It is quite obvious that Islam inculcates a death wish among Muslims, even in the "pacific" numbers of the "silent majority" of them. Wishing death on non-Muslims of every variety and stripe, even at the price of a Muslim's own life, is the fundamental fabric of the creed, which lends itself to a life-stifling, totalitarian politics, an imperative that brooks no question. This is patently demonstrated, for example, by Hamas's determined and suicidal attack on Israel. It's almost as though Hamas pinned a "Kick Me" sign on its own filthy derrière.
Hamas wants to be "martyred," in the name of killing Jews.
No other religion, to my knowledge, is the foundation of an existing polity. Christians claim that the U.S. is founded on Christian principals, and that is clearly not true. Nor has it ever been true. The Puritans came to our shores to establish a communistic religious state. It failed when its crops failed.
Israel is claimed to be founded on principals founded in the Torah. That is clearly not true. There are no governments founded on Buddhist tenets, either. The U.S., Israel, and other Western nations are governed by secular rules and laws, however faulty they might be, and are called "democracies." There is nothing "democratic" in any religion. Christian congregations do not vote on whether God sports a long beard, wears a nightgown, and traipses around the universe in sandals, or uses a Gillette razor and Aqua Velva, dons an Armani suit, and hikes around in L.L. Bean mountain boots. They simply accept the standard iconography.
To my knowledge, only one of the three main religions of the world specifically prescribes a nihilistic, totalitarian way of living – or of dying: Islam. Shintoism, or emperor worship, was a driving force behind Japanese belligerency in the last century. Nazism was a kind of religion, as well.
However, Western philosophy has sired its own death wishes. Kant, Hegel, Comte, and other thinkers concocted ways for Western culture to implode and leave bloody messes on floors, ceilings and windows of history.
Western death wishes, metastasized by such irrational elements as moral relativism, multiculturalism, diversity, subjectivism, and so on, all contribute to the overall Western death wish, and manifest themselves in a number of realms. Such as in the news media.
I left this comment on a Washington Post article that grieves over Palestinian casualties. The story ran July 21st with the headline, "More than 100 Palestinians dead in worst day of Gaza conflict; Israel denies soldier captured."
Why does the Post and other American newspapers stress, emphasis, and beat us over our heads about the number of alleged "Palestinians" killed? Why should we care? The "Palestinians" and Hamas use "civilians" as human shields. Hide them in ambulances with Hamas "soldiers," plant rocket launch sites and arsenals in the midst of civilian neighborhoods, near hospitals and schools. Aside from these alleged Palestinian casualties, why don't the Post and other Leftard newspapers report on the hundreds of Israelis killed by Hamas, Al Queda, the Al-Asshole Brigades and the like? Is this paper anti-Semitic, or what? Israel is the only civilized, developed, free country in the Middle East. Why do you people hate it? Why do you wish to see it destroyed? Are you people hoping for a massacre of Israelis? Hamas initiated force against Israel; Israel has retaliated, and it's hoped Israel levels Gaza to the ground. I'm getting really tired of the MSM stressing the "suffering" of the Palestinians. They are not to be pitied, but held in contempt. They are the true butchers, who kill for the sake of killing. They have no other reason to live.
The next day the Palestinian toll had risen to 200, the next day to 300, and so on. It will always rise, and the Western MSM will trumpet it, because Hamas wants it to and the MSM obliges. Rarely headlined are the Israeli casualties, and there is only an oblique reference to the fact that, first, Hamas initiated force against Israel with its rockets aimed at Israeli population centers, and then that Hamas and the Brotherhood employ "human shields" of civilians, hoping that an Israeli drone or bomb kills dozens or more Palestinians. Hamas is waging a propaganda war as well as a war of aggression.
Then Hamas and its "journalist" propagandists can send the MSM gory pictures of Palestinian civilian casualties, a policy opposite that of Israel's, which, while it will report Israeli civilian casualties, doesn’t send gory photographs of them. Not that if it did, those photographs would ever elicit sympathy in the West.
Had today's MSM been present during the sacks of Rome in 410 and 453 A.D., doubtless they would have shed tears over the Visigoth and Vandal casualties, and few over the murdered, raped, tortured, and enslaved Romans.
And those photographs of Palestinian casualties are largely bogus, or borrowed from other wars. To wit, this one, allegedly of children and their mother killed by Israeli bullets or bombs. There are two problems with the photograph: the original was taken in Syria. The second problem is that they may be staged. The special effects may be dirt scattered on the floor, and perhaps dollops of Heinz-Kerry catsup splashed near the kids to act as blood. Jihadist photographers are notorious for staging "massacres" and Israeli brutality. But the MSM eats up these pictures every time. It wants to. Our MSM is fundamentally anti-Israel, and anti-Semitic.
They don't know – or care – that those "graphic" pictures are the result of jihadist casting calls.
Islam is completely incompatible with western classic liberal Constitutional government and culture. Therefore Muslims must be denied access to the west and they must be defeated militarily where they exist as a government. The greatest example of the need to defeat Muslims militarily is in reference to the Israelis, and what must be dropped as a "solution" is the illogical, failed, deceptive, destructive, and dhimmi and Chamberlainesque “Two State Solution.” It is impossible by mere human persuasion to defeat or thwart the powerful, compelling, motivating and extremely evil message of Islam. Any attempt to "reconcile" Western civilization and Islam is like introducing cancer into a healthy body.
By the same token, Progressivism, or whatever other name one may call incremental socialism or nihilism, or fascism, is incompatible with western classic liberal constitutional government and culture. The ideology of fascism must be refuted and its practitioners in government defeated on intellectual grounds first, then at the ballot box. Fascism, and any species of statism, is illogical, deceptive, destructive, and carries the seeds within it of inevitable failure and misery.
It is nearly impossible by rational means to persuade Progressives, liberals, and statists of every stripe of the delusionary character of their "ideals." They hold altruism as their moral touchstone of "right." Altruism means sacrifice. Not their sacrifice. But that of their victims.
But the purveyors of the Western death wish reject or discard the evidence of the failure of their goals and agendas. They reject reality. Ostensively, their only reality is a fantasy land where their policies work. They wish to sacrifice reality – and lives – to their "ideal" make-believe worlds.
And like Barack Obama, they refuse to accept responsibility for the failures and destruction. Obama would reply to criticisms of his policies:
Don’t blame me. I'm just a vessel of dialectical forces, a mere sock puppet of historical necessity. Why do you think I play golf or fund-raise during crises? I'm a figurehead. I just communicate the imperatives. You may as well blame Hell for being too hot. It's not my problem. It's yours. I'm the One, the Messiah. You're not. And I'm invoking my executive powers to ensure historical necessity.
The Western death wish is not shared by all Westerners, only by those who side with and encourage evil under the guise of "tolerance," "ethnic and cultural diversity," "diversity of opinion for its own sake," and Marxism masquerading as benign-sounding "Progressivism," and who froth at the mouth in a self-righteous fury directed at anyone or any institution that resists being suffocated by or cajoled into mind-melding with the collectivist fold.
Another instance of the Western death wish is visible in popular culture, in the Planet of the Apes movies, beginning with the Charlton Heston one decades ago in which he damns man (Heston in his best "original sin" outburst), all the way up to the current Apes movie, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. Investors Business Daily made an important observation about the current offering in a July 14th editorial, "Energy-Starved 'Planet Of The Apes: What Greens Want":
What mankind needs most to survive and restore a semblance of normal life is electricity — aka power. Without it, we have no light, no communications, no way to travel but on foot, no computer power, no heat, no stoves. The apes want to keep the humans poor, disoriented and in a hopeless state.
A turning point arrives with cheers in the theater when the humans return an electric power dam to operation and the entire city powers up again.
Before you cheer as well (and a cheering theater is at least a sign that Americans haven’t completely surrendered to the trolls of collectivism), the editorial makes this prescient reservation:
Which leads us to wonder if this movie is a metaphor for what we face in our real future. Not a future of apes, but a future without cheap and abundant power.
Is this where the radical green movement is guiding us with rolling brownouts and even complete blackouts in the years ahead as the Sierra Club, billionaire Tom Steyer and the Obama administration wage war against coal and other fossil fuel?
The apocalypse confronting America may not be "climate change," but the havoc and slow return to the Stone Age the left envisions for us to fight an alleged man-made effect on the weather.
Actually, the environmentalists' secret dream is the extinction of mankind, not his mere reduction to subsistence level in a new Stone Age. They would just rather man not be around to despoil the earth (and probably not Mars, Venus, Titan or even the Moon, either). Discover the Networks had this to say about "radical" environmentalism:
According to radical environmentalists, Nature has an "intrinsic value" and goodness that is to be revered for its own sake. In this simplistic moral calculus, any human action that changes the environment is unethical.
"The expressed goal of environmentalism is to prevent man from changing his environment, from intruding on nature. That is why environmentalism is fundamentally anti-man. Intrusion is necessary for human survival. Only by intrusion can man avoid pestilence and famine. Only by intrusion can man control his life and project long-range goals. Intrusion improves the environment, if by 'environment' one means the surroundings of man -- the external material conditions of human life."
The misanthropy at the heart of radical environmentalism is well expressed by biologist David M. Graber, who, in a glowing review of Bill McKibben's The End of Nature, writes: "Human happiness [is] not as important as a wild and healthy planet…. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along."
To "rejoin nature," as Graber well knows, means death, for lighting a campfire to keep warm or cook a meal would be a capital crime. Thus his hope that man is wiped out by a virus.
And you don’t need to much wonder about all the Apes movies and their companion disaster movies in which man is responsible for wiping himself out for the sole reason he exists and must take "unnatural" actions to sustain and advance his life.
What's an "extremist" environmentalist, as opposed to a "moderate" one? Enza Ferreri on her blogsite quotes Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch about what a terrorist outfit like the Taliban means when it's against "extremism":
A Reuters article contains the intriguing phrase, intriguing because reportedly it's from the Taliban: "Muslims also should avoid extremism in religion".
Jihad Watch remarks:
The Taliban, in saying this, demonstrate that they don’t consider themselves to be “extremist.” This word is thrown around everywhere, but like “moderate,” no one bothers to define it precisely. Everyone assumes that its meaning is obvious, but it isn’t. It would be useful and illuminating to have a debate between Muslims who support the Taliban and Muslims who oppose it on what constitutes “extremism.” But that will never happen, as it would require honest discussion of Islamic doctrines that Muslim spokesmen in the West are doing a fine job of obfuscating.
Honest discussions of Islamic doctrine are impossible to anyone but Muslim spokesmen. Ferreri clarifies Spencer's remarks:
It's true: nobody has defined "moderate" or "extremist" in Islam. That's how and why these terms are used to foster the Islamophilic agenda: because they're useless. The fact that the Taliban can use the term "extremism" to dissociate itself from it (and to condemn it), as they don't consider themselves extremist, tells you a lot about the vagueness and consequent inutility of the word.
Similarly, what is the difference between a "radical" environmentalist and a "moderate" one? A "radical" one wishes mankind would run off the side of a mile-high cliff, right now. A "moderate" will provide picnic tables and box lunches cliffside. That's all. But it's the same end.
What's the psychology of Muslim "extremists," "radical" environmentalists, Progressive politicians and their supporters, and even many creatures in the MSM? Nicolai Sennels and Nancy Kobrin, in New English Review's May 2010 article, maintain:
Sennels adeptly outlines the key problems of why Muslims are not able to integrate into Western culture. What he doesn’t say, I shall name. We are dealing with nothing more than paranoia. Sennels stresses that the West must set boundaries because otherwise they will kill you. This kind of rage is malignant borderline behavior as in serial killing. We must come to understand such politically incorrect observations as Sennels does in order to connect the dots concerning criminal Muslims even though it is brutal.
Happy well-adjusted children do not become suicide bombers nor do they become criminals. Let us choose to know what we are dealing with rather than bury our heads in sand out of terror. Let us meet the challenge straight on as Sennels has. …
The paranoia of Muslims, environmentalists, and Progressives is that they see that most other adults and "happy, well-adjusted children" may live their lives fully, and because Muslims, environmentalists and Progressives can't, they wish to extinguish the lives of those who can. It's that simple. If paranoia it truly is, that's their motivation. They prefer to live in thrall to an arbitrary, whimsical, malevolent deity who denies them any personal values or lives. (See my November 2013 column on Sennels's findings, "The Psychology of Islamic Culture.)
How does the Western death wish extend to foreign policy?
But it also could be said it started with FDR and his alliance with Soviet Russia during WWII, or with Eisenhower in 1956 when he scuttled the British, French and Israeli military effort to retake the Suez Canal from Egypt's dictator Gamal Abdul Nasser, who wished to nationalize it. Eisenhower pressured Britain to abandon a successful initial effort to reclaim the Canal.
This year our government has signed an $11 billion deal with the government of Qatar, a major funder of Islamic terrorism and owner of Al Jazeera, Qatar's propaganda "news" outlet. Defense News on July 14th reported that:
Qatar will buy US Patriot missiles for the first time in a major arms deal worth $11 billion, officials said Monday, as Washington awaits a decision by the Gulf state on a lucrative fighter jet contract.
The sale will provide Qatar with roughly 10 batteries for Patriot systems designed to knock out incoming missiles, as well as 24 Apache helicopters and 500 Javelin anti-tank missiles, the US officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told AFP…..
The weapons deal was the biggest for the United States in 2014 and came as Qatar weighs proposals in a fighter jet competition, with US aerospace firm Boeing vying against British BAE Systems and Dassault Aviation of France.
Breitbart announced the deal on July 17th with the appropriate headline: "US Signs $11 Billion Weapons Deal with Muslim Brotherhood-Friendly Qatar."
The arms deal was signed at the Pentagon in Virginia by U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and the Qatari equivalent, Hamad bin Ali al-Attiyah.
A Pentagon spokesman said of the major arms deal, “Today’s signing ceremony underscores the strong partnership between the United States and Qatar in the area of security and defense and will help improve our bilateral cooperation across a range of military operations.” He continued, “This is a critically important relationship in the region, and the secretary is pleased to be able to continue to make it stronger.”
Qatar is a strong ally and openly supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood. Although countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia have recently designated the organization a terrorist group, Qatar maintains that its goal is simply to preach the good tenets of Islam.
Billions for the defense of a medieval monarchy, but not much for this country's defense. And while Barack Obama undoubtedly approved of the agreement, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel is nearly as loony as Vice President Joe Biden. It's also rumored that he converted to Islam.
Paul Alster on May 9th, 2013, for The Investigative Project on Terrorism, wrote:
American business giants such as the Boeing Corporation, Lockheed Martin, Conoco Philips, and Exxon Mobil all have significant interests and partnerships with Qatar. And the U.S. government appears willing to overlook Qatar's failings. But Palmor has no qualms in spelling out the dangerous game being played on Israel's doorstep that Qatar and its Al Jazeera network cannot disguise.
"The Emir of Qatar has visited the Hamas-controlled Gaza, has embraced Hamas rulers, and has promised money which in this case he has sent into the hands of Hamas. At the same time he has never visited the Palestinian Authority (PA) or the government in Ramallah [even though] he has repeatedly promised to do so. Ignoring Israel is one thing, but taking sides in Palestinian politics and clearly taking the side of a terror organization, is another thing. That is clearly taking part in armed and violent conflict and that is what Qatar is doing. It has always been on the side of terrorists and on the side of violence."
The history of the association of American and Western businesses with tyrannical régimes makes the charge of "crony capitalism" sound like an illicit office romance. The most notorious instance was oil man Armand Hammer's deep connections with the Soviet Union, an unprecedented relationship emulated by many big corporations in later decades with a variety of dictatorships, authoritarian régimes, and communist governments. To wit:
Money News on July 22nd reported:
Terror finance trio: Qatar, Kuwait, and KSA July 22, 2014
They left out Turkey. It is great that more people are coming to this realization and that books are being written about it, but it doesn’t seem to be significantly changing the policies of the West (apart from a growing rift between the U.S. and the Sunni powers in the region over how we’re dealing with Iran). We have yet to designate the major institutional terror donors in Qatar Saudi Arabia as terrorist entities. Kuwait was never blacklisted by FATF even though it took it 10 years after 9/11 to outlaw terrorist financing. NATO has retained Turkey as a member even though it is partnering with Al Qaeda in Syria and helps Iran evade sanctions. And we mostly ignored attacks by Qatari-backed rebels in Mali fighting against our oldest ally, France. Instead of doing something significant, we just nod our heads and say, “yep, the Gulf is where the money for terrorism comes from,” and then we turn the page of the newspaper to something else.
And on July 21st:
CNN documents Qatari funding of terror July 21, 2014
The jihad in Syria against the Alawites has been wholeheartedly funded by millionaires in Qatar. The Qatari ministry of culture oversees some of the volunteer operations to fund terrorism like this, and counter-terrorism expert Juan Zarate says the financial support for jihad comes “from the top.” This isn’t new information, but seeing video of the players involved may help some people to grow up and out of the old-fashioned 1990s view of Qatar as an ally in the Gulf.
The U.S. government's relationship with various dictatorships, beginning most prominently with FDR's recognition of the Soviet Union in 1933, has a checkered and disgraceful history, as well. The Soviet Union was granted the status of a legitimate government in defiance of the knowledge of Stalin's campaign of starvation against the Ukraine, known in the Ukraine as the Holodomor, in which some nine million people perished. (For a detailed account of FDR's role in propping up the Soviet government, see Diana West's outstanding book, American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation's Character.)
The pragmatism evident in the relationships of our government and private citizens with oppressive foreign governments is also a form of the West's death wish, as well.
Finally, the Mexican border imbroglio is so steeped in pragmatism, corruption, and a deliberate Obama policy of swamping the U.S. with tens of thousands of illegal "immigrants" in order to "transform" the country to sustain the welfare state and the Democrats' grip on the country that it beggars imagination. Mac Slavo on SHFT.com reported on July 20th about the invasion getting a violent assist from the drug cartels, "Mexican Drug Cartels Lay Down High Powered Suppressing Fire For Crossing Immigrants":
Shots rang out Friday night in Rincon Peninsula, Texas, forcing U.S. border patrol agents to take cover. The shots originated from south of the Rio Grande River and according to Border Patrol sources they came from a high-powered .50 caliber rifle….
When the shooting stopped, about 40 to 50 people came out on the U.S. side and turned themselves in. So clearly the rounds were being fired to suppress every effort to stop anybody intervening with anyone or anything coming across,” Gohmert added. “We have no idea what or how many or whom came across with the other illegal immigrants.” Sources said they believe the gunfire came from members of Mexican drug cartels, which include former military members trained in shooting that type of weaponry….
The shooting has prompted fears that Mexican drug cartels, known to be extremely dangerous and responsible for over 75,000 deaths in the drug war that has plagued the country for the last seven years, are now bringing their brand of violence into the United States via the unsecured 3000-mile southern border.
Obviously with the sanction of the Mexican government, which has accelerated the "legal" passage of Central American dross through Mexico to invade the U.S. by proxy. Is this not a declaration of war against the U.S.?
The American death wish is spectacularly enabled by President Barack ObamaCare, who wants to force American cities and towns to accept them. This is an invasion by invitation, similar to Europe's invitation of millions of unassimilatable Muslims, with the same end, to "transform" Western countries into satrapies of culturally "diverse" malignancies, erected on the ashes of freedom and the ruins of Western civilization.