Is it wicked to give a pass to Islamists when they slaughter Jews, Christians and other infidels? No! It’s not their fault. They are meant to rule the world and need to do it because that’s their way.
Therefore, treating them as we would other vile savages is wicked.
Instead, we must acquiesce and help them.
* * * *
We need to drink deeply of President Obama’s superior
cool aid wisdom.
This video charges lots of people in the United States and elsewhere with racism. How very malicious and offensive!
Surely it isn’t racist to give passes to savages when they murder despicable Israel terrorists snug in their wee little beds at home. They were even nice about it, using peaceful knives instead of violent, noisy guns. The vicious Jewish brute shown at the left was a great threat to peace and had to be slaughtered. Just looking at her picture, anyone can see how dangerous she must have been. The kid on the right? Obviously, he didn’t deserve to live either. And it’s only natural
for Islamist savages to celebrate their victories; they are great heroes!
As I noted at the link,
But it’s all OK! That’s what heroes do when fighting against oppression, for freedom, democracy and other humanitarian good stuff. The surviving family members deserve to be taunted. And for all we know, the heroes who dealt with them did not urinate on their corpses as would have savages from the U.S. who deserve to be tarred, feathered and convicted of war crimes at the very least. Since the Palestinian heroes apparently did not desecrate the bodies, they are our kind of guys! Three cheers for Palestine and three yucks for the wicked Israelis who irritate them so maliciously. Peace is at hand, if only the Israel would negotiate in good faith.
I don’t see acquiescence in Islamist savagery as truly “racist,” but only because Islam is not a race. As noted here (the linked article is quoted at greater length below),
Islamists insist that one’s primary identity is — and must be — based on religion, not nationality, not citizenship, not race, not class. More to the point, they demand that their religion be acknowledged as superior to all others. They are committed to making their religiously derived ideology the basis for revolutionary transformation not only in the so-called Muslim world but also in Africa, Asia, Europe, the U.S. — anywhere there are Muslims who can be enlisted into the struggle. As Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, succinctly put it: “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.” (Emphasis added.)
We certainly don’t want to be labeled Islamaphobes or called other nasty names, so we must continue to be “racist” and make allowances for our
inferiors betters — no matter how savagely they behave — because “it is the nature of Islam;” that’s what they do. They are like venomous snakes: they bite and kill, but only because that’s their way. They can’t help themselves, so there is no reason to blame or disparage them. At home and abroad, that type of “racism” is politically correct and therefore the best way to go.
Whoops. Did I write that? Damn! I need to stop being so Islamophobic.
President Obama’s peace partner, President Morsi of Egypt, not long ago referred to Jews as “the descendants of apes and pigs,” “bloodsuckers” and “warmongers.” He called upon “Arabs and Muslims outside of Israel to support terrorists and ‘besiege the Zionist wherever they are.'” We must project fairness and it’s not fair to consider him a savage; that’s just what he does.
He is the way cool democratically elected President of Egypt. He is not only our good friend but also a great humanitarian, our glorious partner for true peace in our time and a revered leader of
our his Muslim Brotherhood.
When will the Nobel Prize Committee come to its senses and give President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood the Peace Prize they deserve? With that encouragement and other help, they will grant us the peace that passeth all understanding. They should get a prize just like President Obama’s because they need encouragement too; that’s only fair. Are the committee members Islamaphobes or something? Can’t President Obama enlighten them? He knows very well that the Muslim Brotherhood is four-square for peace in our time; that’s why he has them and their allies to help him. Besides, according to the deputy head of the Muslim Brotherhood’s political arm, Israel will cease to exist within a decade. Surely, it’s best to be on the winning side — if we help them to make it happen they will just love us to death.
Sadly, nasty conservative Republicans (haters all) are far less wise than gallant librul Democrats, who are far more solidly in favor of
terrorism “Palestinians” and other Islamists.
Commenting on a recent Pew Research Center for the People & the Press poll that showed 75 percent of Conservative Republicans sympathizing with Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians, compared with 33 percent of liberal Democrats siding with the Jewish state, the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) on Jan. 3 noted the “continued existence of a large ‘Israel gap’” between the two parties.
In the Dec. 14 Pew poll, 2 percent of Conservative Republicans and 22 percent of liberal Democrats said they sympathized with the Palestinian side in the conflict.
Pew had asked 1,503 respondents the following question: “In the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians, which side do you sympathize with more, Israel or the Palestinians?” From the poll’s results, Pew concluded that there continues to be “stark partisan differences in Middle East sympathies.”
Conservative rejection of the Religion of Peace must be related to their horrid war on women, whom they deem it necessary to keep in subservient places lacking even Government provided free contraceptives and abortions.
See also this article at Power Line, an interview with Robert Wistrict. His interview concludes with this:
In conclusion, I would simply add that the contemporary Left can no longer claim any kind of moral high ground. It has never truly come to terms with the abominable crimes of the Stalinist regimes, with the Soviet Gulag and Communist totalitarianism. Its uncritical and selective solidarity with “victims” like the Palestinians is highly suspect; its relentless efforts to blacken the good name of America and Israel at all costs are often grotesque; its frequent whitewashing of Islamic extremism and naked terrorism are morally reprehensible; and its Judeophobic legacy requires urgent detoxification. Anti-Semitism, I would maintain, has always been a remarkably accurate barometer for measuring bigoted, prejudiced and dogmatic attitudes, not to mention blatant double standards. Much of the contemporary Left, when it comes to the Jews and especially to Israel, has miserably failed the test of elementary honesty and intellectual integrity. (Emphasis added.)
This National Review article by Clifford D. May explains a bit of the problem:
In “Toxic Nationalism,” an essay published in the Wall Street Journal last week, Kaplan observes that “Western elites” regard their beliefs as “universal values.” Because they approve of “women’s liberation,” they conclude that all thinking people from Albania to Zanzibar believe in women’s liberation. Western elites place a priority on “human rights,” assuming that must be the consensus view. Western elites are convinced that international organizations are breaking down the remaining “boundaries separating humanity,” so that must be what they’re doing, and what they seek to do. (Emphasis added.)
To accept that such “universal values” are universal is, of course, nonsense because they are far from universal.
These are, Kaplan understands, illusions: “In country after country, the Westerners identify like-minded, educated elites and mistake them for the population at large. They prefer not to see the regressive and exclusivist forces — such as nationalism and sectarianism — that are mightily reshaping the future.”
He cites, as an example, Egypt, where the hope that decades of dictatorship were giving way to liberal democracy has faded. His explanation: “Freedom, at least in its initial stages, unleashes not only individual identity but, more crucially, the freedom to identify with a blood-based solidarity group. Beyond that group, feelings of love and humanity do not apply. That is a signal lesson of the Arab Spring.” (Emphasis added.)
I think Kaplan is right on all points save one: The Islamists who are coming to power are not a “blood-based solidarity group.” They are a religion-based solidarity group. Egyptian Islamists feel no solidarity with Egyptian Christians — despite blood ties tracing back millennia. This is a crucial distinction, one that makes “Western elites” — Kaplan included — profoundly uncomfortable. So they ignore it.
In December of 2011, I wrote this. My focus was then on the peaceful and justly “prosperous” Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea, but the same also applies to Islamists.
When I go to bed, I generally read novels until I doze off. Recently, I have been reading Jules Verne’s Journey to the Center of the Earth — a very strange place for which our experiences on the surface of the Earth would ill prepare us. In Verne’s fantasy world the Earth is hollow, with an inland sea and pleasant temperatures, is lit by electro-luminescence, has yummy stuff to eat and the remains as well as living examples of prehistoric critters can be found (or might find the traveler). As I dozed off, it occurred to me that we in the West are no more familiar with Korea, and particularly with North Korea, than we would be were we trying to understand and analyze goings on at Verne’s center of the Earth. We have never been to the center of the Earth, know very little about it and what we would encounter there would be very different from what we have experienced at home.
We probably recognize this. Yet we try to analyze what happens and is likely to happen in North Korea as though we knew as much as there is to know about it. We seem to look upon it as a small state in a mid western part of the United States. It is not. Korea has a far longer history than does the United States and is extraordinarily different culturally, historically and in just about every other important respect. It is said that FDR tried to deal with Joseph Stalin before and during WWII as though Stalin were a Senator from the Georgia in the United States. He obviously knew that Stalin was not, but nevertheless treated him in many respects as though he were. Give him the equivalent of a bridge, a road and other such goodies; then he will like us and do as we demand because that’s the way politics works in the United States.
Until we learn that people around the world are not necessarily the same as we are, don’t necessarily think in the same way and don’t necessarily appreciate the same things, we will continue to muck up foreign policy terribly. Our troops and those of our allies and enemies will continue to die unnecessarily, we will continue spending money that we don’t have and will continue to be impoverished in the process. Are we stupid, or just mistakenly well-meaning?
Here is a bit of still relevant history about Czechoslovakia. It is from an interview with Czech Ambassador Tomas Pojar. The article begins with this preface:
Following the annexation of Austria into the Third Reich in March 1938, Hitler assumed the role of advocate for ethnic Germans living in Czechoslovakia, triggering the “Sudeten Crisis”. In April, Sudeten Nazis demanded autonomy.
In September that same year, French Prime Minster Édouard Daladier and British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain agreed to Hitler’s demand on the immediate occupation of the Sudetenland.
The Sudetenland was relegated to Germany between October 1 and October 10, 1938. However, the Nazis weren’t appeased for long.
Ambassador Pojar said,
There are certain parallels in that Czechoslovakia was the only democratic country in the entire region at the time…There are parallels about how much guarantees you can get from outside, and how much you should rely on them.”
The article continues,
Pojar’s political temperament seems to be shared by an increasing number of Israelis in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian (and Israeli-Islamist) Conflict – political sobriety about the limits of big, radical solutions to the intractable problems of war and peace in the Middle East.
The paternalistic, imperious and often hubristic lectures by Americans and Europeans on the pressing need for Israelis to be “saved from themselves”, rescued from the morass of short-shortsightedness, shown the enlightened path towards co-existence and reconciliation with the Palestinian “other” within the framework of the “New Middle East”, seem frighteningly unmoored from the reality of our existence in the region.
Putative peace agreements, sweeping final-status proposals and unilateral withdrawals have not appeased, nor in the very least even-tempered, our neighbors’ insatiable Judeophobic antipathy.
Pojar, when asked if Europe takes Hamas’s statements calling for the destruction of Israel seriously enough, said he could not speak about the EU, but that he did not feel the “mainstream European elites” did so. The elites, he added, were “sometimes detached from reality”, and not only about the Middle East and the threat posed by Islamists.
After two decades of “noble and naïve ideas” that left the country “battered and bloody”, Israelis understand with a lucidity unburdened by puerile dreams or illusions that land is not valid political currency in the quest to acquire peace for Jews in the Middle East.
The margin for error in such political calculations are minuscule, and the stakes are enormous.
While the comparison between Czechoslovakia in 1938 and Israel in 2013 can, of course, be overblown, our friends in the democratic West should at least view the dangerous failure, in the first half of the 20th century, of Europe’s stubborn belief in universality of reasonableness, the assumption of good will and the projection of our own positive-sum calculus to zero-sum political actors as a cautionary tale.
The wisdom of the ‘Czech Persuasion’ simply can not be easily ignored. (Emphasis added.)
Herr Hitler knew that his destiny was to rule the world and was just doing what he had to do. Neville Chamberlain probably did not recognize that destiny but gave him the leeway he needed to do what he had long before promised to do in Mein Kamph. The peace process bought peace for a short while and that was good. Wasn’t it? Then the imperialistic United States and her warmongering allies interfered with Germany’s destiny causing countless deaths. How horrible!
Under President Obama’s wise leadership, history of that kind has to be ignored because it could lead to rejection of the great destiny of Islamism. Inconvenient history has frequently has been ignored and likely will be again, along with current threats to what little freedom there is in the world as well as to our own
resurrection survival as free republic.
That’s much better than a bust of
that dead old White British Imperialist. What was his name? I forget.