The manifold organs of the ObamaMedia are abuzz with outrage over what they are calling Israel's "insult" to the United States. But what was the nature of this awful and outrageous insult? Did Israeli officials pull off V.P. Biden's rug to show off his bald head underneath. Did they ask him why the suit of his pants is so shiny. Did they make him sit at the kiddie table?

More to the point did Israeli TV air calls for a Jihad against America, as Palestinian Arab TV did? Did Israel name a square after the murderer of an American photographer, as the Palestinian Authority did? Did an Israeli Anchorman do a skit in blackface during Obama's visit, as a Turkish anchorman did during Obama's visit to Turkey? Are Israeli religious institutions issuing Fatwahs against America, as Al Azhar University, which Obama visited and spoke at, has done? Are Israeli leaders funding terrorism against America, as the Saudi King, before whom Obama bowed, does?

No, none of those incidents were described as insults. Nothing that Muslim countries did to mock, humiliate and murder Americans were even noticed at all. None of them produced furious condemnations from the White House or two hours of Hillary Clinton screeching on the phone at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. So what did Israel do that was so awful, so horrible and terrible? It built houses. Yes, civilian houses. Not army bases or nuclear missiles or walls. Houses.

Israel approved a construction project to build housing for its own people, in its own capitol city, Jerusalem. Some of the housing will be built in the Shimon HaTzadik neighborhood, situated around the grave of Shimon the Righteous, a Jewish religious figure famed for rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem. A neighborhood where Jews have lived for over a century. As well as Ramat Shlomo, a thriving neighborhood with thousands of Jewish families living in it.

The Obama Administration's objections to Jews living in Jerusalem are purely racial and religious. If Israel were approving a construction project to build housing for Arab Muslim citizens of Israel, Biden, Hillary and their media troupe wouldn't be screeching about it to the high heavens. It is only because Jews are to live there, that they have a problem with it. Their objections therefore are purely based on race and religion-- and completely racist.

But this is hardly the first time that Muslims and their Western appeasers have tried to drive the Jews out of Jerusalem, or the Shimon HaTzaddik neighborhood in particular.

In 1876 the land was purchased by the Jewish community in order to build homes for poor Jews. In 1936, after the death of Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam (one of the inspirations for Hamas) and the Mufti of Jerusalem (who would go on to collaborate on the Holocaust with Adolf Hitler), Arab rioters drove the Jews out of the neighborhood with cries of Ibtach Al Yahood (kill the Jews). Over 500 Jews were murdered during this time. Many more fled their homes ahead of the enraged Islamic mobs.

The following was a sample of some of the Arab Muslim brutality toward the Jews at the time.

Alex Morrison, a British truck driver sympathetic to the Arab cause wrote, "They left behind them one of the worst sights I ever saw in my life... The naked bodies of the women exposed the evidence that the knives had been used in the most ghastly fashion." The bodies of children, apparently set alight with gasoline in a nursery, were still smoldering."

The Arab Muslim atrocities were successful not at intimidating the Jews, who slowly began to return, but at intimidating the British who enacted the White Paper, and closed the doors to Jewish immigration resulting in countless numbers of Jews dead during the Holocaust. A Holocaust which involved the participation of the same Mufti of Jerusalem who organized the riots. Which in turn had been partially funded by Nazi Germany.

In 1947 the Arab Muslim forces again came for the Jews. The Jewish residents of the Shimon HaTzadik neighborhood, accompanied by militia, fought them back with the few weapons they had. And then came the British colonial authorities and disarmed the Jews. And when the Arab forces came again, they had no weapons to fight with. And they fled.

The fall of the area cut off Hadassah Hospital from the rest of Jerusalem. A convoy of 79 doctors, nurses and patients to the hospital were massacred by Arab forces. They included a world renowned ophthalmologist, Chaim Yassky and his wife Fanny. Esther Fassman, the American director of social services at the hospital's Cancer Institute, carrying candy and magazines for her patients. And a man who had been riding along to reach his wife who had just given a birth. He never reached her.
  
The Jordanian Legion seized all of East Jerusalem, and drove out the remaining Jews living there. Synagogues were destroyed, others were turned into latrines. The tombstones from Jewish cemeteries were used as paving stones for the Arab Muslim occupation forces. The Shimon HaTzadik neighborhood though held the tragic distinction of being the first part of Jerusalem to have its Jewish population driven out.

The houses that the Jews had been driven out of were occupied by Arab Settlers in an East Jerusalem rendered empty of Jews. The great dream of the Mufti of Jerusalem, and every Islamic cleric and terrorist, who had urged the murder of Jews in order to build a pure Islamic Arab Palestine was fulfilled. The Shimon HaTzaddik neighborhood was seemingly no more. Only the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood remained. Half of the historic Jewish capital was Judenrein.

In 1967, Jerusalem was liberated and reunited once again. But the victorious Jewish army did not drive out the Arab squatters. Instead in 1972 it restored the land in the Shimon HaTzaddik neighborhood to the communal organizations which had owned it allowed them to remain on the condition that they paid rent. Those who refused, were evicted. Slowly Jews began to return to their old neighborhood again. A school opened and a normal semblance of life with it. However the US State Department and European government have continued fighting the Jewish presence in Jerusalem, demanding that it be restored to its former Judenrein status.

Over and over again, the diplomats have taken the side of the Arab squatters who stole the homes of the Jewish families living there, until Arab mobs and armies drove them out. Even when Jewish residents bought the land from those squatters, insuring the absolute legality of their ownership from any and every angle, their rights to live there have been denied. And those demanding an Apartheid Jerusalem, reserved for Arabs alone, have continued spewing lies and distorting the truth by claiming that Jews never lived in the Shimon HaTzaddik neighborhood. That the only reason Jews live there now is out of spite (this in a city where spiraling real estate prices and crowded conditions have made apartments incredibly difficult to find.) And finally that the only reason that a housing project that has been in the works for over a decade was approved-- was in order to insult Joseph Robinette Biden... and through him America.

And then there was the Ramat Shlomo construction project. Supposedly the straw that broke the "camel's" back. Ramat Shlomo is and has been a Jewish neighborhood for some time now. There are thousands of families living in it. The 1600 additional units are not being built on inhabited land. Nor was the land ever supposed to be turned over to the Palestinian Authority in any conceivable settlement. In fact during the previous round of negotiations, even the PA had conceded Ramat Shlomo.

Let me be very clear then. The building of houses for Jewish families in a neighborhood where Jews have lived for 134 years is not an insult. A housing project that has been in the works for over a decade was not a secret conspiracy to humiliate the idiot Vice President on his visit there. It is of course an insult, but not to America. Only to Islam.

American diplomats have not usually described Israeli policies they dislike as an "insult"-- that is a term much more commonly used by Muslims, who are obsessed with perceived slights to their honor. Complaints over an "insult" is a common feature of Honor-Shame societies. America is not an honor-shame society. However the White House is currently occupied by a man bred in an honor-shame society. It is Obama that feels "insulted" by Israel, both out of the sensitivity of his Muslim heritage and his own egotism, which regularly motivates him to humiliate Republicans, while triumphantly celebrating his own greatness.

It is natural enough for Barack Hussein Obama to rely on such cheap honor-shame gambits. They are what he grew up with. And it is natural enough for him to keenly feel the loss of face of Muslims. After all his father's family was Muslim. And Muslims are keenly "insulted" when they conquer territory and then cannot hold it. Whether that territory is in Jerusalem, Israel or Spain or India. They cannot stand to suffer the loss of face. And neither can Obama.

Had there been a Jewish or part-Jewish President in the White House, the media would be raising the question of whether he is showing favoritism toward Israel. A question that has been repeatedly raised regarding Joseph Lieberman. A question that was raised regarding Goldwater, who was a practicing Christian. But the media refuses to allow the question to be raised of whether Obama is favoring Muslims because of his own Muslim background and family ties. Instead the media brands any such questions as racist, and instead spearheads the administration's campaign against Israel.

So directed out of the White House, a media firestorm howls enraged at Israel for presuming to allow Jews to live in a neighborhood where they had lived for a 134 years. The outrage. The offense. Heads must roll for this. Panicked, Netanyahu has already rushed to appease Der Fuhrer, suspending all home development anywhere in Jerusalem. Netanyahu has already apologized for building homes for his own citizens in his own country, but that of course is not enough. It's never enough.

David Axelrod huffed, "This was an affront, it was an insult." Hillary Clinton, Suha Arafat's former kissyface partner, called Netanyahu to berate him. And then did it again in the round of interviews, proclaiming, "It was insulting. And-- it was insulting not just to the vice president, who-- certainly didn't deserve that-- But it was an insult to the United States." Biden added his own voice. So did a bevy of underlines. Israel's ambassador was summoned to be yelled at by the Deputy Secretary of State.

In his visit Biden had repeatedly insulted his Israeli hosts. First he brought along Chris Matthews who accused Israelis of disliking Obama because they're racists. He arrived an hour and a half late to a ceremonial dinner. In other words he acted like every bit of the predictable buffoon that he is. Which is also not surprising given his history of hostility to Israel going back decades.

But none of that really matters. The bottom line is that the Obama Administration has been wanting to pick a fight with Israel for some time now... while pretending to be the victims. Much like the way Germany faked a Polish attack as a pretext for invading Poland, Barack Hussein Obama needed a pretext for waging his own political Jihad against Israel. All the while whining about how badly the Israelis have insulted him.

If it hadn't been Shimon HaTzaddik or Ramat Shlomo, some other pretext would have been found. Sooner or later, some visiting dignitary would have been offended by Israelis going on with their lives. Resulting in just this kind of cynical tantrum designed to win over Muslims and further degrade Israel's abilities to defend itself. The entire incident staged in keeping with the Honor-Shame background of the man in the White House.

Meanwhile in Jerusalem, Jews were celebrating the rebuilding of the Hurva Synagogue. Built in the 1700's, the synagogue had been demolished twice by Arab Muslims. The second time in 1948 by the Jordanian Legion, in order to insure that Jews would never return to East Jerusalem. They were wrong then, as Obama is wrong now. The plans of Muslims to banish Jews from their historic capitol are both immoral and racist.

Meanwhile the PA's Jerusalem minister, Khatem Abd el-Kader, condemned the renovation of the Hurva Synagogue, warning Israel that it was "playing with fire" and urged Muslim Arabs to "protect" the Al Aqsa Mosque. Naturally of course the riots are of course already on the way. An echo of the riots that drove Jews out of Jerusalem in the 1930's. Then the rioters had shouted, "Itbach-al Yahud" and "Addowlah ma'anah". Kill the Jews, and The Government is With Us. Except the government they mean now is not the British colonial authorities, but the administration of Barack Hussein Obama. 31 comments Permalink Email Post (Backlinks)

Saturday, March 13, 2010

The Dishonest Tyrant

Is government the servant or the master of the people? Over this simple question, wars have been fought, revolutions launched and battlefields left soaking in blood. Because the answer to this question determines whether you are living in a free nation which is ruled by its citizens, or a tyranny ruled over by the few or the one.

Within that broader category, there are two flavors of tyranny. The honest tyrant and the dishonest tyrant. The  honest tyrant is a Will to Power type who asserts that he is master because he wields the biggest swords, commands the largest number of troops and will kill anyone who says otherwise. He may be a savage and a monster, but at least he is an honest one. He does not pretend to care for the people or what they think. His rule is not based on propaganda, only naked force.

But like the honest politician, the honest tyrant is a rare creature. Because most tyrants are cowardly and weak. Or at least cunning enough not to waste resources putting down rebellions by force, that they can preemptively disarm with propaganda. And so they disguise what they are behind propaganda. Propaganda that claims that they rule only for the benefit of the people.

Where the honest tyrant openly loots the people for his own enrichment, the dishonest tyrant claims to loot the people for their own benefit. The honest tyrant's answer to rebellion is naked force. The dishonest tyrant's answer is, "But just try to imagine what you would do without me." That is because the dishonest tyrant thrives by fostering the people's dependency on him, through a campaign of propaganda that convinces them that without him society would break down and nothing could function any more.

The monarchies of Europe responded to the American revolution by insisting that the entire thing would collapse because people could not govern themselves. No, they needed a king. The American Experiment demonstrated not only that people could govern themselves, but that people were better off governing themselves. But the French revolution that followed did not heed this message. Instead the idea that they took hold of was that reactionary outmoded tyrants who did not care about the people's welfare needed to be traded in for progressive enlightened tyrannical committees who would care about their welfare. And so honest tyranny was exchanged for dishonest tyranny. And that dishonest tyranny has crept its way into the United States under the banner of reform and social welfare.

The American Revolution was fought in order to create a government of the people and by the people. A state in which the people were the masters and government their servant. But through the trojan horse of progressive politics, the dishonest tyrants who claimed to be the protectors of the people wormed their way in and turned the government into the master, and the people into its servants.

Such a transformation requires a fundamental shift in the thinking of the people. It requires that the people come to think of themselves as incompetent to manage their own affairs, so that they must instead put their faith in the omnipotence of big government. And so every transfer of power from the American people to the government has been accompanied by a major crisis which made the people feel incompetent to manage their own affairs. The Great Depression remains the ultimate example of how an economic downturn was transformed into an opportunity for a radical assault on the Constitution by a dishonest tyrant who encouraged the people to think of him as a paternalistic representative of an omnipotent government whose power was to be unlimited. And Obama's present day takeover follows a similar pattern with a massive propaganda campaign exploiting a crisis in order to seize more power from the people and turn it against them.

Where the honest tyrant relies in the main on force, the dishonest tyrant takes refuge in deceit. He is not averse to force, but he also knows that his real power is over the minds of men. Like the honest tyrant, he wants power. But unlike him, he is much less willing to pay the price and take his chances. Instead he plays divide and conquer, amassing grievances, exploiting fifth columns, and proclaiming at every turn that his way is the only way... because he is the only one who truly cares about the people. The dishonest tyrant does this because his goal is to tie the people's sense of self-preservation to his own welfare by convincing them that they have no alternative but to put their faith in him.

The dishonest tyrant has nothing but a low contempt for the people, and he shows this in his tactics. His benevolent facade is there to cover up the ugliness of his deeds. He never does anything benevolent unless it is staged for the benefit of the crowd. And the uglier his tactics get, the more benevolent scenes he stages to convince the people of his goodness and virtue. To leverage himself one step closer to godhood in their minds.

He expects the people to trust him, but he has no trust in anyone. He will betray and destroy those closest to him, as long it keeps his feet secure on the ladder. And the higher he climbs, the more detached from any ordinary human morals and mores he becomes. Yet this very detachment lends him a mystique, an inhuman air which allows him to set forth his omnipotent image. But what his followers mistake for superiority and enlightenment, is actually the otherness of the sociopath who not view other people as truly human in the same sense as himself.

And so the process continues. The more the dishonest tyrant does "for the people", the more benevolent he seems. Yet in reality each "benevolence" weakens the people and places them further under his power. Each handout from the tyrant not only comes at the expense of the people's wealth, but at the expense of their freedoms and their faith in their own abilities. And thus the ruled becomes the ruler, and the rulers become the ruled.

Like the wooden horse of the trojans, each social welfare program of the dishonest tyrant is a booby trapped  gift. Except instead of an army of soldiers, an army of bureaucrats lurks within each one. As the people unwrap their gifts, grumbling occasionally over the price tag, they are unaware of the bureaucrats swarming them, tying them down and subjugating them. Until it is too late. Because the gifts of the tyrant are always meant for his benefit, never for yours. The dishonest tyrant in particular never gives any gift that does not have one string or a dozen attached to it. To open it, is to tangle yourself in his trap.

Beware of Greeks Bearing Gifts, and We're From the Government and We're Here to Help, essentially mean the same thing. The Constitution was written with the understanding of the inevitable tug of war between the people and their leaders. To prevent tyranny, the people may not relax their grip, or accept gifts from the government, or the balance of power will be changed. As it has been changed. And as it is being changed right now, every day.

The dishonest tyrant does not need an army to rule the people. All he needs is their own complicity in their own oppression. Their willingness to be robbed and beaten down in the name of their own welfare. And it is only by bringing the people to such a state, that he can hope to rule over them.

6 comments Permalink Email Post (Backlinks)

Friday, March 12, 2010

Friday Afternoon Roundup - Conservatives with Courage

Biden and Terrorist leader Abbas cheerfully passing past a line of uniformed terrorists

FOX News' bashing of Geert Wilders has been making the rounds of the blogsphere this week. While a number of people attribute this to the growing power of Saudi Arabia over Newscorp. This might be true, but as we saw again last week, Glenn Beck is not necessarily the brightest star in the heavens. And considering that his rant also confused Dominique De Villepin with LePen, this may be one of those cases where there's no reason to attribute to malice, what is likely to be the product of ignorance. Beck has always said that he's an entertainer and this would not be the first time he's taken competing positions on a single issue.

The roundtable however is more troubling, insofar as panels are chosen to provide multiple points of view, and this panel provided only one single view, the anti-Wilders one. FOX News has soft pedaled the Muslim issue before. Prince Talal had claimed in the past that he was able to influence FOX programming. And News Corp and the Saudis are only deepening their involvement.

Andrew Bostom has an extensive roundup of replies to Krauthammer in his piece, Educating Charles Krauthammer, but there is a larger issue here which is how the political and media establishments, both conservative and liberal, will react to someone who is seriously committed to fighting Islam taking power. The roundtable is likely only the thinnest preview of that.

Remember that while politicians who have talked tough on Islam have also shown a history of folding once they got into a respectable position.

In 2006, future London Mayor Boris Johnson was saying things like this

To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia — fear of Islam — seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke. Judged purely on its scripture — to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques — it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers. As the killer of Theo Van Gogh told his victim’s mother this week in a Dutch courtroom, he could not care for her, could not sympathise, because she was not a Muslim.

Today he's singing the praises of Islam and calling on non-Muslims to fast on Ramadamadingdong. During the election Johnson was forced to recant and instead adopt the "Religion of Peace" cant.

To appreciate the full contrast, watch Boris Johnson go from saying this after the 7/7 bombings

The trouble with this disgusting arrogance and condescension is that it is widely supported in Koranic texts, and we look in vain for the enlightened Islamic teachers and preachers who will begin the process of reform. What is going on in these mosques and madrasas? When is someone going to get 18th century on Islam’s mediaeval ass?

to saying things like this during the election

The problem is people who wrench out of context quotes from the holy book of Islam, the Koran, and use it to inspire evil in men's hearts. That is a fact that few serious people would deny and we need to tackle the extremists.

Finally Boris wound up doing exactly the same sort of contemptible things his predecessor Livingstone had done, visiting pro-terrorist mosques and advising Brits to be more like Muslims.

If Wilders chooses to continue defying this route. If he doesn't go the way of Sarkozy who talked tough during the election, only to wimp out once in office. Or Johnson who ran to hug the Muslims once the issue came up in the election and boast of his own Muslim roots-- then he will face a true firestorm of rage, not simply from Muslims, but from the First World political establishment.

Because the Muslim issue lies at the heart of the moral compromises that conservative politicians have made over the years, and at the heart of the left's plot to undermine and reconstruct Europe, America, Israel, Australia and Canada more to their liking. That makes it the ultimate third rail of politics.

A political leader who actually will fight to roll back Eurabia is a menace in more ways than one. He threatens to undo the progressive vision of a post-national, post-ethnic and post-religious Europe. And he shames and humiliates conservatives who are equally afraid of taking a stand, as they are of being associated with anything that smacks of extremism.

A FOX News roundtable with "moderate" conservatives like Krauthammer will be the least of the kind of assaults that Wilders will face in the days ahead, as Saudi money and the political establishment will go after the man who dares to upset the apple cart.

But if Wilders wins, it may mean a giant setback for the Conservatism of the Timid. And that may change the world as we know it.

Consider Israel where right now Netanyahu is busy apoligizing for "humiliating" Biden by presuming to build homes in East Jerusalem where Jews might actually live.

In the perverse media propaganda environment, Netanyahu's failure to practice their approved policy of apartheid for Jews is a humiliation for "Biden." Now Hillary Clinton has gotten in on the act demanding that Israel show it's truly serious about peace.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Friday that Israel had sent a "deeply negative signal" about the U.S.-Israeli relationship and urged him to take immediate steps to demonstrate it was interested in renewing efforts at a Middle East peace agreement.

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters at his regular news briefing. Clinton, he said, reinforced "this action had undermined trust and confidence in the peace process and in America's interests."

Crowley added: "The secretary said she could not understand how this happened, particularly in light of the United States' strong commitment to Israel's security, and she made clear that the Israeli government needed to demonstrate not just through words but through specific actions that they are committed to this relationship and to the peace process."

Probably the best way to answer this would be with a long series of unprintable obscenities, but let's try logic for the moment.

In response to demands that it show its serious commitment to peace (as if transferring sizable portions of Israel into the hands of a terrorist organization wasn't serious enough) Netanyahu froze all construction of Jewish homes in Judea and the Shomron.

Netanyahu agreed to take down checkpoints and open up roads, which makes it easier for terrorists to penetrate Israel, but shows the commitment to peace.

Did any of this convince Hillary Clinton and Obama and his good friend Abbas that Israel was serious about peace? Of course not.

And what has Abbas done to show Israel that he's serious about peace? Well he has threatened a holy war against Israel, laid claim to Jewish holy places, attended the funeral of some his terrorists who had participated in the murder of a Rabbi... in other words the usual sort of thing the PLO gang has been up to for nearly 20 years.

Yet clearly Israel needs to show it's serious about peace.

Melanie Philips at The Spectator has a devastating article asking Is this why the Palestinians 'deserve' a state, Mr Biden?

But Biden does not care that the terrorists who hosted him named a square after a woman who participated in the murder of 13 Israeli children. He cares about Jewish children moving into Jerusalem.

At his lovefest with Abbas, Biden again blasted Israel;

Yesterday -- yesterday, the decision by the Israeli government to advance planning for new housing units in east Jerusalem undermined that very trust, the trust that we need right now in order to begin as well as produce -- have profitable negotiations. That is why I immediately condemned the action. As we move forward, the United States will hold both sides accountable for any statements or actions that inflame tensions or prejudice the outcome of talks, as this decision did.

But of course as he demonstrated, Biden and the Obama Administration will not hold the terrorists accountable for their terrorism. Only the Israelis for trying to live their lives.

Behind Biden's charade of talking about his love for Israel, is the cold hard reality that the policies of the Obama Administrated are geared toward destroying Israel. Netanyahu's housing freeze only whetted the appetite of the beast.

But the Boris Johnson, the Benjamin Netanyahu, the George W. Bush kind of conservative is the only kind tolerated these days. The kind of man who is just edgy enough to inspire support and do some of the right things, but not nearly enough of them to actually make a real dent in the problem.

And if Wilders is going to be a new kind of conservative, he will have to fight hard for the chance.

At Commentary, Jennifer Rubin points out the inflammatory power of diplomacy

Why is it that “you’ve got to begin”? For what reason must “the process begin?” Well, George Mitchell would have nothing to do with it in his time and the entire apparatus devoted to ceaseless, fruitless negotiations would need to do be redeployed. But Biden never explains why we need to begin a process when there is no remote chance of its success and, furthermore, there is no unified Palestinian government prepared to make peace. He is reduced to pablum, repeated for emphasis but utterly not compelling to anyone whose job doesn’t depend on perpetuating the kabuki theater of negotiations. And he must acknowledge that in this incarnation — indirect talks — we are really engaged in unproductive busy work for diplomats.

This is followed, even for Biden, by a ludicrous declaration: “Our administration fully supports this effort led by our Special Envoy, Senator George Mitchell, a seasoned negotiator and a proven peacemaker in whom the President, the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and I have complete and utter confidence.” Who cares? The question is whether the parties have faith in these people. The answer, especially after this visit, is almost certainly “no.”

Next is the boilerplate repetition that negotiations will lead to a two-state solution. This is where we came in. Why? What facts point to the conclusion that the parties can reach an agreement? There aren’t any.

If Biden’s visit proved anything, it is that diplomatic activity can be counterproductive, inflaming rather than reducing conflicts and deflecting attention from more productive activities. Consider this: is the U.S.-Israeli relationship in a worse or better shape after Biden’s visit? The answer is obvious, as should be the conclusion: sometimes it’s best if everyone stays home.

And speaking of conservatives with courage, Ted Belman has a piece on the English Defense League.

Fiery Spirited Zionist notes Frank Gaffney's challenge to Grover Nordquist

The Rumcrook blog has more on the connections between a top Amnesty Interional-er and an Islamic terrorist.

Shabbat Shalom and enjoy the weekend

11 comments Permalink Email Post (Backlinks)

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Can the Republican Party Take Power Only to Give It Up?

"Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises, for never intending to go beyond promise, it costs nothing." Edmund Burke

It's easy enough to be a Democrat. All you have to do is promise the expansion of big government, without actually using those same exact words. And voting to expand their own power base, is something that's up every politician's street. By contrast being a Republican is far trickier, because it often requires politicians to campaign on a platform of giving up their own power. And that is something that politicians may promise, but very rarely do.

When George Washington stepped away from the Presidency, he performed a virtually unique action at the time by giving up power. King George III said of Washington on his resignation that it would place him "in a light the most distinguished of any man living" and make him "greatest character of the age." Napoleon in Elba marked this difference between the elected leader and the tyrant another way, scornfully saying that his countrymen had wanted him to be "another George Washington."

But today Washington is the proper model for the Republican Party, as a man who had power and gave it up in order to safeguard the rights and freedoms of the citizens of the republic. In a time of chaos and turmoil, when a possible war with France lingered on the horizon and domestic unrest still made it doubtful that the American experiment would survive-- Washington could have very easily given in to the urging of some of those around him and taken on a role more akin to a monarch. And such an act would have been easy enough to justify. Instead George Washington chose to put his faith in the American people, not in himself as a leader.

The steady expansion of the powers of government has meant an unchecked erosion of individual liberties. While the Bill of Rights still exists, for the most part, the dominance of government powers in every area of life has drastically altered the balance of power between the people and the government through an omnipresent stream of regulations. The idea of reserved powers has become a joke. Activist Supreme Courts have created their own Constitutions, ignoring the existing Constitution and creating an entire litany of precedents based on their own willful misinterpretations of a phrase or two.

As a result America is following Europe down the garden path to socialism, reduced to a people shrinking beneath the tottering effigy of unchecked government growing over their heads. And while the politicians assure the people that all the powers that they allotted to themselves are for the benefit of the people themselves, the purpose of power... is power. Power accumulates like electricity and attracts objects and people into its vicinity. And as government power grows, the fundamental check on its powers in the form of the people, fall further under its dominion.

So while the Republican party these days is talking once again talking about the virtues of smaller government, we saw rather little of that in 8 years of Bush. Nor did we see very much of it from Republican Presidents over the last half century. Instead what we saw was a party that was trying to position itself as the responsible federalists, in contrast to the irresponsible socialists of the Democratic party. But the problem is that the Republicans have failed to halt or reverse the concentration of power in Washington D.C. Because it requires the rank and file politician to not just talk about giving power... but to actually give it up.

Giving up power is never easy. The entire city of Cincinnati was named after the Roman Cincinnatus. Cincinnatus was a Roman leader famous for taking power in a crisis and then voluntarily giving it up and retiring. The Society of the Cincinnati was founded in the United States by the veterans of the Revolutionary War to protect the ideals which they had fought for. Its members included more than half the signers of the Constitution and its first President General was George Washington himself.

The first paragraph of its principles saw the Society dedicating itself to... "An incessant attention to preserve inviolate those exalted rights and liberties of human nature, for which they have fought and bled, and without which the high rank of a rational being is a curse instead of a blessing." That incessant attention is as necessary today, as it was then. And the prescription once again demands leaders who are willing to take power, only to give it up again.

Politicians have spent too long paying lip service to the idea of protecting freedoms, when they actually mean expanding government powers. The Democratic party has embraced the notion of liberties as emerging from government powers wholesale. The Republican party has not entirely embraced it in rhetoric, but they have all too often perpetuated it in practice. And therein lies the danger. Because the idea that freedoms are a function of government, rather than a function of limited government, is a very seductive one to politicians.

And how many people are prepared to run for office, only not to use the powers that they're given. Is there any member of congress who is truly willing to give up the power and the pork, though we all may have our favorites, in truth there is not a single one. The more a politician hides his earmarks and his favors to well connected figures behind self-righteous rhetoric, the more he makes a mockery of his own principles. Some may do it boldly in the light of day, others may speak boldly against one expenditure or another, but still set down the same earmarks anyway. Because the purpose of power is power, and it is painfully hard to break that cycle. To give up power for the benefit of the people.

Who will spend time and money to be elected to higher office, without reaping the benefits of that office? And when a system is corrupted, it corrupts even the decent men who take part in it. The purpose of being elected today is in order to bring back that share of the treasury to one's district and friends and supporters, that one's power and influence has made it possible to drag away. The more the others take, the more each politician must try to seize to keep up with the rest, or risk being tarred as unable to bring home the bacon. And when the spending grows too much, he raises the debt limit so the wealth keeps on flowing.

This is the situation before us. The concentration of power in Washington D.C. is expressed through the regulatory concentration of wealth. Taxation moves large sums of money, and the ability to continually raise the size of the debt, means that spending by politicians can be virtually infinite, as long as enough of them agree on how they want to spend the money. All this wealth has attracted special interest groups. It has made the capitol into a beehive filled with all sorts of people who want part of that money, corporations, unions, non-profits and all sorts of groups, both local and national, all want that money. And they want more than is available. The resulting battles often shape what we call politics.

The American people are angry and dissatisfied with the situation, but they also see few ways to change it. The Republican party is currently the most credible of the two parties when it comes to reducing the size of government, but to do so, it must follow in the footsteps of George Washington and take power, only to give it up, by reducing the size of government and the influence of their positions.

For too long, politicians have defined themselves by what they can do. But it is time for them to look to the Society of the Cincinnati, to former officers who could have ruled the nation by force, but instead chose to see themselves as citizens first. The day that we have a congressional majority that sees itself as citizens, rather than politicians, is the day we will have a congress that is willing to give up power by scaling back the powers of government... for the good of all Americans.

7 comments Permalink Email Post (Backlinks)

Tuesday, March 09, 2010

The Middle East Peace Scam

"I condemn the decision by the government of Israel to advance planning for new housing units in East Jerusalem"

Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, March 09, 2010

Obama, Biden and Abbas

For nearly twenty years the great sham of the Middle East Peace Process has dragged on. And this despicable scam has consisted of only one policy, only one platform and only one plan. Pressuring Israel for more concessions.

Year in and year out, new peace conferences were declared and new plans for peace were hammered out. All of them had one thing in common, they carved up Israel for a non-existent peace. When Arafat and his gang of terrorists made a concession, it was to demand 5 percent less of Israel in the current phase of negotiations. When Israel made a concession, it was to turn over another 10 percent of land to its worst enemies in this phase of negotiations... in exchange for them putting off their demands for that 5 percent into the next phase of the negotiations. And this sick charade in which Israel gave and the terrorists took was the peace process.

While this great surrender process was going on, outside the bombs went on exploding, tearing apart buses, restaurants, malls and families-- the politicians and diplomats in charge excused the terrorists and damned Israel if it so much as lifted a finger to defend itself, or erected a single checkpoint to catch at least one of the terrorists on the way to kill a dozen people in Jerusalem.

And now finally the Vice President of the United States arrives in Israel to reaffirm his absolute commitment to Israel's security, a commitment he and just about every other politician who let that phrase trip lightly off their lips, honors by pressing Israel to surrender again the terrorists. He arrives and condemns the greatest impediment to peace. Jewish families living in the capital of their own nation.

Biden did not take the time to condemn Abbas for his failure to hold elections, for his attendance at a funeral for the terrorists in his own militia who murdered an Israeli Rabbi, for his violation of the Gaza Jericho agreement or for his recent threats of a Holy War against Israel. Not even the Palestinian Authority naming a municipal square two days ago after Dalal Mughrabi, one of the Coastal Road Massacre bus hijackers, resulted in any statements of condemnation. Let us for a moment balance the horrifying scene of Jews moving into new apartments in Jerusalem, vs the Coastal Road Massacre in which Fatah terrorists murdered Gail Rubin, an American nature photographer, hijacked a bus, and murdered 38 passengers, 13 of them only children.

Coastal Road Massacre

But the murder of Israelis never "undermines the trust we need right now". Only Jews living in East Jerusalem can do that. Not Israelis, Jews, for if Arab citizens of Israel were moving into new buildings in East Jerusalem, Biden and the media would not be condemning Israel for it. It is precisely Jews that are the problem for the Obama Administration and its Media-Government Complex. Just as they were a problem for Hitler and Stalin. Just as they have always been a problem for would be tyrants.

There are of course no worries about whether Israel will trust Abbas and his Fatah gang. As if anybody in their right mind would, after nearly two decades of terrorism that followed the ballyhooed signing of the Peace Accords and the famous handshake overseen by a smiling Clinton. After violating nearly every agreement he ever signed with Israel, Arafat unleashed a wave of terror, while pocketing a fortune in foreign aid. And after every bombing, the same despicable conglomeration of diplomats and politicians and diplopols that form the "World Community" pointed Israel to the negotiating table. Their only solution, then as now, was more concessions. By Israel to the terrorists-- of course.

And so here we are in the splendid year 2010, 5770 in the Hebrew calendar, and 1431 in the Muslim calendar. In a few months it will be 43 years since the Liberation of Jerusalem. Since Jews returned to the Old City they were ethnically cleansed from by Muslim soldiers. And today the Hurva synagogue, twice destroyed by Muslims, has been completely reconstructed. In 1948 the Jordanian command expelled the Jews from East Jerusalem and destroyed the Hurva synagogue, vowing that the Jews would never return. And today in the year 2010, the Vice President of the United States comes on a mission to carry on their work. That of the dynamiters and the bombers and the expellers.

This is where nearly two decades of negotiations have brought us. In the early nineties, Israel was discussing the status of certain West Bank towns. Today Israel is being warned against allowing Jews to live in Jerusalem. Tomorrow... I would dearly like to say that the possibilities are endless, but there are only so many parts of Israel where Jews still live, and no doubt the eager ethnic cleansers in the Obama Administration and the EU have plans for them too.

And so the Middle East Peace Scam marches on. There is a great deal of preparation for intense rounds of negotiations at which it will be determined what else Israel must give for there to be no peace. East Jerusalem will naturally end up on the table soon enough. Meanwhile the entire farce has less legal basis than a kangaroo court and all the consistency of a drunken liar on the witness stand.

Today there are three Palestinian states. One in Jordan, divided to create an Arab State in the bygone days of the Palestine Mandate. A second state in Gaza, which is ruled over by Hamas as part of the spoils from their war with Fatah. A third state in the West Bank ruled over by Abbas and Fatah, even though his term ended and there have been no new elections. Out of this hodgepodge, Israel is expected to negotiate even though Hamas refuses to negotiate any permanent peace agreement, and Fatah has no legal authority to represent anyone.

You will not of course here about any of this in the media, which is still busy being outraged by the thought of Jews living in Jerusalem. When they're not being outraged by the thought of Israel treating Rachel's Tomb as a heritage site. After all the Prime Minister of Turkey has declared that Rachel's Tomb is not Jewish, but Islamic. Just as all of Israel is Islamic. Just as all of the world is Islamic. But the world isn't paying attention. The world is certain that the rage and violence of a billion Muslims can be calmed with some Jewish land and Jewish blood. Just as the rage and violence of Nazism could be calmed with some Czech land and blood.

But why listen to me? Listen instead to the soothing words of Ahmad Bahar, the Speaker of the Palestinian Authority Parliament.

"Make us victorious over the infidel people… Allah, take hold of the Jews and their allies, Allah, take hold of the Americans and their allies… Allah, count them and kill them to the last one and don’t leave even one.”

Ah, but you say it's about "the occupation". And there will be peace when the terrorists have all the land they feel they're entitled to. But... no.

"Our enmity with the Jews is a matter of faith, more than an enmity owing to occupation and the land."

Oh yes, there will be peace when they have all the land that they feel Muslims are entitled to. And this is the scope of their territorial demands.

“Soon, Allah willing, Rome will be conquered, like Constantinople was conquered, according to the prophecy of our prophet Muhammad. Their capital will be the first post of the Islamic conquests that will spread all over Europe then it will turn to the two Americas and even to Eastern Europe."

But don't worry. Joseph Robinette Biden is deeply committed to fighting against Jewish families living in Jerusalem. And the Middle East Peace Scam marches on.

32 comments Permalink Email Post (Backlinks)

Monday, March 08, 2010

America's Lost Frontier

What has gone wrong with America? It's a question that many people are asking, but one approach is to look at what the present day America has lost. Its frontier. The frontier once defined America. It was the frontier that allowed English colonists to experiment with liberty. The march Westward, from the frontier settlements braving Indian raids to the Oregon trail, the Gold Rush and the Wild West, created a constant frontier for the country to rediscover what it means to be an American. The frontier kept America vital and as the frontier began to be lost, so did the spirit of America itself.

A civilization has two fundamental forces that define its nature. The Centralizing force and the Expansionistic force. The Centralizing force contracts the civilization inward into large and densely packed cities under a centralized government that is always growing larger and more complex. The Expansionistic force by contrast pushes outward into new frontiers that expand the size of the civilization and its sense of self.

The Centralizing force marks the maturity and decline of the civilization. The Expansionistic force represents its youthful vitality and energy. A civilization that can transition from the Centralizing to the Expansionistic has another shot at life. A civilization that has no more frontiers will begin to fossilize into a great centralized mass that becomes unwieldy, decadent and eventually falls.

Where the Centralizing phase is marked by rigid government control, taboo breaking and cultural sophistication, the Expansionistic phase is marked by little government control, strong taboos and an emphasis on religion over culture. The Expansionistic phase mixes together cultures, but in the Centralizing phase, the existing culture is slowly replaced through migration from colonies and less developed parts of the world, drawn to the sophistication and wealth on display there.

This does not only apply to America, it applies equally well to Europe, and to global cultures dating back thousands of years. From the fall of Rome and several Greek city states to the decline and fall of Israel in the Second Temple period, to several Chinese dynasties and even to some degree modern day Japan. A nation without frontiers, only foreign colonies, is a nation without a future. As excess wealth concentrates in a handful of urban centers, decadence and corruption become endemic. The mores and values of the culture begin to implode. Sophistication begins to center on taboo breaking. Taxes increase, the size of government grows to unwieldy levels and foreigners increasingly push out the natives. By the time the actual collapse takes place, the society has already been a shell of itself for centuries.

The important thing to understand is that these two forces help balance out a civilization. The Expansionistic force creates a check on the Centralizing force. If the Centralizing force attempts to impose too much centralization, the frontier rebels against it. That for example is how America was born. Because the Expansionistic force is to some degree a push against the Centralizing force, the energy from these counter-opposing forces keeps a civilization active and vital.

The Centralized civilization needs the frontier, because without that it instead begins to push at cultural frontiers, breaking taboos and destroying its own value system. The youth who might otherwise seek their fortune in wilder and untamed lands, instead become a disruptive social force at home. The frontier might make men and women out of them, but the static homeland and its increasingly centralized authoritarianism instead redirects their freedom seeking into political and social radicalism. Because free cultural energy will always be harnessed, a problem to which the frontier provides a solution.

Without the frontier, there is no check to the Centralizing force which begins the process of contracting the society in on itself. Government becomes both outsized and corrupt. Domestic turmoil increases as government expands. The traditions that created respect for the political and social institutions are wiped away by the cultural turmoil, which increases the probability of coups and violent takeovers. This process feeds on itself until all semblance of civility and law have been lost, submerged beneath the competing aims of struggling factions.

It is also natural, for the Centralizing force to often resent and seek to quash the Expansionistic force. The cultural differences lead the former to label the latter as ignorant backward prudes who are secretly scheming against the government, while the latter view the former as decadent authoritarians taxing them to fund their own corruption. In America, the usual label for this is Blue States vs Red States. In Israel, it's Haifa and Tel Aviv vs the Settlements. In historical Israel that same conflict inspired the story of Chanukah. In historical America, the Revolution.

In present day America, the gradual loss of the frontier, ended any real check on the Centralizing force. But it is incidentally telling that recent populist Republican Presidents like Roland Reagan and George W. Bush attempted to associate themselves with the cowboy culture and the frontier. And Sarah Palin, currently embodying the political spirit of Red State resistance comes from Alaska, the closest thing America still has to a frontier.

This goes all the way back to the start of the Republican party with Abraham Lincoln, billed as the quintessential frontier candidate, who ironically proved to be a centralizing figure instead. But as the Republican party has increasingly become the voice of opposition to the Centralizing force, at least on paper, its candidates and base of support have tended away from the centers of centralization. For the last 50 years, with the exception of the accidental Presidency of Gerald Ford, Republican Presidents have been West Coasters. And every Republican President in the last 78 years was either born or elected from California or Texas.

During that same period, with the exceptions of Bill Clinton and the accidental presidencies of Harry Truman and LBJ, Democratic Presidents have tended to be associated with centralized urban elites. Barack Obama is not the exception to the rule. He picks up on a pattern set by FDR and JFK. Both FDR and JFK attempted to use government centralization as a metaphor for the frontier. JFK did it literally with "The New Frontier". Of course there was no actual new frontier. What JFK meant was that government solutions were the New Frontier of mankind. This same rhetoric was exploited by Obama in his own run, with the addition of marketing his own rise to power as an act of taboo breaking that was appealing to a younger audience.

The Centralizing force is rooted in urban environments because it finds its own natural logic there. 10,000 people living in 1 mile need much more extensive government and can enjoy far fewer freedoms, than 100 people living in 1 mile. Population density breeds centralization. In turns centralization provides a network of services that increases population density. These services require a constant growth in personnel, which helps promote migration and population density. This is an example of how the Centralizing force acts to increase its own concentration, much as a black hole sucks matter inside it.

In the heavy urban environments where the Centralizing forces are based, interdependency seems perfectly natural. By contrast the Expansionistic force promotes independence and individualism, attitudes more typical of the frontier.

In a healthy civilization, the Centralizing force gives the Expansionistic force something to push against... and the Expansionistic force gives the Centralizing force new frontiers to manage and the imagination fuel to dream bigger dreams, instead of wallowing in its own cultural decadence. This Push and Pull process helped make America great, but the loss of a frontier has made the Centralizing force dominant in American government and culture.

And so the Centralizing force is creating a massive pile of government that cannot even afford to fund itself. The free cultural energy is being used to smash taboos, eliminating traditional values, while radicalizing politics. The pitched battle of Red States and Blue States is still weighed in many ways toward the Red States, because Americans are still more Main Street than Broadway, but given enough cultural influence and immigration that will change. As it has already changed dramatically over the last century.

America needs a new frontier. Not Kennedy's New Frontier of social justice, but a frontier where the Expansionistic force can redefine America again. Such frontiers are possible, some require technology, others imagination. But like most living things, America must grow or die. And while the Centralizing force offers a congealing cancerous growth in the middle, it is the Expansionistic force that America needs to revitalize itself once again.

Labels: America

17 comments Permalink Email Post (Backlinks)

Sunday, March 07, 2010

Islam is Incompatible with Diversity

Before the rise of Islam, the Middle East had a wide range of religions and cultures. So much so that it is difficult to imagine the world today without the ideas and beliefs that emerged from there. Today however the Middle East has one dominant religion and ethnicity. While there may be numerous countries, they all compromise an Arab Muslim Empire that extends from North Africa to the Gulf. An Empire that with the exception of Israel and Iran consists of one race and one religion, with all others either exterminated or subjugated as second class citizens.

That Empire was built through the ideology of Islam, that provided a manifest destiny to the quarreling Arab tribes who had already begun to overrun the region. Islam began by giving Mohammed and his followers the right to loot and enslave anyone who did not obey them, and ended by turning his cult into a fanatical worldwide movement bent on doing what they had done to the Middle East... to the entire world.

The worldwide spread of Islam has been aided and enabled by the First World's love of multiculturalism and diversity. But as history shows, there is no surer way to destroy cultural and religious diversity, than by introducing Islam in to the mix. The idea that Islam can be an ingredient in a multicultural society is as foolish as the idea that adding a tank full of piranhas to an aquarium will result in species diversity. Because Islam does not participate in the ecology of a multicultural society, it is a predator consuming and destroying cultures and beliefs... and leaving only corpses and frightened victims in its wake.

The Middle East which was once home to Jews, Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians, Gypsies, Nabateans and Persians, and where Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism once thrived-- has been reduced to Islamic Arabia. Mosques have been built over the demolished ruins of churches and synagogues. Entire populations have been forcibly converted to Islam, their children raised to hate and kill their own brethren. The survivors were compelled to pledge allegiance to their new masters, to keep their heads down and wear badges of inferiority. To pay tribute and always remember that the Arab Muslim was now the ruler here.

To understand the mad hate that Muslims have for Israel and their obsessive need to wipe it off the face of the earth, understand this. To the Arab Muslim, Israel represents a successful slave rebellion. A rebellion in which the former slaves, the hundreds of thousands of Jews from Arab countries who fled there, not only bested their masters but repeatedly proved themselves their superiors. That is something the Arab Muslim has never been able to accept, vowing to pay any price to destroy Israel.

The rise of Israel threatens Arab Nationalism because it threatens the return of the region to its Pre-Mohammedan state. As mercenaries of Rome, the Arabs had razed Jerusalem and put an end to even the fiction of a Jewish state that had been maintained under the dominion of the Edomite Roman appointed kings of the Herodian dynasty. The Mohammedan ideology united the Arab into a powerful force that swept through the power vacuum created by the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. That ideology swept around the world, appealing to tribal thugs and tyrants because it replaced the complexities of Judaism and Christianity, with the story of Mohammed's rise to power and his subjugation of his enemies. And so it went until the sick man of Europe died, and the Middle East was parceled out into European colonies.

But the end of European colonialism did not restore the region to what it had been, instead it ended the New Colonialism in favor of the Old Colonialism. Once again the region was divided into Arab Muslim states with everyone else reduced to vassal status. European colonialism departed and restored the Arab Muslim colonialism which had turned the Middle East into such a hopelessly backward place to begin with. And faced with the same arrangement of tribal states fighting amongst themselves, those Arab Muslims who dreamed of ruling as a Master Race again, once more turned to the ideology of Islam to unify them in their war against the rest of mankind.

Israel's existence is a thumb in the eye of Islam. It mocks the Koran's pretenses that Islam is the inheritor of Jewish history and Jewish prophets. Thus it undermines Mohammed's status as the final prophet to mankind. Any rebellion by non-Muslims against Muslim rule is considered blasphemous, but one that also undermines the Quranic revelation, endangers the entire theology of Islam. And so adding to the humiliation of the Middle East's "Master Race", is that the creation of the modern day State of Israel was also a sharp tug on the Prophet's beard.

The rise of a New Middle East that would have the religious and cultural diversity of the Pre-Mohammedan era would mean the end of the Arab-Islamic empire, an idea that threatens the heart of their identity and ambitions. As the harbinger of that New Middle East, Israel represents an existential and historical threat to that dark empire. It betokens a world in which the slaves will be free, in which men will no longer be compelled to be Muslims. In which the peoples of the Middle East will be able to reclaim their freedom again.

And indeed today, Israel is the only country in the region that offers religious freedom. As a result even an Islamic splinter group such as the Bahai, make their base in Israel, because they are not safe anywhere else. The Bahai represent exactly the sort of dangerous evolution of Islam, that centuries of Sharia law and the headman's ax had been geared to prevent. Islam has remained as static as it has, primarily because its only permitted reform movements have sought to drag it away from any innovations and back to the time of Mohammed. But in a New Middle East, Islam itself might change and become something else. And that is something its leaders will never tolerate.

Yet the very same American and European leaders who have made "diversity" into their bible and "multiculturalism" their scripture, howl against Israel, while importing Muslims into their countries by the planeload and the boatload. And unsurprisingly, Europe is experiencing exactly what the Middle East has. European cities are being overrun by gangs of thugs, little changed from those who looted caravans and raped their captives as followers of Mohammed. Blasphemy laws are being enforced by force and by threat of force. Ignorance is replacing knowledge. And once great cities are turning into dungheaps simmering with hate.

Europe's greatest cities are turning into the Middle East. And this should surprise no one at all. Once upon a time, Alexandria, Damascus, Constantinople and Jerusalem were cosmopolitan centers of culture and learning. Today only West Jerusalem amounts to anything, precisely because it is the only one of them not under the boot of Islam.

Islam destroyed the Middle East. And now it has its sights set on Europe and the rest of the world. While First World politicians may preach diversity, the flood of Islamic migrants washing up on their shore are not interested in diversity, their culture, law and religion is Islam. They want no other... and more importantly they will tolerate no other.

The bearded piranhas have been tossed into the European aquarium where they are now reproducing in large numbers while devouring the other fish. Given some time, the tank will consist of piranhas fighting each other, and a handful of smaller fish who have survived mainly because they are of some value to the piranhas. Namely the small yellow Dhimmifish. In other words the European aquarium will come to look exactly like the Middle Eastern aquarium, made of equal parts rubble, dirt and hate. A region where the literacy rate is lower than Sub-Saharan Africa. Where women are property. Where there is no constitution or law, only the will of an Imam or tyrant.

That is the Europe that the advocates of diversity and multiculturalism are speedily bringing about. That is the Europe, the America, the Australia and the Canada that their grandchildren will have to live in. It will not be a diverse place, except in the diverse numbers of slaves. There will be no culture, no freedom, no knowledge and no truth. Only Islam.

8 comments Permalink Email Post (Backlinks)