysis of Breivik is and is not.
But, like The Washington Post, The New York Times has also fashioned its own Thuggee ambush. It began on July 25th with an innocuous unsigned but very subtly-worded article reporting the arrest of Breivik and his background.
Toward the end of high school, he joined the youth wing of the Progress Party, drawn to its anti-immigrant platform and market capitalist bent. But those who knew him from those days said that he failed to leave much of a mark.
And at the end of high school, was Breivik already being “enabled” by Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, and the English Defense League? Assuming he graduated from high school in 1995 or 1996, did Spencer’s Jihad Watch, Geller’s Atlas Shrugs, and the EDL even exist? Or the Gates of Vienna? Or any other “right-wing,” anti-Islamic or counter-jihadist blog? As he grew older, Breivik may have matured physically, but not mentally.
With the 1,500-page manifesto, which he said took three years to complete, Mr. Breivik endeavored to find common cause with xenophobic right-wing groups around the world, particularly in the United States. He quoted extensively from the anti-Islam writings of American bloggers, and cut and pasted a whole section of the manifesto written by Theodore J. Kaczynski, known as the Unabomber, into his own, replacing “leftism” with “multiculturalism” as the object of aspehttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifrsion.
Yes, “leftism” and “multiculturalism” are deserving of aspersions, considering the demonstrable and incalculable destruction they have caused. But that is no reason to suggest, as the Times article implies, that Breivik’s evaluation of those phenomena is evidence of a pandemic of unsound minds that ought to be shunned or put into the straightjacket of “responsible” speech.
That article was preceded on July 24th by the first overt attack on anti-Islamic and anti-jihadist writers, “Killings in Norway Spotlight Anti-Muslim Thought in U.S.,” by Scott Shane. It would be up to lawyers and the courts to determine whether or not the article is slanderous in nature. What the article is not, however, is a news article. Its sneering tone and borderline allegations disqualify it from being treated as a sterling instance of objective reporting. Key suggestive or slanderous terms are highlighted in this sampling of Shane’s style of insisting on guilt by association:
In the document he posted online, [Breivik], who is accused of bombing government buildings and killing scores of young people at a Labor Party camp, showed that he had closely followed the acrimonious American debate over Islam.
“Acrimonious”? Say, rather, a principled opposition that documented the violence and stealth jihad of Islamic activists? If any acrimony was present in that opposition, it was reserved for policymakers who have allowed Islam to advance unopposed to eradicate Western civilization.
More broadly, the mass killings in Norway, with their echo of the 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City by an antigovernment militant, have focused new attention around the world on the subculture of anti-Muslim bloggers and right-wing activists and renewed a debate over the focus of counterterrorism efforts.
So, to belong to a handful of outspoken individuals who have done their best to warn Americans of the very real peril of Islamic supremacism and the inroads it has made in this country (not to mention Iran’s inching closer to acquiring nuclear weapons with which to vaporize Israel and the West) presumably is to belong to a “subculture” of loons and hash-smoking drop-outs who regularly consult Ouija boards for their wisdom. Note that Mr. Shane does not even honor us with the term “counter-culture.” We are members of a “subculture,” untouchables or pariahs from whom to keep children away lest we infect them with a disease.
And there is nothing wrong with being “anti-government” when your government is thoroughly reaming you and your country with astronomical debt and the expansion of federal power over your diet, lighting fixtures, and speech. But the insinuation here is that to be “anti-government” is to be a bomb-throwing anarchist whose first and sole style of argument is violence, assassination, and machine-gunning a camp full of defenseless teenagers and young adults.
The revelations about Mr. Breivik’s American influences exploded on the blogs over the weekend, putting Mr. Spencer and other self-described “counterjihad” activists on the defensive, as their critics suggested that their portrayal of Islam as a threat to the West indirectly fostered the crimes in Norway.
“Self-described”? Mr. Shane should check Mr. Spencer’s credentials. What Mr. Spencer and his fellow counter-jihad activists know about Islam would fill a Pentagon warehouse. What Mr. Shane knows about Islam would fill a thimble. Would he accuse Barack Obama of being a “self-described president”? Or Harry Reid of being a “self-described” senator?
Mr. Spencer wrote on his Web site jihadwatch.org, that “the blame game” had begun, “as if killing a lot of children aids the defense against the global jihad and Islamic supremacism, or has anything remotely to do with anything we have ever advocated.” He did not mention Mr. Breivik’s voluminous quotations from his writings.
“Voluminous quotations”? That should be more a credit to Mr. Spencer’s persuasive writing than an insinuated indictment of his alleged culpability Breivik’s crime.
Marc Sageman, a former C.I.A. officer and a consultant on terrorism, said it would be unfair to attribute Mr. Breivik’s violence to the writers who helped shape his world view. But at the same time, he said the counterjihad writers do argue that the fundamentalist Salafi branch of Islam “is the infrastructure from which Al Qaeda emerged. Well, they and their writings are the infrastructure from which Breivik emerged.”
“Emerge”? Here it is suggested that the literature of anti-jihadist writing is a polluted “infrastructure” from which the Creature from the Black Lagoon emerges to cause havoc and death.
Mr. Breivik frequently cited another blog, Atlas Shrugs, and recommended the Gates of Vienna among Web sites. Pamela Geller, an outspoken critic of Islam who runs Atlas Shrugs, wrote on her blog Sunday that any assertion that she or other antijihad writers bore any responsibility for Mr. Breivik’s actions was “ridiculous.” “If anyone incited him to violence, it was Islamic supremacists,” she wrote.
Atlas Shrugs is just “another blog” whose owner is supposedly just as suspect and culpable as Robert Spencer, because Breivik often visited the site and posted comments on it. To be cited by a psychotic killer is presumably prima facie evidence of one’s own psychosis.
Finally, Roger Cohen’s New York Times editorial, “Breivik and His Enablers” of July 25th takes off the gloves. It is such a scurrilous and venomous screed that it bears a full reading. However, here are some highlights:
No doubt, that is how Islamophobic right-wingers in Europe and the United States who share his views but not his methods will seek to portray Breivik.
Translation: Don’t pay attention to anything these people say. They deny responsibility and are in denial. Anyone who criticizes Islam or Muslims is a bigoted, paranoid fruitcake, just like Breivik.
We’ve seen the movie. When Jared Loughner shot Representative Gabrielle Giffords this year in Tucson, Arizona — after Sarah Palin placed rifle sights over Giffords’ constituency and Giffords herself predicted that “there are consequences to that” — the right went into overdrive to portray Loughner as a schizophrenic loner whose crazed universe owed nothing to those fanning hatred under the slogan of “Take America Back.” (That non-specific taking-back would of course be from Muslims and the likes of the liberal and Jewish Giffords.)
No, Mr. Cohen, what we have seen before is the MSM in action to discredit legitimate and articulate opposition to Obama’s domestic policies, and also and also anyone who opposes Islamic jihad. If any organization was in overdrive then, it was the MSM. As it is now.
Breivik is no loner. His violence was brewed in a specific European environment that shares characteristics with the specific American environment of Loughner: relative economic decline, a jobless recovery, middle-class anxiety and high levels of immigration serving as the backdrop for racist Islamophobia and use of the spurious specter of a “Muslim takeover” as a wedge political issue to channel frustrations rightward.
Yes, Mr. Cohen, Breivik was a loner. And his violence was not “brewed” by any external causes, but in his own mind. And, “Islamaphobia” is neither racist nor unhealthy; if one objects to Islamic beheadings, stonings, rapes, murders, car bombs, suicide bombers, and terrorism – all repeatedly committed by Muslims who have their own brand of racism – Islamophobia is a life-saving mindset. And “Muslim takeovers” of Western cities – say, of Luton, of Bradford, of Malmo, of Dearborn, even of Oslo, where a day before the Oslo bombing, a Norwegian woman was raped in broad daylight on the steps of the Norwegian parliament by a Somali immigrant – are hardly “spurious.” Or perhaps Mr. Cohen would consider moving Tower Hamlets in London, which is more or less a successful Muslim secession from London and the U.K.
Further into his editorial, Cohen manages to implicate Geert Wilders, Marine Le Pen, and without naming her, Angela Merkel of Germany, who stated that Muslim integration into Western societies, is a dismal and dangerous failure. In short, Cohen’s editorial is instructive only in the sense that one can see just how vile, nihilist, and hateful the left can be.
Finally, the employment of the term anti-Muslim is a package-deal, one that includes by implication any thoughtful and considered opposition to Islamic ideology. One can be faultlessly “anti-Muslim” if one knows, among other things, that Muslims regularly bow East in homage to a gussied-up meteorite, treat women as chattel, revere a murderous brigand and pedophile, and more or less surrender their minds and souls to the authority of grotty-looking imams and mullahs. In practice, the Islamic creed, whatever its sect, is so grotesque that one has difficulty satirizing it.
But the usage of the term “anti-Muslim” is wrong. Spencer, Emerson, Geller, Horowitz and other regular writers on Islam, are not “anti-Muslim,” but anti-totalitarian. Islamists themselves admit that Islam is totalitarian, and not just a Wontonka-worshipping creed.
Now, for the longest time, I had never understood what a right-winger was. Aside from the caricature of a right-winger as a gun-toting, Bible-quoting, goose-stepping, Storm-Trooperish goon wielding a night-stick, the term, I eventually realized, is an emotive one that connotes the absolute power of fascism. But fascism is simply socialism with a gun, or King Kong astride the Empire State Building beating the breast of collectivism and national “unity.”
It is Nazism, or corporatist socialism, with all businesses, industries, and all citizens working for the greater glory of the collective and taking orders from on high. It is Mussolini, and Tojo, and Nasser, and Saddam Hussein, and the Perons. Fascism can be embroidered in many different cultural and ethnic colors, but they all boil down to the surrender and sacrifice of the individual to the state or the race or the collective.
And in the context of today’s peril, aside from fascist tendencies in this country, it is the Islamic Ummah, or Muslim “community,” which will not find “peace” until it embraces the whole globe, when believers and unbelievers alike are in thrall to http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifit. In essence, a “right-winger” is not a champion of individual rights, private property, freedom of speech and other liberties. There are secular “right-wingers” and religious ones and they are all enemies of freedom. The term is a misleading misnomer, measured on a scale whose origin dates back to Revolutionary France and the Reign of Terror. But on its own terms, a “right-winger” is simply a “left-winger” in disguise, seeking the same repressive, totalitarian ends.
So, the standard spectrum of political ideology has for decades been established and perpetuated by an invalid premise. The whole yardstick is leftist. Please, people, stop being fooled by it. Reality beckons. “Right-wingers” are simply “Left-wingers” in drag.
Conservative writers, such as Ron Radosh and David Horowitz, perpetuate the fallacy by defending “conservatives” against charges of nascent “right-wing” terrorism.
Perhaps more importantly than diverting attention away from the legitimate concern with Islamic jihad and the stealthy introduction and imposition of Sharia law in Western nations, is the blank check the MSM is handing our government to monitor and perhaps repress legitimate criticism of Islam. Many of these “Islamaphobic” websites are sponsored, edited and written for by Christians. Because Breivik was initially alleged to be a “fundamentalist Christian,” ergo, goes the illogic, all Christian and other critics of Islam are potential mass murderers and must be reined in. And if not actual mass murderers, then they are ideological “enablers” of them who must be taught to be “responsible.”
If censorship comes to this country, it will be by the invitation of the MSM and the left-liberal political and intellectual establishment. Then we shall see the true “right-wingers” at work.
In the meantime, I shall continue blowing my bugle, and be thankful that I number among the “blackfaced crew” of “bhistis” who carry the water of reason. We oppose the Thuggees of Islam and their enablers on the Marxist-liberal-left, who carry the strangling cloths of multiculturalism and the burial picks of political correctness.
And, should someone object to my use of the term “Thuggee,” I recommend going here for the etymology and history of the term. He will see that not only would Breivik have fit into the mindless fanaticism of the cult of Kali – he was willing, after all, to ally himself with Islamic “extremists” and inaugurate a reign of violence – but that the Hindu cult had Islamic origins.
What a coincidence!
3 Comments ::
:: Sunday, July 24, 2011 ::
The Oslo Factor: Blame Free Speech
Posted by Edward Cline at 8:37 AM
In Dashiell Hammett’s nonpareil detective novel, The Maltese Falcon, Sam Spade, the street-wise and glib private eye, toys with and manipulates the contentious members of a gang of hustlers in order to nail the person among them who murdered his business partner. He pretends to ally himself with their purposes, but warns them that someone must take the rap for that murder and others, someone who can be turned over to the authorities. They must have a “fall-guy,” he explains to the gang leader, Casper Gutman. He at first nominates Wilmer, the leader’s psychotic “gunsil” and bodyguard.
“Let’s give them the punk.” He nodded pleasantly at the boy in the doorway. “He actually did shoot both of them – Thursby and Jacobi – didn’t he? Anyway, he’s made to order for the part. Let’s pin the necessary evidence on him and turn him over to them.”
The horrific attack in Oslo, Norway last Friday, in which 84 Norwegian youths were mercilessly gunned down by Anders Behring Breivik, a psychotic Norwegian Christian fundamentalist and anti-Muslim who also allegedly planted a devastating and lethal bomb in central Oslo, has produced an “Islamaphobic” fall-guy, made to order for the part.
You see, he was “Islamaphobic.” He was also crazed and insensitive and insulting and perhaps even saw his country being stealthily taken over by the enemy in the guise of Muslims and Marxists. So, anyone who criticizes Islam or Muslim behavior in Western countries – or even in Muslim countries – will be branded by association with Breivik. Well-reasoned arguments, evidence of stealth jihad, connections between multiculturalism, Islamic hubris, and the Islamification of the West, impeccable scholarship, reputations for truth-telling and fact-finding, will be dismissed as “Islamaphobic,” intolerant, bigoted, and hateful.
I do not believe in “evil geniuses.” So I will not make the argument that Al Quada or some other Islamic terrorist group put Breivik up to committing the crime in order to divert attention from Islam’s own and numerous depredations – although the idea is a credible one.
However, there are several legitimate observations to make and questions to ask.
An Australian TV news report at least hypothesizes that the double attack was too well organized and had a jihadist M.O. Based on statements by survivors of the massacre, police suspect that a second gunman was involved.
Up front, the “Christian fundamentalist” nature of the attack makes little sense. Was Breivik unbalanced? Was he so out of it that jihadists could convince him that it was fellow Norwegians who were the “enemy” and not Muslims? If he were a Christian fundamentalist, would he not have wanted to slaughter Muslims, instead?
Norway’s ruling Labor Party is friendly to Muslim immigration, which, in light of the demonstrated purposes of such immigration, to impose Sharia law on Western nations, is prima facie an irrational policy. Breivik attacked the ideological offspring of the Labor Party. But, if Breivik hated Muslims, why did he not attack Muslims, instead? Why mow down nearly a hundred liberal-left Christian children? This answer may or may not come out during his trial.
Norway has gun control laws. How did Breivik procure his automatic weapon? How did he acquire explosives? If he rigged the bomb or bombs that created so much devastation in Oslo, where did he get instructions? From Inspire, the jihadist online magazine? From whom? Through whose weapons network? An M16 ammo clip does not hold enough ammo to mow down 84 people. Was he wearing an ammo belt of clips? Who procured the policeman’s uniform? How did he travel from Oslo to Utoya Island loaded with weaponry and not have been noticed? Where was Norwegian security at the camp? Was there any? Was there a second, or even a third gunman?
Jihadists apparently helped Timothy McVeigh blow up the federal building in Oklahoma City. Is this some kind of diversionary terrorism, organized by jihadists, to shift attention away from Islamists? Is this a form of taqiyya – an orchestrated pointing of fingers at the other guy?
Is Anders Behring Breivik an example of cool reason, calm reflection, and fealty to reality? You be the judge:
In his first comment via a lawyer since he was arrested, 32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik expressed willingness to explain himself in court at a hearing likely to be held on Monday about extending his custody.
"He has said that he believed the actions were atrocious, but that in his head they were necessary," lawyer Geir Lippestad told independent TV2 news, adding that his client admitted to both the shootings and the bombing….
Breivik hated "cultural Marxists," wanted a "crusade" against the spread of Islam and liked guns and weightlifting, web postings, acquaintances and officials said. A video posted on the YouTube website showed several pictures of Breivik, including one of him in a scuba diving outfit pointing an automatic weapon.
But the incident will work to the advantage of Islamists everywhere.
Adrian Morgan, editor of Family Security Matters, details the beginning of the smear of critics of Islam and jihad. I left this comment on his article.
In short, Mr. Morgan is describing the attempts by the MSM to link Anders Breivik with a number of legitimate and coolly reasoned anti-Islamist websites and blog sites whose sponsors and writers would never condone the mass slaughter of anyone or the bombing any government buildings. That the MSM is attempting to pull this Three-Card-Monte switcheroo reveals just how morally and intellectually bankrupt the MSM is and how desperate its minions are to discredit and not refute any and all criticism of Muslims and Islam. It is called “guilt by association.” This is tantamount to accusing Hitler’s mother of influencing the murderous content of her son’s mind because she taught him how to tie his shoelaces.
But, perhaps more importantly than diverting attention away from the legitimate concern with Islamic jihad, is the blank check the MSM is handing our government to monitor and perhaps repress legitimate criticism of Islam. Many of these “Islamaphobic” websites are sponsored, edited and written for by Christians. Because Breivik is alleged to be a “fundamentalist Christian,” ergo, would go the “reasoning,” all Christian critics of Islam are potential mass murderers and must be reined in.
If censorship comes to this country, it will be by the invitation of the MSM and the left-liberal political and intellectual establishment.
This whole thing smells of a frame-up, and Breivik more and more to me looks like a fall-guy. I do not doubt there are Christian fundamentalists who would resort to murder to “spread God’s word.” I will remind readers here of the murders of abortion doctors .
Whatever the Norwegian authorities find, they are going to be reluctant to release any information that might implicate Islamists and Muslims. It might rile up the immigrant “Norwegian” Muslims, provoke them to stage “spontaneous” demonstrations, and step up their spiraling rape spree of non-Muslim Norwegian women.
Norway police officials gave the gunman’s name as Anders Behring Breivik at a news conference Saturday morning. Norway’s national broadcaster, NRK, and other news outlets in the country also posted pictures of the blond and blue-eyed Norwegian.
“What we know is that he is right wing and he is Christian fundamentalist,” said Roger Andresen, a deputy police chief. “We have not been able to link him up to an anti-Islamic group.” He said that Breivik had not been arrested before.
But wait. Some funny business has occurred on Breivik’s Facebook page. Who has been altering it to better frame the “fall guy”? Go here for details and images.
The Washington Post not surprisingly contributes its nail to hammer into the coffin of “Islamaphobia.”
Norwegians trying to make sense of the bombing and shooting attacks here turn again and again to the one example that seems to fit: Oklahoma City.
Here, as there, a quick assumption that Muslims were at fault proved to be erroneous. Norwegians now know that a 32-year-old Christian, who railed against tolerance and diversity, is the principle and perhaps only suspect. A Norwegian newspaper reported that he had recently bought a large quantity of fertilizer, which can be used to make bombs — as Timothy McVeigh showed in 1995.
There will be a chorus of hammering by the MSM, and calls for “responsible” speech. Which is not the same thing as free speech.
Oh, yes, let us bring up Timothy McVeigh ad nauseum. Link him to Anders Breivik. And to Waco, the Branch Davidians and David Koresh. To Charles Manson. To the Symbionese Liberation Army. And to other conspiracy theory fruitcakes, who must also be “neo-Nazis.” Then very, very subtly point fingers at Adrian Morgan, Robert Spencer, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Pamela Geller, Wafa Sultan, Steven Emerson, and so many more individuals who have provided ample and irrefutable evidence that Wilmer and the liberal-left guy pointing a finger at him are both guilty.
Wilmer and his friends in the MSM and our Marxist-dominated academia and intelligentsia are not “fall-guys.” They are the guys. They are the punks.
And Islam? That ideological prescription for religious and political tyranny is best represented by Brigid O'Shaughnessy, the duplicitous, lying, victim-card-happy dame and Spade’s true nemesis who committed the original murder.
Anyone who has a problem with Islam being represented by a murderess, well, deal with it.
16 Comments ::
:: Saturday, July 16, 2011 ::
All in the Islamic Family
Posted by Edward Cline at 12:29 AM
Twenty years before 9/11, when Saudi nationals hijacked American passenger planes and used them as suicide bombs, the West was warned by one of our main enemies of things to come. The warning was announced in an unsigned Reuters article which appeared in April, 1981, in The New York Times: “Saudis Shield Islam From ‘Alien Values.’”
The headline sums up one half of the truth. A subheading may as well have read: “Values Alien to Islam to be Liquidated.”
A page-two heading could also have paraphrased Vladimir Lenin: “Westerners will sell us the rope with which we will subjugate them.”
The physical rope is the oil-production capacity which the barbarians nationalized (pioneered by Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, which then helped to form OPEC in 1960), which the West refrained from reclaiming. The ideological rope is multiculturalism and cultural relativism. Their ultimatum was and remains: If you Westerners insist there is no difference between our cultural and politics and yours, then it can make no difference to you if we take over and set the terms of your existence. You are willing to tolerate the intolerant and the intolerable. That will be your epitaph. We are intolerant of the tolerant. That will be the message of our victory.
The Times article is a fawning puff piece about our less than benevolent extortionist, the royal kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and about its pseudo-angst over how Western values are no match for a medieval, totalitarian ideology that is insulated from any and all threats from Western civilization.
Saudi Arabia's economic planners believe they can successfully link the West's technology and the Islamic faith without rending society, but acknowledge they face a challenge.
The text of the country's economic plan recognizes that there is concern in the Government and among the populace that ''alien values and the spirit of materialism'' may threaten religion, adding that this is a difficult problem.
''I am an optimist,'' Deputy Planning Minister Faisal Bashir said in an interview. ''I think we came out of the 1970's very well. But we must not compromise our basic principles. I would call those Islam and our belief in the family.''
It is not much of a challenge. Islam is safe. It faces no peril from the West. It has forgotten, abandoned, or disparaged the principles that made it possible. But, to better grasp this point, let us begin by translating the disingenuous opening paragraphs.
The West’s technology and the Islamic faith are not successfully linked. That is, they are not “partnered” or “married” or joined together in holy matrimony. Islam is by nature a parasitical ideology which cannot allow its adherents to create, innovate, or think outside the suffocating box of blind faith. islam cannot allow its elect or anyone else freedom of thought without sabotaging itself. It will not abide criticism ranging from cartoons of its prophet to examination of its central tenets. So, it must feed off the West, which does allow freedom of thought, and freedom of action.
It is not Saudi, or even Iranian, Pakistani, Egyptian, Malaysian, or Indonesian or any other dominantly Islamic society that is being rent by the conflict between Islam and the West. It is the West’s societies, in virtually every Western nation, that are being torn asunder thanks to their pragmatic, tolerant, non-judgmental, and politically correct perception of Islam as just another religion. Europe is experiencing this dissolution first hand.
What are the “alien values” that the Saudis wish to keep – and have successfully kept for decades at box-cutter’s length? The supreme value of the individual. The idea that it is the individual who is the prime mover of his own life, responsible for his own values and actions. The value of that individual to be free to act in his own self-interest. The value of the idea that his rights to exist and to act do not emanate from society, or the state, or any monarchy, but from his nature as a being of volitional consciousness beholden to no dogma or faith.
The “spirit of materialism”? What is meant by that? Ostensively, an overriding concern for one’s material comfort and happiness at the expense of intangible “spiritual” or moral values, which, in the case of Islam, is unquestioned submission to the theology and pseudo-ethics of Islam. However, blind, unquestioning acceptance of any morality is not a moral action. And one does not witness the sacrifice of “material values” in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Dubai, or any other oil-windfall Arab regime. Like the ancient Egyptians, the Saudis have embarked on an “economic plan” which consists of building monumental skyscrapers, housing developments, and other neo-pyramids, all of which, funded by petrodollars, are white elephants that can never earn back their enormous investment. They represent the siphoning off of genuine, productive wealth from the West into unimaginable money pits.
Where did the Saudi planners get their economic and business ideas? In the West’s left-wing dominated universities. Are the Saudis, Kuwaitis, and other Arab regimes outside the usual scale of political economy? Judge for yourself. The Times article contained this revealing confession:
''There are also not very many Saudis - perhaps not more than five million -so it is easier to spread the wealth around,'' a West European diplomat remarked.
The 1980-85 economic plan envisages investments of about $300 billion for social improvements, defense, agriculture and gas-based petrochemical plants to earn foreign exchange when oil income eventually tapers off.
A recent visitor, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of Britain, heard the Minister of Planning, Hisham Nazer, declare that all Saudis were entitled to free education and health care, unemployment and injury benefits. Prices for some essentials are subsidized.
''It may sound as if the Saudi Government is following a policy of handouts,'' he told Mrs. Thatcher, who is a vigorous champion of self-reliance and free enterprise. ''But the policy is to insure a minimum standard of living and beyond that the good life will have to be earned.''
“Spread the wealth around”? Where have we heard that before, except most notably from the current, Islam-friendly occupant of the White House, talking down to Joe the Plumber? In terms of economic “planning,” are the Saudis so different from Western socialists, and also have an educated predilection for five-year plans and programs of coercive and extortionate “people management”?
Islam does not discourage making money, provided that the prosperous give alms to the poor. As conservative religious authorities see it, Islam is liable to be at risk when wealthy young Saudis fly off for the summer to London, Paris or Bangkok and cultivate a taste for permissive ways, a diplomat said.
Spiritual values are perceived as further threatened by the presence of many non-Moslems in a foreign work force of at least 1.5 million, required because so far too few Saudis have the technological skills to run a modern economy and very few are inclined to undertake manual labor.
Virtually the only Saudi prince who took Islam seriously – that is, practiced its core, jihadist, Kantian morality of self-sacrifice – was Osama bin Laden, who traded his palaces, limousines, private aircraft, and freedom of movement for the life of a fugitive hobo, living in caves and finally in a rat-trap compound that resembled an abandoned Super 8 motel, courtesy of and with the full knowledge of our “ally,” Pakistan.
The West is on the defensive, Islam on the offensive. As communists in the past have done in pursuit of global socialist state, Islamists are plotting the overthrow of the West and its replacement with a global caliphate right in our backyard. They are quite frank about their ends and means. An Islamic website, Khilafah.com, reported in July 2009:
An international Islamist political group is preparing for its first conference in the U.S. on Sunday July 19th under the theme "Fall of Capitalism & Rise to Islam.".
The sponsor of the conference, Hizb ut-Tahrir, is an organization that has been banned in Germany and several Middle Eastern countries because of its views. It is sometimes described as "extremist" and "radical" by analysts and research groups. In a phone interview with CBS News, the conference's deputy spokesperson [Reza Imam] stressed that Hizb ut-Tahrir does not call for violence or spread radical ideas
Officially, Hizb ut-Tahrir eschews violence. But violence, or the threat of it, is the only way Islam can spread – unless the West abandons the values of freedom and individualism. Reza Imam’s assurances are mere instances of taqiyya, or Muslim double-talk.
Jeremy Binnie, senior analyst for terrorism and insurgency at Jane's, an information group that provides consultancy on intelligence and strategic issues, says the group advocates ideas that are similar to those of militant Islamist groups like al Qaeda, namely the establishment of a pan-Islamic caliphate state that would be ruled under Islamic law. The difference is that Hizb ut-Tahrir is against achieving this goal through terrorism, says Binnie....
While Binnie says the group is "not very threatening in terms of strategy," he worries that Hizb ut-Tahrir might act as a "conveyor belt." He says members of the group, who are convinced of its worldview, might give up on its strategy, especially given its failure to achieve the goal so far, and decide to join militant groups or engage in violent acts on their own.
Like the Muslim Brotherhood, which our president is cozying up to and which the Saudis are supporting behind the scenes, Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) has been around for a long time and is determined to achieve its goal of world domination by Islam. It would be interesting to know the funding pedigree of HT. We are certain of the Brotherhood’s basic finances. Front Page interviewed a lone Egyptian intellectual and activist about the “Arab Spring,” and who is for freedom and against “democracy.”
The concept of Khilafah [caliphate] is very much alive and well, and functioning stealthily. Egypt is a Saudi colony; KSA has been trying to ideologically control Egypt by supporting the Muslim Brotherhood since the early 1930′s and in the 40′s the Muslim Brotherhood infiltrated the Egyptian army.
Has HT given up? No. Does it know where it stands in “history”? Yes. While one totalitarian system has collapsed of its own ineptness, another has sprung up to take its place. As the Soviet Union depended on Western largesse and often was actively supported by it, Islamic regimes are emulating the same scenario. This month HT held a conference in Chicago, at the appropriately named Double Tree Hotel.
A radical Islamist group which claims a presence in nearly 50 countries is so confident it can help establish a global Muslim government – or caliphate – that it distributed a draft constitution during a recent conference outside of Chicago.
It calls for the death penalty for apostates and for creating a government department dedicated to jihad. The latest Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) gathering drew more than 300 people to a Double Tree Hotel ballroom June 26.
HT is an international movement to establish a global Islamic state, or caliphate (Khilafah). Although it is officially committed to nonviolence, HT preaches a virulent brand of hatred for the United States, and for Western democracy in general. Its alumni include such violent Islamists as Khaiid Sheikh Mohammad, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and the late Iraqi jihadist Abu Musab Zarqawi. Hizb ut-Tahrir has been described as a “conveyor belt” of terrorism.
At the conference, activists portrayed Islam as the only real force in the world standing up to the United States and the West. With Soviet communism gone, the West is now confronted with the threat posed by Islam, said a speaker identified as Reza Imam. He has served as spokesman for the organization. "And they see the return of Islam," he warned. "And this, brothers and sisters, is the shaking [of] the thrones." Islam's foes "see the coming revival of Islam, and they know what that means and they know what it means for their policies," Imam said.
The Times-Reuters article of 1981about the Saudis exhibits its penchant for cultural relativism and its unwillingness to pass a moral judgment, a cowardice that would have consequences twenty years later.
The vast desert land was the birthplace of Islam, so what happens here has meaning to all the world's 600 million Moslems. The Government understands the West's concern over a safe flow of Saudi oil, they said, but it resents ill-informed Western criticism of the stricter practices of Islam, as observed here, such as stoning of adulterers and the veiling and seclusion of women.
The continued stoning of adulterers and the veiling and seclusion of women were but overtures to what was to come to the West when the populations of Muslim immigrants began to swell in Europe. That journalistic and politically correct diffidence continues to this day when the “resentment” of Western criticism has graduated to death fatwas on critics and cartoonists, rising sexual assaults on non-Muslim women in Western countries, honor killings of disobedient girls and women, riots and mass car burnings in “no-go” ghettoes in major cities, a resurgence of anti-Semitism spread by Muslim clerics, brazen calls for sedition and the overthrow of Western governments in mosques, the de facto establishment of Sharia courts in contravention of civil law, the meek accommodation of Muslim “needs” such as foot baths, prayer rooms, and halal food, often paid for by non-Muslim taxpayers (yes, it is jizya, or the Islamic tax on conquered infidels), the Ground Zero mosque…and so much more, all abetted, condoned, or ignored by a liberal news media, our leftist/liberal intelligentsia, and often by our judiciary.
Yes. Saudi Deputy Planning Minister Faisal, quoted early in this commentary, had every reason to be “optimistic.” He believes in “the family.” By “family” he meant the Islamic Ummah or “community” or “brotherhood. Suborning and emasculating the West has been a cakewalk.
Our leaders believe in nothing. Basically, the conflict is between one brand of nihilism and another.
4 Comments ::
:: Sunday, July 10, 2011 ::
A Mohammadan Parable (Unexpurgated)
Posted by Edward Cline at 11:57 AM
I begin here with a parable that comes under the heading: You can make this stuff up, and there will be believers.
It seems that Mohammad was an Area 51 junkie centuries before the place was laid out by the U.S. government. He was one of the original Predators (his band of merry acolytes being mere predators), slashing his way through the Arabian Peninsula, beheading and mutilating non-believers wherever he found them, especially if they were caught hiding behind rocks. Now and then, one supposes, he gazed up at the heavens, and wondered if there were others like him in the universe. Then he would rouse himself, leave the side of the captive woman or nine-year-old girl he had just raped, pad over to another partitioned section of his commodious tent, and call for his biographer.
“Take a note, Abdullah,” he commanded when the harried-looking man arrived, slightly groggy with disturbed sleep. “Gabriel just spoke to me again. There are other planets out there! See those stars?” he exclaimed, pointing to the roof of the tent. “They’re really shining planets, and they are home to beings just like us, and they all acknowledge Allah as the one true God. If they don’t, it means war, it means jihad, and righteous conversion. We shall slay the jinns of Satan!”
Abdullah said, “Well, that’s all find and good, but…How do we get there?”
“Where the infidel aliens live.” The biographer was seated cross-legged on his straw mat, parchment and ink pot at the ready on a low stand before him. His quill was poised in his left hand to take down the words of the Prophet.
Mohammad was too distracted by the novelty of his new message, and did not notice this left-handed and insulting breach of etiquette. “Allah will fly us there, in magic bubbles. Or on carpets, or broomsticks. He’ll think of something. He is all-powerful.”
“Camels and steeds, too?”
“Of course. Or, Allah will just provide them. He wouldn’t expect us to walk into an infidel city and take it over, would he? We’d look pretty silly. We must scare the Beejesus out of the infidel aliens! Our mounts will appear magically on those worlds. They will be magnificent, and be comfortably saddled, and not need water or forage.” Mohammad waxed poetic. “And we will be armed with the finest swords and spears, gleaming with merciless justice, true at every thrust, and we will be garbed in cloaks of invincibility.”
He paced excitedly back and forth before Abdullah, his mind reeling with visions of conquest. He wondered what alien women looked like. Did they wear veils? Or burkas? Maybe they looked like burkas, with mandibles over their mouths and boasting many stringy, handless arms! Oh, well, nothing risked, nothing gained! Women aren’t everything! He imagined that their men-folk had amassed fortunes in gold, frankincense, and myrrh. And an unlimited banquet of dates, nuts, and kosher delicacies. Kosher? No, no, he meant halal delicacies! Allah be merciful and forgive me!
Mohammad pinched himself once as punishment for the unclean thought.
Abdullah busied himself and scribbled away, his tongue lodged firmly in his left cheek. Then he paused and looked quizzical. “Master, there is one thing I do not understand.”
“Why would they not come to us? After all, you are the mountain. It would only be proper.”
“It is Allah’s will that we go to them. We couldn’t very well spread the faith if we did not venture forth. What kind of a missionary would I be, if we just sat on our heinies and waited for them to come to Mohammad? Sometimes, compromise is a virtue. It’s in the Koran there. I said so!” He pointed to a mass of pages at Abdullah’s side, next to masses of pages that were the Torah and proof-pages of the Bible. His past biographers had found it necessary to adapt some of the material from those works to spice up the Koran, to give it some momentum and action, and also authority.
Abdullah demurred on this point. He scratched his turban once, then asked, “There is another thing. If Allah is all-powerful, and made all living things, including us and the Jews and pagans and other non-believers, why didn’t he just make us all believers, and save you the trouble of killing them? It seems rather short-sighted of him. And not a little whimsical!” Abdullah shook his head, and added with some indignation, “For a Potentate of the Universe, methinks he has a self-esteem deficiency that does not comport with his reputation. He is against idolatry, but wishes to be idolized himself. It would explain his need to be worshipped, to be the center of attention. It all seems a bit narcissistic to me.” Abdullah smiled. “Pardon me for saying so, but I think many of your lieutenants are also full of themselves.”
Mohammad thoughtfully stroked his beard, causing some lice to change abodes, and cast a baleful eye on the biographer. He held out a commanding hand. “Let me see what you have written.”
Abdullah handed him the new Koranic page.
Mohammad read. He cocked his head in appreciation. Reading was a new skill to him, and he did not understand half the words. But what he read was nebulous and ambiguous enough to be taken any way one wished. It read like a glorious prophecy. Worthy of that upstart, Moses. And of Nostradamus. Or Madame Blavatsky. He had knowledge of these future infidel prophets, for the angel Gabriel had whispered their names to him in his past dreams. Still, he scowled. He hummed in doubt, and glanced down at his biographer.
“What means this, dog??” he barked, holding the page out and pointing to an image Abdullah had absently doodled over the script while the Prophet was careening through the stars. It was a likeness of Mohammad, a fair representation of his visage, and accurate to a fault. There was a prominent mole on his left cheek, and an unsightly sty over his right eye. A long scar also ornamented his right cheek, put there not by an enemy’s sword, but by the nails of an infidel woman who had resisted his urgings. He had slain her on the spot, and felt cheated. But righteous.
Abdullah knew the story, but it meant nothing to him. It was impolitic to mention the Prophet’s less glorious episodes. A strong desert breeze blew. The tent swayed and its supporting poles creaked ominously. He cringed before the silent rebuke of his Master, suddenly regretting his outspokenness. He wished now that he had taken that reporter’s job in Haifa.
The next morning, Mohammad advertised for a new biographer. Abdullah’s head was perched atop a spear planted outside the Prophet’s tent. A sign on parchment hung by a cord from around its neck. It read: “Wanted: Ghost-Writer. Must believe everything I say. Spoils of war to be negotiated. Generous retirement plan (not this person’s). Blasphemers and Irish need not apply.”
Yes, I made up that parable. However, here are some excerpts from serious approaches to the Koran. When it comes to outer space and aliens, Muslims had the West beat by 1,400 years. Don’t “believe” me? Take a gander.
Within Islam, the statement of the Qur’an, "All praise belongs to God, Lord of all the worlds" suggests multiple universal bodies, and maybe even multiple universes, which may indicate extraterrestrial and even extradimensional life.
According to Ahmadyya, Islam as a more direct reference from the Quran is presented by Mirza Tahir Ahmad as a proof that life on other planets may exist according to the Quran. In his book, Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth, he quotes verse 42:29 "And among His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and of whatever living creatures (da'bbah) He has spread forth in both...” according to this verse there is life in heavens. According to the same verse "And He has the power to gather them together (jam-'i-him) when He will so please"; indicates the bringing together the life on Earth and the life elsewhere in the Universe. The verse does not specify the time or the place of this meeting but rather states that this event will most certainly come to pass whenever God so desires. It should be pointed out that the Arabic term Jam-i-him used to express the gathering event can imply either a physical encounter or a contact through communication.
In Shia Islam the 6th Imam Ja’far al-Sidiq has been quoted as saying that there are living beings on other planets.
Of course, taking the Koran literally is much like believing that Charlie Sheen, Russell Crowe, and Mel Gibson all got gold stars from their anger management monitors. More likely, because the Koran, like the Bible and the Torah, was a work-in-progress for centuries, some anonymous, bored, and underpaid scribe, and perhaps even Ja’far al-Sadiq himself, had a tad too much spiked date juice, and let his imagination run away with him. And perhaps that alien Jodie Foster met on Vega after a wild ride on an interstellar subway train in Contact was really Allah in disguise (taking a leaf from Zeus). If it was, she was lucky she didn’t get the Lara Logan treatment.
End of story.
7 Comments ::
:: Thursday, July 07, 2011 ::
Islam the Alien
Posted by Edward Cline at 9:41 AM
For me, most science fiction stories have a credibility problem. But the one branch of it whose premise I have always rejected is that alien life could be both malevolent and technologically advanced enough to embark on interstellar conquests. Films such as Predator
and Independence Day
– just two of the more popular instances of the genre among many – portray aliens stalking man as a species of game or subjugating or extinguishing him. The premise that projects the possibility of these creatures is that a preeminently hostile, anti-life-form could somehow apply reason to create spaceships and sophisticated weaponry.
However, life-forms so malevolent would never rise from the rank swamps that bred them to go zipping around star systems and blasting planets to atoms. Malevolence is not a progenitor of innovation or creation. It is fundamentally a parasite and can thrive only on a passive or willing host. Reason is not an attribute or a handmaiden of evil. Evil in fact can only exploit the products of reason, but never originate them. Evil men or evil aliens may exhibit intelligence
, but not reason. They can exploit what reason has caused to exist, but never bring it into existence
Ugly predators and slimy aliens that can invent cloaking devices and disintegrating rays are possible in imagination only because of a fantastic, and possibly even fatal, fallacy. Their creators – and their fans – assume that reason is not the natural antithesis and enemy of anti-reason, but a morally neutral faculty that can ally itself with anti-reason in campaigns of conquest and death.
Not so coincidentally, the fallacy also explains the left’s hostility to freedom and capitalism. Capitalists, they say, have the freedom to employ reason to create things, and then use their profits to establish power and enslave everyone.
Sharks, rattlesnakes, Komodo dragons, wolves, and other predators are not inherently evil. They do what nature has programmed them to do, without any choice in their struggles for existence. No moral decisions are involved in their actions. Their values are predetermined. They lack the attribute of volition, that is, the capacity to think or not to think, to choose what will sustain and improve their lives and what will not.
A malevolent intelligence
is not a contraction in terms. Else how to explain all the real and fictional villains in history and literature, from Hitler to Professor Moriarty, from Attila the Hun to Ellsworth Toohey? Or Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his threatened nuclear weapons? But a malevolent adherent to reason
, like the aliens in Predator
and Independence Day
, is a psychological, metaphysical and philosophical contradiction. In nature, the teleology of such alien creatures is impossible.
A malevolent intelligence may succeed in finding comfort in a social and material environment created by reason, and be able to exploit its victims’ innocence, foolishness
, or ignorance
. But without reason having created such a world, it would remain a miserable prisoner in the dank, fetid jungle it was born in, never able to conceive of anything better, unable by its nature to look up at the stars, content with its surroundings, and concerned only with its next meal. Thomas Hobbes’ notion of man at war is equally and more realistically applicable to the actual existence of would-be predator space aliens in their basic mode: solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
Which leads me to Islam.
Islam is a malevolent, ideational predator bent on conquest. It demands conversion, submission, or death. Left to its own devices, Islam would have remained contained by and confined to its own impotence whence it came, the Mideast, in Saudi Arabia. It would be a bubonic rat that squeaked but which would otherwise be quarantined by its own irrationality, and by reason.
But what has given Islam its purported potency to wreck havoc in the world? It is a philosophy burdened with the same fallacy that allows science fiction writers to believe that reason can ally with anti-reason and act of its own accord. In past columns I have likened Islam to a drooling beast, to the Borg, to a viral disease, and to other entities closed to reason, proof against freedom, and dedicated to destruction for destruction’s sake. .
Pragmatic policies in the West allowed the nomadic, primitive Saudis and other tribalists to nationalize the oil which Western technology discovered and developed in the barren wastes over which they had been butchering each other and other tribes for millennia. Environmentalist policies that prohibit oil drilling allow smug tribalists to make extortion a practical policy. Pragmatic policies allowed Muslims to immigrate
to semi-free, semi-rational cultures and proceed to complete the sabotaging disease of irrationality. Pragmatism sired moral and cultural relativism that forbids moral judgment of Islam’s barbarism and its incipient, cradle-to-grave psychosis. Appropriating the mantle of “religious freedom” – call it a “cloaking device,” if you will – and exploiting the foolishness and irrationality of their enemies, Islamic activists in three-piece suits and armed with unlimited funds work obsessively to erase freedom for all but Muslims.
Pragmatism fosters the growth of a police state whose managers and minions, in the name of political correctness and non-discrimination, will not identify Islam as a predatory ideology (that would be evidence of “Islamaphobia,” and “offensive”), and proceed to subject and inure a country’s citizens to the invasive ministrations of arbitrary searches, seizures, and incarceration on the chance that they might catch a bomber whose motives will not be linked to Islam. Their policy, designed to not offend Muslims but all non-Muslims, is to hope to find a scimitar in an infinite haystack. The Department of Homeland Security is headed by a multiculturalist friendly to Islam, while the TSA is staffed by tens of thousands of non-entities empowered to grope, violate, molest, rob, and hold judgment over private citizens in the name of “safety.”
The anti-profiling policies of the DHS and TSA are anti-reason, and anti-Aristotelian, and as “alien” as the ends of a Predator or shapeless alien piloting five-mile-wide spaceships.
Islam is such a unique, unprecedented peril that one ignores it at one’s own peril. There is the double peril of Obama, Pelosi, et al. (and the generations of collectivist thought behind them) wanting to “transform” the country into a secular State of Servitude (no pun intended), and of Islam, whose spokesmen are at work insinuating its brand of totalitarianism into the country via “religious freedom,” but whose purpose is also to “transform” the country into another kind of State of Servitude. In this teleological end Islamists have a willing ally, the secular totalitarians.
Saul Alinsky, meet Sheikh Ahmad Gad
of the Muslim Brotherhood, another malevolent intelligence.
Islam is a radically different matter. None of the other religious groups in America – whether they are composed largely of immigrants or of tenth generation blacks or whites or Asians or Eskimos -- expects the other creeds to defer to it. Muslims and Islam, however, expect everyone to defer to Islam. Islam is an enemy of individualism. Islam is imbued with a code of conduct that is fundamentally barbaric and concrete-bound and too often murderous. Sharia is not just a primitive system of adjudication; it is also, and inherently, political. It does not recognize the world beyond that insular system, except as something to assimilate into its system, or to erase.
The corrupting norms of multiculturalism have vastly aided Muslims in their not having to knuckle under secular law and having to stop murdering wayward daughters and wives and sons who become apostates. Furthermore, feminists, liberals, leftists in and out of academia ignore the outrages committed by Muslims in the name of Islam – the continuing rapes
of ‘infidel” women in Europe and the Mideast by Muslims, the stonings, hangings, and executions of men and women who flout Islamic rules, the persecution and murders of Christians, Jews, Hindus in the name of Islam, and so on – because they recognize Islam as a bird of the same feather – a totalitarian system that shares similar premises, methods, and ends. Criticism of rival totalitarians might inadvertently lead to criticism of their own anti-reason and anti-life policies. Call the phenomenon a Collectivist-Islamic Non-Aggression Pact.
Predatory “aliens” need not come from outer space. There are two species of them right here on earth, both exercising their malevolent intelligences to advance their dual agendas of conquest, slavery, and destruction. They are merely rivals, and not antipodes of each other.
As Gilliatt did in Victor Hugo’s compelling novel, Toilers of the Sea
, as he was being enveloped by an octopus’s arms, and as the creature’s flesh-tearing beak struggled to strike him, we need to free ourselves from Islamic jihad not by cutting off its arms: but its head. Only reason and rationality can accomplish that end. That done, the arms will go limp and release us to pursue our life-affirming values in freedom without peril or hindrance. It is the ideology that must be damned, renounced, repudiated, and defeated, with no apologies or regrets, and not its surface manifestations.
Then we will have the time to turn our attention to performing the same surgery on the secular totalitarian ideology that also seeks to vanquish this country.
30 Comments ::