Saudi Doctorate Encourages the Murder of Arab Intellectuals

Considering the type of Arab "intellectuals" the Arab world produces, I really don't think we would be missing much even if they were murdered. The apostates already are threatened and they are by far the most intelligent and honest people that come out of that part of the world but nobody sheds a tear for them. It's always "they should know better and not enflame the Muslims". Well, that's my response to these threatened lit critics and "secularists": they should know better.

I can foresee someone arguing that al-Ghamdi has a right to his opinion. But a dissertation is not an extended rant or editorial.

For those who have never played the slow game of Pong that is submitting a thesis or dissertation (assuming the Saudi process is remotely like the American one):

- faculty members have to sign off on the topic
- the graduate college has to approve the topic
- when completed, it has to be "defended," i.e., the degree candidate presents his/her work and is subject to questions by the faculty
- faculty members have to sign off on it after the defense
- back to the graduate college it goes, and cross your fingers (or do the Saudi equivalent)

So, any approved dissertation, let alone one that leads to a doctorate conferred with honors, has a hefty stamp of approval from the institution that granted the degree.

Conclusion: Saudi academics, and the government that funds them, really dig this sort of thing.

RoPaT.

So much for "Muslims do not kill their Muslim brothers". It is more like "Proper Muslims do not kill their proper Muslim brothers.

And who decides who is a "proper" Muslim? Why, men like Sa'id ibn Nasser Al-Ghamdi.

Saudi Arabia would be better served by taking the resources spend on Sa'id and producing a competent engineer who can design and build things.

They're all studying in America. ;)

"The most dangerous and vile thing that the enemies of Islam have done in order to achieve their deviant aims has been to use cultural means, which are outwardly manifest as literature, poetry, culture, and criticism, but which internally embody heresy, skepticism, and hypocrisy.

Anyone still doubt that Islam is the antithesis to the freedoms we cherish?

If what this accomplished Islamic sociopath says is accurate, then we have the keys to the Achilles' heel of this dreadful nemesis. Mr. Spencer was one of the first to recognize and act upon it for the benefit the unenlightened. Mr. Fitzgerald tirelessly dusts off forgotten archives to showcase generations of historical examples.

If it weren't for sites like this, which certainly could not exist in Sa'id ibn Nasser Al-Ghamdi's world of submission, we'd be at the mercy of our current politically correct world view as presented by the media.

It is through articles like this one presented by Rebecca that we learn how to win. Like the tools of Jihad (Demographics, dawa, dhimmitude, death), we have a toolbox and our freedom of expression is one of the most powerful tools to use against this
destructive, imperialistic force.

As Mohammad's Wagon Train always yells:

"7th Century, Ho!"

(I would only add: "The dog barks, but the caravansary moves on.")

Civilization leaves these Stone Age zealot maniacs in the dust, but they can still shoot arrows at our rear, choking in their blinded frustration.

And a few of them have learned to steal some serious 'tips' for their projectiles.

Thanks to A.Q. Khan and now Mahoud Ahmadinijad.

Igor,
I beg to differ with you. These people are in the belly of the beast and are risking their lives trying to spark some enlightenment and skepticism in the people. It should be obvious the fanatics and jihadis see them as a serious threat,in fact the Main Enemy of islam.
Who say's they know whether or not they are "muslims in name only"? The most devout ones, that's who, the ones who are qualified to make that judgement.
I think sometimes a mistake is made to assume too much belief,unity and devotion among the general populations in the muslim countries. I question the idea that devotion to the point of dying for "allah"(and islam) is so widespread.
Religion is a psychological, learned phenomenon. The survival instinct, the pleasure-pain reactions, are HARD-WIRED reflex mechanisms that trump rational thought when confronted with immediate life-death consequences.

Is this dude an Koranic scholar or a Hadith scientist?

END O THE RAINBOW POT O GOLD END O THE RAINBOW MODERATE MOSLEM MAN

To hear the Moslems tell it, poor Islam is besieged under a series of withering infidel attacks and will be lucky to hold itself together or will all Moslems be forcibly converted to Christianity.

Moderate Muslims cannot hold their own philosophically against the inexorable retrograde direction of Islam. What we must also understand is that rational secular humanism is likewise our soft center and it cannot hold against Islam much better, though secularists and religionist are natural allies in this struggle. Secularism itself, however, is essentially a slippery slope without any anchor in certainty. Relativism may have been developed as an answer to religious dogmatism, but by de-linking the process of thought to anything beyond itself, it leaves mankind with no compass to show the way toward better or worse since everything is relative.

I believe that is why we gaze with awe at the acts of faith performed by Muslims in the form of suicide bombings. When have we have witnessed belief so strong that it compels believers to the ultimate act of murder/suicide on such a massive scale? Many among us have rushed to celebrate it (the movie “Paradise Now” for example), sensing the drama to be found in depth of belief and in spiritual struggle, but few have the tools with which to evaluate it beyond sympathetic sentimentality.

So today man wanders among the various isms and latest New Age fads, but these provide thin gruel for spiritual nourishment, throwing man back upon himself by variously promising the liberation of the spirit through some agency where each man may essentially become his own god. Thus the search for universal transcendentals as an objective phenomenon has gradually been abandoned and replaced with the pursuit of ease and a “get it while you can” mentality that only serves to cheapen life and distort value.

Islam, like the materialist philosophies of fascism and communism, seeks not the emergence of the individual, but rather the erasure of the individual. It seems to assume, like communism, that human beings essentially exhibit a universal response to universal stimuli, which can only be deduced from materialistic determinism.

In agreement with Rebecca's argument, one can also add that historical evidence demonstrates that efforts to reform Islam have failed and that violence has always been the most effective vehicle for the spread of Islam.

Within living memory, entities such as National Socialism, Bolshekvism, the Mafia, and Islam have historically relied on thugs to do their work against the more peaceful within other organizations and within their own to promote the hardline that eventually took over.

Laws, constitutions, and non-violent behavior can not withstand nor prevent being overrun by the more violent unless those that want these are willing to be violent and ruthless in response to that which is done to them. To paraphrase, to maintain peace, prepare for war...and be ready to back up your threat of retaliation. Those that believe otherwise are naive and should prepare themselves for death or enslavement.

A great many of the doctorates "written" by Saudis and other rich Arabs abroad are not their work at all -- certainly in fields other than Islamic studies. Quite a good business for some locals. No degree awarded to a rich Arab -- whether Yamani at Harvard Business School, or anyone else anywhere else -- should be taken at face value, as indicating much of anything. (Not that the degrees of other students are necessarily sure indicators that they have achieved something of worth, either).

So at least say this for the troglodytic effort described above. He did his very own Saudi work. He expressed his very own Saudi thoughts. He was writing for his very own audience of Saudi fellows. He didn't pull his punches, didn't smile, didn't insist to some Infidel cross-questioning him "that's not what I meant at all, not at all."

He meant it all right. Every word.

What this dissertation says is logically consistent with the belief system of the Islamic world. I say, let them destroy any attempts at reconciling their beliefs and the modern Western world. It can't be done without destroying their system.

In 30 years, they will run out of oil and the party's over for them - they have wasted one of the greatest opportunities in human history. Between their caliphate/Bin Laden fantasies, oppression of women, rigid dogmatism, and backwards looking mentality, they will weaken themselves into oblivian. In 100 years, a vital Western world, based on individual, religious, and intellectual freedom will still be prospering, no matter how sloppy and imperfect it may seem.

I am no religious scholar in any sense. But, from the bits do I know on the subject, having lived a protected life in western civlization, I find it quite interesting (the way a horror film can be interesting) the stark contrast between the Christian idea of judgement and the apparent Islamic idea.

In the Christian view, it is clear, judgement and punishment are the exclusive reserve of the Almighty. The Christian is not permitted to judge others, even his enemies ("judge not, lest you be judged"). The Christian is basically on probation in the temporal world, and will be called to account on Judgement Day for his actions on earth.

In the Islamic world, it seems, judgement has already been rendered by Allah. Those outside of strict Islam are already condemned, and the Islamic ummah are his temporal agents empowered and directed (via jihad) to carry out both judgement and punishment, to include various barbarous chastisements (mutiliation and/or death, for instance), many of which are either explicitly itemized or offered up as examples of right living in the Koran, Hadith, and Sura.

Therefore, Christians, in dealing with others outside the faith, are burdened in this life to behave with responsibility, concern, and charity to their fellow men. Muslims, in dealing with others outside the faith, are responsible only for meting out judgement and punishment (after issuing only a perfunctory call to the faith as a warning).

My point here is not really religious, but political. The whole basis of world view of the multi-culti ideologues is to not judge other cultures and religions, since "who are we to judge?" But here is a "relgion" that has judged and condemned all non-Muslims to a violent fate, in the here and now.

Why does not academia raise the alarm? Why do the (mostly) leftist elites tolerate this creed for even a second? Where is the moral outrage? Conversely, why do the same mult-culti idealogues obsess on Christian beliefs and practices as something to be vilified and suppressed?

The answer has to be that the Muslims will inflict mortal punishment on you for your insolence, the Christians will turn the other cheek. In other words, dhimmitude.

End of speech.

I just saw the following article on the International Herald Tribune's website:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/15/news/bahrain.php

It's not directly on point, but it is interesting how frightened the Islamists are of anyone who challenges the established order. There is an really interesting quote in the story, which was, surprisingly, highlighted on on the IHT's website, about how democracy is not part of the "nature" of traditional Arabs.

kentim,

These "intellectuals" are hypocrites at best and apostates at worst to the devout Muslims. But more often than not, they are hypocrites, the real apostates are a different breed. Those are the only ones I think infidels should support, the Muslims who do not identify with Islam anymore and recognize it fully as the totalitarian ideology that it is. Infidels have no use for hypocrites because even though they may want to "reform" Islam and reconcile it with modernity, they still identify with Islam even if their faith may not be that strong. That is a problem, they seek to update this ideology so the ummah can compete with the infidels. That is a threat to us because it will mean more da'wa and more power for the Muslims. We don't want that at all and we shouldn't encourage these intellectuals (who are mostly anti-American and antisemitic anyways). Defend the apostates from tyranny, not these self-proclaimed "intellectuals". It would serve as a good lesson to them and perhaps they would make the jump from skeptic to apostate. They need to see the evil that is Islam and Arab supremacism.

"In 30 years, they will run out of oil and the party's over for them "

Maybe that is why the moderate muslims are working so hard to spread da'wa and Sharia.

But here is a "relgion" that has judged and condemned all non-Muslims to a violent fate...

If one population says "I will kill you" and the other says "I will tolerate you and pay you welfare" who's gonna win. Who?

Rebecca JW:
"Relativism may have been developed as an answer to religious dogmatism, but by de-linking the process of thought to anything beyond itself, it leaves mankind with no compass to show the way toward better or worse since everything is relative."
---
It is my understanding that relavitism was developed as an answer to scientific problems(like the problem of infinity). And it appears to me that pseudo-scientific leftists are the ones responsible for it's missuse and misapplication.
I think it is important to distinguish between the two because one side gets unearned legitimacy and the other gets tied to the corruption of leftism.
Communism's "Dialectical Materialism" was a pseudo-scientific philosophy therefore "science" should be tied to communism. Just because it claimed science or exploited it does not make it so.
Another thing, "Humanism" is a fraud too. It is devoid of reason and logic, and is basically an emotional expression, that is why it is relavist.
Also, there are varying degrees of "secularism". And I really don't see the problem with putting a restriction upon government that does not allow religious ideology to be the BASIS for governmental decisions. I mean, it's pretty obvious. A politician saying: "that should be against the law", or " we must govern this way or that way..."
Hmmm, why's that ??
"Cause it say's so in the Bible" or "because it's a sin", bla-bla-bla.

No, if they can't come up with reasonable explanations for this or that that is based on what we know of the real world, screw'em.

oops...
"science *should not* be tied to communism".

Mr Fitzgerald

I like it when someone debunks Arab pretensions to scholarship outside the field of "Islamic studies," whatever that means. Arab students in Eastern European universities had it the best. They bought everything with their money, exams, dissertations, girls--and the locals were happy to oblige them, if not for other reason than that it was familiar; the Turks had done the same thing for centuries.
And then there was something else: they got bored very easily, they didn't have what it takes to study hard--"sietzfleisch," as the Germans put it. I remember two Jordanians at the campus library. Nice, gregarious fellows, smooth. Laughed easily. They made what must have been an honest effort to study, but winded up taking longer and longer cigarette brakes and finally gave up. There were better things to do as they told me with a wink.

Rebcca JW "Islam, like the materialist philosophies of fascism and communism, seeks not the emergence of the individual, but rather the erasure of the individual."

It seems to me that the materialist philosophies (especially communisim) considered a person to be a "parasite" on humanity if he did not directly produce material wealth.

Viewed from that perspective, Islam's goal is to achieve the ultimate triumph and rule by the parasites.

Therefore, it follows that any communst, ex-communist, fellow traveller, Marxist, Trotskyite, or common everyday committed secular atheist leftist should be four square opposed to the Islamic agenda. He should be manning the ramparts in common cause with the Pat Buchanans of the world.

The opposite seems to be the situation. Can't figure that one out.

Stendec,

you wrote: "The opposite seems to be the situation. Can't figure that one out."

Perhaps it is that most people, most of the time, are at most vaguely rational; people are quite able to simultaneously believe in contradictory ideas -- sometimes aware, sometimes not. In a way, it is often a waste of time to try to figure out (rational) explanations for human behavior, although the consideration of reasons can lead to insight as well. So perhaps I am wrong to describe it generally as a waste of time. It might be better to say that an expectation of rational behavior is generally a mistaken expectation -- both for individuals and for groups of people. And what is worthwhile is to consider how irrational, and why so irrational?

Del: "Perhaps it is that most people, most of the time, are at most vaguely rational; people are quite able to simultaneously believe in contradictory ideas ..."

I can see that as an explanation for the behavior of individuals in the rank and file, but not in the intellectual leaders of the different leftist (especially) movements.

I think, perhaps, these (mainly) leftist intellectuals, for now safe from physical assault from Islam (safe not because of any effort on their own part, intellectual, pedagogical, or otherwise), cannot imagine the day when the Islamists turn on them. For now, they are triangulating against their perceived "enemies" (mainly) on the right, always comfortably assured of their own survival.

So, I might be wrong, but failure of imagination (coupled with short term thinking) is probably a big factor in this suicidal behavior by the elites. They seem to think that the left/right battle is a zero sum winner-take-all battle where one side, the left or the right, will eventually prevail and completely vanquish the other.

But, it seems to me (and to most typical Americans, I think it is fair to say), that it is really best for us all that left and right both survive and balance each other out, our society pulling left for awhile and then right for awhile as the needs and circumstances of the times require.

In fact, the only battle facing us that is truly winner-take-all is the battle of civilization against Islam.

So, the point I was indirectly trying to get across in the posting above is, as Robert has stated time and again at JW/DW, that this threat to civilization is not a left/right issue at all. All free men, Americans, Australians, Canadians, Europeans, Indians, East Asians, etc, etc, of whatever political stripe (even those on the far fringes of left and right), should be standing together against the Mohammedan menace.

"I like it when someone debunks Arab pretensions to scholarship outside the field of "Islamic studies," whatever that means. Arab students in Eastern European universities had it the best. They bought everything with their money, exams, dissertations, girls--and the locals were happy to oblige them, if not for other reason than that it was familiar; the Turks had done the same thing for centuries.
And then there was something else: they got bored very easily, they didn't have what it takes to study hard--"sietzfleisch," as the Germans put it. I remember two Jordanians at the campus library. Nice, gregarious fellows, smooth. Laughed easily. They made what must have been an honest effort to study, but winded up taking longer and longer cigarette brakes and finally gave up. There were better things to do as they told me with a wink."

What you describe was the case in Romania. My own sister was killed by such an Arab who acted with impunity in that country. At the time, under Ceausescu, few prosecutions even took place for harmed foreigners unless it was politically expedient to do so - it wasn't in her case. Arabs were being "indoctrinated" with communist and opposed the "tyrannical" US. The Arabs also provided needed foreign cash.

Did you know that many Arabs fought for Ceausescu during the brief violent revolution 1989 there? They had a glazed over look on their faces, eerily like jihadists.

Turks and Arabs came in to Romania in the early 1990s because no Westerners were interested in investing in that country - only Arabs were. Some of them later became resident aliens and some even became Romanian citizens. Some of them married local girls and Islamicised the women. Many Turks/Arabs that remained became involved in illicit activities.

The official figures of Moslems in that country lace the number at around 100,000, but I believe it to be closer to twice that high. Nonetheless, I am happy to report that Arab enrollment in Romanian schools is now almost non-existent. Moreover, Western interest in Romania is now huge and now ensures that as it continues the privatization of industries, it will not “purchased” by Arabs and Russian gangs. Lastly, Romanians are investigating the Arabs/Turks for terrorist and illegal activities and deporting some of them.

Interesting posts. To epg, I agree with you about force of arms and I even think there is at least one Christian argument to be made is support. One I've been working on concerns "who is our neighbor," because Jesus supported the Jewish doctrine to "love thy neighbor as thyself." But to the question "who is my neighbor?" which itself implies that there are those who are not our neighbors, Jesus responded with the story of the good Samaritan. Now the traditional interpretation says Jesus told that to avoid openly clashing with the Pharasees over the chosen people issue, but it has another level in that the neighbor was defined as "he who showed mercy" on the man who had been beset by robbers.

As I look among the stories here at JW/DW, I see little in the way of merciful action on the part of Muslims and according to Islamic doctrine, mercy toward non-Muslims is pretty well squashed.

Should we love them? Yes, of course, but we needn't love them on the same level as we love ourselves, which means (I believe) we're not obligated to sacrifice our needs for theirs, or our children for theirs. We needn't show them our highest human level of love that entails self-sacrifice. "No greater love has man than this..."

Kentim, you're right and I did mean relativism in the social philosophical sense. I think people look to science to provide answers that it is not meant to provide.

del, I think we tolerate contradiction on the scale we do these days is because reason is no longer rooted in absolutes and so mind essentially turns back in on itself in little folds and creases because there is nothing to pull it straight - no tension - no sense of what should be as opposed to what is.

"Whether we describe this as a decay of religion or loss of interest in metaphysics, the result is the same; for both are centers with power to integrate, and, if they give way, there begins a dispersion which never ends until the culture lies in fragments." - Richard Weaver

Kafir Non-believer, I'm so sorry to hear about your sister. What a terrible thing for your family to go through.

To your post, I think Muslims are definitely brainwashed in the western sense of the word and I believe Islam warps the mind and distorts Muslims as human beings, some more so, some less so. It's hard not to feel sorry for them on some level.

I know you think Christianity does the same thing and perhaps it does to some extent, also like you I think Christianity should be defended but not simply so as to become a substitute for Islam (I think that is what you said).

However, I don't think there is any substitute for religion in human culture. Either we get religion and metaphysics right (recognize truth) or we get it wrong (Islam, materialism, on and on). I don't believe we have the choice to jettison it.

... this threat to civilization is not a left/right issue at all.

I think everybody in here understands this.

However, to be clear one must set aside the simplism that this statement incorporates. There are reasons leftism has played the key role in the propagation of Islam throughout the Western world.

MORE MOSLEMS MORE ISLAM MORE MOSLEMS MORE ISLAM MORE MOSLEMS MORE

Where leftists and Moslems have achieved political synergy:

* Rule by an olympian council
* Repression of free speech
* Central control over public discourse
* Rights inhere in groups, not in individuals
* State-directed something-for-nothing economics
* Wealth awarded according to need, not according to production
* Rights to privacy, property, and independence are a low priority

Kafir:

I'm so sorry about your sister. So very sorry. I understand every bit of your plight, and I grieve for the millions of lives lost to totalitarian rule.
I'm happy you've made it to this country and found your way to this site. Eastern European experience with Islam needs to be known in the West and the U.S. It's essential. Keep writing.
There's nothing like Robert and Hugh's site on the web.

Welcome, brother.

Alarmed Pig Farmer,

So you are saying that the means and structures of societal control is more important to leftists than the substance? For example, do you think they would be content and happy if the olympian council consisted of a panel of Muslim clerics (ayatollahs)? Do you think leftists would accept a centrally controlled public discourse restricted to Koranic verses, which are, after all, "religious" in content?

... means and structures are (not is)...

stendec: "Why do the (mostly) leftist elites tolerate this creed for even a second? Where is the moral outrage?"

As an atheist left-winger , i too just cannot comprehend it. Nor can i understand it.

The first people to be executed after the Iranian revolution were the leftists, who had supported the Islamic revolutionaries in their overthrow of the Shah.

The Islamics, once in power, turned on the leftists - in fact, they were FIRST to be wiped out.

Why this glaringly obvious lesson of history hasnt entered the left-wing mind in Europe is utterly beyond me.

So you are saying that the means and structures of societal control (are) more important to leftists than the substance?

No. I'm saying that the natural affinity of the two ideologies is catapaulting the more aggressive and expansionist of the two toward global primacy.

Remember, in 1864, to prove his theory, Karl Marx published Das Kapital containing a fraudent economic record of the distribution of income during two prior periods between English workers and businessmen. But nobody cared. Details details. It was something-for-nothing time, the fraudulent book and its fake facts were a hit, the International was formed, and stampede was on.

In other words, then and now, leftists are blind, willfully blind.

Sure leftist will care. But being willfully blind by habit and by principle they won't see their new Moslem partners for the grave threat they are until it is too late, until too many Moslem Men have bred too many times with too many Moslem Maidens, and the die has already been cast on the biggest political catastrophe in world history (Global Sharia).

My condolences as well, Kafir.

I'm glad Ceaucescu ultimately got what he deserved. The fact that Muslims from Arab countries fought for him underscores the fact that, the usual reasons for jihad notwithstanding, they are apparently natural-born mercenaries, and will take whichever side offers material gain.

Although Afghanistan isn't an Arab country, we saw the same turncoat mindset time and again-- it even allowed bin Laden to slip through our fingers. Same thing in Iraq: the factions talk a great deal about their "principles," but ultimately make alliances with whoever most benefits them today, with no promises about tomorrow if someone makes a better offer.

Slightly off-topic.
Seen in The National Gallery yet again today my beloved Titian's "An Allegory of Prudence".
The inscripton on the painting states: EX PRAETERITO PRAESENS PRVDENTER AGIT NI FUTUR- ACTIONE DETVRPET [From the past the man of the present acts prudently so as not to imperil the future]. How wise our Masters used to be! How meaningful and relevant it sounds to me today.

"Moderate Muslims cannot hold their own philosophically against the inexorable retrograde direction of Islam."

And as inhumane or brutal as it may sound, we should not waste one moment of time encouraging them to do so, or vainly hoping for their success in this forlorn endeavor...

It is IMPOSSIBLE...

No matter what so-called "progress" is made against the Muslim tendency towards "extremism" in Islam, that is, against their intrinsic hatred for ANY non-Muslim system, there will always be some cause, real or imagined, which will serve as a pretext to draw the pious Muslim back into the fold of hatred and darkness.

We only need look at the events this weekend in Pakistan... Any "benefit" from our $500,000,000 dollar donations after the earthquake has been totally destroyed by this clever Pakistani ruse... It's the same in Indonesia -- several billion dollars in US taxpayer aid will not add up to anything in the long run from the Muslim thrall but more bile, venom, hatred, and murder... The Muslim propaganda machine is now in overdrive in Indonesia spewing vicious tales of the nefarious motives behind our aid -- it hasn't dampened their hatred one iota, nor will any aid EVER given to Muslims by non-Muslims...

Think of Nigeria, where, in the Muslim North, the Imams have convinced their local thralls that vaccines paid for by America are really designed to spread A.I.D.S., tuberculosis, or make their children sterile... Think of the level of slimey hatred which underlies such virulent lies... Think of the millions of Muslim thralls who, today, after seeing someone in their village fall prey to any number of diseases thinks first, not of blaming his stoneaged Muslim leader, but of blaming America for bringing disease to Muslim lands.... This is so poisonous... this is so dangerous for us...

The ideology which permits this filth is pure Islam -- it is war -- all out WAR... Every Muslim is a conduit for Islam to spread... As such, every Muslim is an enemy of the West, and everything we hold dear...

Unless the thrall is willing to abandon Islam, and then, knowing full well how insidious and evil it truly is, help us fight the scourge of blight and hatred which it brings, then they aren't worth our consideration, or our sympathy... The time is rapidly approaching when we will not be able to afford to waste any time, sympathy, and certainly not our money or blood, to help them out of the sewer the Muslim has chosen to live in... Any effort is bound to drag us down, and mire us in eternal strife and misery...

Alarmed Pig Farmer,

For those who are blind to the Islamic threat, either out of ignorance (as I once was) or willful ideological calculation, we need to engage them intellectually and draw them into this struggle to preserve our freedoms. Along that vein, I salute Robert and Hugh and all those across the globe who daily contribute to JW/DW.

This brings to mind a B-movie comedy (made in the mid 80's) called "Real Men," wherein a nonconformist CIA agent (Nick) shanghai's a timid suburban homeowner (Bob) to accompany him on an exceptionally dangerous and critical mission to save the world, during which both the Russian KGB and renegade elements in the CIA are trying to hunt them down and kill them. At one particular despairing moment, Bob turns to Nick and says, "Why are we doing this? Doesn't the government have some special guys to take care of things like this?" And Nick replies, matter of factly, "Yeah, Bob, we are those special guys."

Shinoliite:

Love every one of your posts, and, for sentimental reasons, thanks for your answer to Kafir.
The history of Arab/Palestinian connection with the communist regimes still needs to be told. The "Palestinian cause" wouldn't exist without communist help.

Yes, and the communist link is highly bizarre. I looked for some web sites about the topic, but find little. At the time (1989), at least with respect to Romania, there was almost no news coming out of the country because it was so closed off from the rest of the world. I remember reading that some National Salvation Front members had captured several Arabs that had taken to the mountains and were fighting vigorously for the former Romanian dictator.

Who trained them? Were they on the state payroll? What links were there with Arab countries? I know that Romania lent Iraq well over 2 billion dollars in the 1980s. What a huge sum of money from such a small country - a county that become completely impoverished as a result of communism! I believe Bulgaria lent about half that. I also know there were especially close ties to Damascus and Baghdad. The Czechs also provided a lot of arms to those countries. I am not sure aboout Poland, or the FR of Yugoslavia. Of course, the Russian ties in the area were far greater. Unfortunately, Russian ties endure.

"
If one population says "I will kill you" and the other says "I will tolerate you and pay you welfare" who's gonna win. Who?
"

Very well put, APF

Thanks, Ovidius!

Very true about the communist-Islamic ties; even today, North Korea (another dystopia I'm fascinated with) has very warm diplomatic relations with the Palestinian Authority.
Their "official" news site, deciding what constitutes news, reports such momentous occasions as when the NK government sends a floral basket to the PA or vice versa, usually with something tacked on about "best wishes for establishing an independent state with its capital at Quds (Jerusalem)."

Strange bedfellows, if ever there were any, but I guess they became brothers in anklebiting via the Non-Aligned Movement. ;)

PS-- There's a story floating around about some North Korean propaganda that wasn't vetted for proper translation into Arabic, and came out saying "Kim Jong Il is God." They might have lost a few fans there!

Well, if the Sa'udi Doctor gets his way, the great Isalmic jihad against the West will end up with a horde armed with baseball bats and scimitars charging well-equipped machine gun nests.

JSLA, this business about American-produced vaccines being in fact harmful injections of incurable diseases is a long-standing staple of Communist propaganda. Further, the one thing the Communists were simply stupendous at was PR. Hence, I am not surprised when such people find themselves subject to a host of diseases. Of course, if the USA were to stop financing medical aid, we would be blamed for the mass deaths caused by epidemics X, Y, and Z...

"if the USA were to stop financing medical aid, we would be blamed for the mass deaths caused by epidemics X, Y, and Z..."
-- from a posting above

The United States is going to be blamed for whatever it does, for whatever reasons. Thousands of schoolrooms, a hundred hospitals, water-treatment plants, power-grids, endless efforts at winning hearts and minds (the only ones to be won are those of children not yet exposed sufficiently to Islam and the attitudes to which Islam naturally gives rise). In the making of policy, worrying about the response of the Muslim world to anything the United States does is therefore silly, and should certainly not be a reason for inhibiting actions which will in the end weaken Islam or strengthen Infidels, including Infidel morale which, in some places -- as in black Africa -- could stand some dramatic gesture of determination to put a stop to Arab and Muslim aggression, whether through the Janjaweed, or through Wahhabi missionaries and money-men, spreading their fanaticism even among the maraboutic tribes.

Shinoliite:
You've put your finger on a very important pawn in the communist game in the 70s and the 80s: the Non-Alligned Movement, which got its orders from Moscow, was strenuously anti-Israel and anti-American (obviously), making a mockery of the concept of non-allignment, while enabling the work of terrorist Palestinian and Lebanese orgs. Like Kafir says, Damascus was pivotal in those days, and so was Baghdad and Tripoli, but so was Paris. Bat Ye'or is helping us understand what Kafir and I knew at a mundane level.

As I said, it's a story that needs to be told, with Kafir's and other's help. Even anecdotally. I've never looked down on anecdotes, especially those coming from behind the Iron Curtain. Too much life lies buried under heaps of official lies and wooden language.

Correction: "so were Baghdad and Tripoli"

Stendec,

In response to my comment, you wrote:

"...I can see that [irrationality] as an explanation for the behavior of individuals in the rank and file, but not in the intellectual leaders of the different leftist (especially) movements.
...
So, I might be wrong, but failure of imagination (coupled with short term thinking) is probably a big factor in this suicidal behavior by the elites."

I agree that these descriptive (i.e. descriptions by an outsider [you] about 3rd party behavior) reasons are useful insights. When I wrote above that most people are at most vaguely rational and often believe in contradictory ideas, I was considering why an individual makes decisions in the first person (as "I" or "we"). My impression from life is that most decisions are not made by careful thought. Decisions are usually made emotionally, or impulsively, not rationally (and I don't claim to be more rational than others). Then, after-the-fact, most people rationalize the decision to themselves and others. This is also true of leaders and elites. They just make more elaborate rationalizations, or excuses, to cover themselves.

The most careful decisions are usually made by people disinterested about whatever topic or issue is being decided. By disinterested, I basically mean, not ego-involved. By not ego-involved, I do not mean anything really Freudian, but rather: not having an impact on own personal identity or esteem, or personally perceived status, and especially not a negative impact. The western intellectual elite is rarely disinterested in these topics (e.g. politics, islam). In particular, for most university faculty, their status, both in their social reality, and in their own minds, is greatly affected by what they say or write, as intellectuals. As a graduate student, I was always impressed with the way faculty seemed afraid to ask questions, at weekly seminars, on anything they were not "experts" on. It was left to students and oddballs to look naive, or unconventional. The "elite" are mostly conformists, afraid of what their colleagues will think. The "leaders" are mostly posers, or as Hugh puts it, "acting in a leadership capacity". That is true for those on the nominal left as well as for the current US administration (and most other western governments). Unfortunately, the few who aren't posers, are often mendacious or dishonest, e.g. chomsky. But even Chomsky, as a cult guru, would have difficulty changing his mind, publically, about his various pet topics. But enough about that creep.

But again, the above paragraph is an example of an outsider (me) trying to explain the behavior of others. The only way to actually know why someone else makes a decision, or holds a belief, would be to have the equivalent of a Vulcan Mind-meld. But that is science fiction. It seems perhaps more worthwhile to consider why are our "leaders" (of all political stripes) so often acting-in-a-leadership-capacity rather than actually leading. My explanation: a lack of personal character. Part of character is an ability to force oneself to be disinterested in the sense I wrote above. Sometimes the voters in a democracy need to vote for character, rather than for issues.

Rebecca,

Yes. Contradiction is even more than tolerable-acceptable; it is often now fashionable-interesting-artistic-desirable.

Have you ever read, Paul Johnson's, "Enemies of Society"? It was written in the 1970s, so islam wasn't really on his radar screen, but in many ways he was very prescient and aware.

The issue of "left"-jihadist cooperation is very significant. But you have to look at how the Muslim fanatics get help from both ostensibly disparate sides, "socialists" and "democratic capitalists." Marx, whatever else we may say of him, was not pro-Islamic. He called Muslims "intolerant" in his article on the origins of the Crimean War which mostly talks about Jerusalem. He writes how the Jews in Jerusalem suffered from "Mussulman intolerance." He also describes in it the status of rayahs suffered by the Greeks/Greek Orthodox in the Ottoman empire.
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/06/karl-marx-on-treatment-of-jewish_16.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/06/karl-marx-on-ottomanmuslim.html

However, shortly after the bolshevik coup d'etat in Russia, Stalin's commissariat of nationalities issued a pro-Islamic manifesto, An Appeal to the Muslim Toilers of Russia and the East, which was shamelessly pro-Islamic, pro-jihadi.
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/10/bolsheviks-for-jihad-genocide-stalins.html

On the other hand, the British empire has been pro-Islamic [and within Islam, the British empire was especially pro-Arab] since about 1920. Does anyone recall that in the 1950s, when trying to build an anti-Communist alliance in the Middle East [Bagdad Pact], the MSM used to praise Muslims as anti-Communist by nature? How the Saudis were "our friends" [of the USA]? And now Prince Charles goes about the world promoting Islam for its wonderful qualities, etc. And for many years, if not still now, the USA, UK, and French govts subsidized oil purchases from Arab countries by their oil companies.
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/09/kindly-making-arabia-rich.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/09/what-does-left-really-mean-in-2005.html
Meanwhile, the Left today, in its pro-Arab, pro-jihad mania, overlooks what used to be "leftist" concerns. When do they ever talk about the exploitation and humiliation of foreign workers in the Persian Gulf Arab emirates?

Of course, Western publications like the NYT, Economist, LeMonde, have long been pro-Arab, pro-Muslim. So we have a bizarre convergence of pro-Islamic, pro-Arab policy and agitprop coming from both the "Left" and the "Democratic capitalist liberals," even from the "ultra-right." Maybe somebody wants to try to explain it all. But I don't have time.

del, no I haven't read much Paul Johnson, but I have generally been impressed with his articles.

What seems to be occuring is rampant specialization where people are "responsible" for a tiny fragment of the world only, their areas of expertise, and gayly abdicate responsibility for how their plans/models/thoughts relate back to the whole. The scientist can tell you a thousand and one facts about some small area of reality, but he declines to discuss the deeper question of whether or not there exist levels of reality beyond the material. Thus, their students are left singing some forlorn version of Peggy Lee's "Is That All There Is?" or "What's It All About Alfie?"

I think the reason there is a close association between communists and Islamists is that communism and Islam both stem from materialism. Both elevate the collective over the individual and bond with terms like "social justice."

In both systems, God is dead.

Tinfoil hat alert!!!::::: (nah, just some abstract analysis, nothing set in stone, only small truths...) And ya, it wanders...
----
What the "reformers"( like Stephen Schwartz) are counting on is an absence of logic and reason in the islamic world.

This may be difficult to grasp because from our perspective the islamic world is already extremely deficient in that regard, we may see that as the actual problem, but there is a logical and reasonable basis to the teachings of islam. This is self-evident from observation of islam's survival,decline and expansion; it works, which means that it does conform to time, space, and the laws of nature. There is a rational basis upon which to accept islam, but it has nothing to do with the truth or fiction of "allah" or even "mohommed", the rational basis to accept islam is that it is a means to power and control, and to be controlled.

Like leftist ideology it promises to eliminate unpleasant consequences by denying individual responsibility and reality. Like leftist ideology there is a centralized authority of elitist managers/regulators of human thought and behavior. This is a very psychologically seductive arrangement, because it promises an easy life, an easy life as defined by thoughtlessness and carelessness, also as defined by irresponsibility. In human terms, is this not Utopia? Are not thought and responsibility extremely heavy burdens on people?
It seems so. I do not believe most humans long for actual freedom, I think they dream and fantasize about freedom from responsibilities/consequences and the freedom of action for themselves irrespective of the cost to others.

But only the ambitious will achieve positions that allow them complete freedom of action, and the rest(most, many?) of "humanity" will be happy to live as children or pets, because after all, all humans really need is food, clothing, shelter, sex and varying degrees of interaction with others. Everything beyond that is luxury.
In my opinion logic and reason are based on nothing more than that which perpetuates the species. The same can be said concerning the use of the moral term "good".
In other words, the "laws of nature" are not really absolute, they are a fabrication that depends simply upon the practical application of behavioral actions that seem to be conducive to survival. They are an interpretation of observable phenomena that corresponds to survivability, which is a reflection of healthy perception of reality. What that can be boiled down to is; does such and such behavior or action ultimately increase or decrease the chances of survival of the human species?

Human life is extremely fragile and weak compared(it's probably not comparable but...) to the world as a whole, I doubt(maybe not) if there were only 100 people left on earth that the species could recover, they certainly would have to be a special grouping of exceptional abilities and intellect to have a chance. Then again, when faced with the concrete reality of nature, where survival depends entirely on actually understanding cause and effect and consequences, without the need for complicated theories or ideological constructs that soothe the psyche,,, interaction with, and consciousness of the "real-world" is a prerequisite for successful navigation towards needs-fulfillment.
Faulty judgement and mistakes are punished severely and witnesses learn valuble lessons, the most important one being all actions have consequences, and some of them lead to agony and death, and are to be avoided. Misunderstanding or misinterpretation will be rewarded with those consequences, until they either "get it", or become extinct.
I think many have become disconnected from this basic truth.(thanks to technology?)

Kind of lost my train of thought here...
So the "reformers" , who themselves choose(publicly) to deny the rational basis of islamic belief-- as a construct for creating an islamic Utopia and all that that entails--, and who propose creating their own version of rationality that supposedly will eliminate the use of force from islam, but at the same time remain true and faithful to the "allah" as recorded in the "sacred" texts. Of course this is entirely possible. Surprise, surprise.
All that needs to be done is remove the necessity of logic and reasonable thought from the target population, and create an omnipotent "society-brain" thinking/controlling entity in the "Big Brother" mode. Then the people can be "freed" from thought, logic, responsibility and consequences; reality itself.

In my understanding of what is "good" for "humanity"( a collective term which I have problems with), I cannot technically claim that islam is "absolutely" bad for humanity(only time would tell). What I can claim is that a theoretical conception of the type islam represents is bad for those whose ideas or modes of living conflict with islamic belief. And the only possible way of resolving that conflict without extermination is through population programming-- reason and logic will lead to unhappy conclusions about islam, depending upon which side you're on. By dumbing-down populations, distracting them, bribing them, providing them with the basic necessities of existence , enslaving them by limiting choice in ideas, politics, information, life itself. That is how. (you get where I'm coming from here right?, as in: it's already happened here, though it's not complete.)

There seems to be an idea or belief that while reason and logic is necessary and applicable in the pursuit of the physical sciences, it is(largely) not so in the social realm. But it seems to me that because we must acknowledge our existence in that physical world, yes, we must, to deny it will surely lead to pain or non-existence(death, more correctly) in it(someone, somewhere, somehow will be held accountable-- that should be a "given".), logic and reason must be the basis upon which to interact with and navigate through the physical world(which includes humans).

I do not believe that a super-intelligent omni-potent elite can or will manage society effectively beyond creating a society of sheep or children, I believe they are taking the easy(and supremicist) way out through totalitarianism and collectivism. By destroying the capacity for individual thought and skepticism in a meaningful way, and promoting trivialism, groupthink, and shallowness of thought, they are ensuring dependence and servitude of their subjects.

Rationality is fluid. Rationality is more of a popular consensus than a truth or positive thing, at least in a government's definition(which is expressed through laws and legislation). What is rational may be the conclusion of a process of reasonable and logical thought, but not necessarily or definitively, that is important. What is rational/irrational today, can be different from yesterday or tomorrow, in fact diametrically opposite. I think there exists a pseudo-rationality that is protected by deception and coercion, which might be exemplified by the PC doctrine, though it goes deeper than that.
For instance the conveniently over-used and easily abused Pragmatic Theory of Truth. It can explain alot about our current world. I also see a pseudo-"enlightenment" perpetrated as well. I think the counter-culture revolution was a "war against rationality", masquerading as enlightenment. What an ego-trip.

So, can a society deficient of reasonable, rational, logical thought, (or with only small pockets of government sanctioned knowledge/intelligence centers that produce future managers who are programed to avoid truth, but are skilled in verbal/psychological manipulation and are destined to perpetuate the power-structure) actually function? No doubt, like a well oiled machine. Like a bunch of fricken zombies and worker-drones. Certain cute, ridiculous, annoying, non-threatening( to the power-structure) non-conformist ideas and behaviors are tolerated, even encouraged, which can be fun but it also gives a false sense of freedom, and in many ways further distracts from patterns of true servitude/subjugation.

There are certain things that matter to the government; power-control being primary, expansion being secondary, consolidation being solidified along the way. Changing the frame of reference as to the government's purpose for being until it becomes the anti-thesis of what certain Pieces of Paper say it is. All the while those Pieces of Paper are there for all to see, uncensored and original, still legally binding, but...... the words, sentences and phraseology are the product of language, few if any words have only one meaning, most words require context and background in order to distinguish what is being expressed/communicated.

But translations, definitions, interpretations and meanings can be twisted and in fact presented to be the opposite of the original.
This seems especially true with the written word, where often there is no follow-up questions for clarification in many individual documents. They contain statements of fact or propositions of truth, arrived at however(debate,deliberation,discussion,votes, etc) , at the time the meanings of the statements were understood and accepted. They were rational and made "sense".
As time goes by, ideas and attitudes change, knowledge is increased, experience is gained. But that's not all, and not all is progressive or evolutionary. Can change, any change, all change be only positive?? I seriously doubt that. Of course, we must maintain a positive attitude, right?(an unwritten law). Dwelling on certain things, exposing contradictions, demanding accountability and opposing authoritorianism is just so much whining.

A scientific hypothesis is an evolving endeaver, it's truth is never proven absolutely, if certain other known truths contradict the validity of a hypothesis, that does not necessarily mean that the actual thesis/prediction is "proven false". What it means is that for that hypothesis to maintain credibility it must either show that the contradictions are not a foundational component( like, is the contradiction actually relavent), and can be dropped or they can be accounted for by the principle of "exception to the rule", or if critical can it be modified while maintaining the integrity of the original idea? There are other ways of dealing with it, (I'm obviously not a scientist) but the point is that it is a process, and there are infinite variables which of course cannot be all accounted for.

That's why they(as far as I know) deal with probability-factors. That is the determinant of truth and reality. In fact, there is no one "truth", there are only individual truths. All the small truths cannot be put together and then be shown to be the BIG TRUTH. Because change and time is the real determinant of truth, it still remains only a question of probability. The highest probability is not that far from an absolute, some things for all practical purposes could be considered so, but technically they are not. While we may act like they are absolutes, because it works, like geometry and mathematics, it is simply a matter of convenience and practicality. A seemingly positive utilization of The Pragmatic Theory of Truth?

So whats all this got to do with "Islamic Reform" ? I think it's got alot to do with it. It clearly would have to have a scientific grounding. What is the objective? The subversion and corruption of a religion/culture, asap, into something compatible with the present dominant non-muslim world-view. Which is? "Humanism". Which is? Communism/socialism perestroika'd. Which is ? Just another totalitarian enemy of the Constitution of the U.S.A. that may succeed in putting the final nails in the coffin of possibly the one and only truely free society in the history of the world. Slaves, Indians... contradictions that were dealt with a long time ago, though not necessarily correctly. There are many pseudo-contradictions as well, they only contradict communist/leftist dogma, yet they are presented as contradicting freedom. And by sly use of language and information are accepted as real, mainly through repetition and beating-down intellectual resistance(Critical Theory).

The scientific grounding is based on behaviorist psychology and Pragmatism, it's simple, any good con-artist is an expert, all that's needed is access to and control of the target population. Getting in is the hard part. First you make them an offer they can't refuse(force), then you program them into acceptance. If they actually had a good life from the start it would be more difficult, but what we can offer them they will not be able to resist for long, they will be happy to have their cake and eat it too. They are used to not having to think, add some earthly pleasures to the mix and they'll find heaven on earth too.
Ah, but those Islamic texts, they CLEARLY say islam must dominate, infidels are evil subhumans who deserve scorn, enslavement or death. How to get around those ? Mohommed said; "our religion cannot be changed". He warned about the hypocrites.
But.
That was then, this is now........ Re-read first paragraph.

Bin Laden and Co. are acting rationally, they are in touch with logic and reason, in accordance with the islamic program. There's this talk of "literalism", as if that is the problem. So, what do they mean, "literalism"? Well of course what they mean is that something that is written on a piece of paper is meaningless or false if it contradicts what the anti-literalist believes(like our Constitution). Bin Laden and Co., Iran, Saudi-Arabia take islam seriously(as a program), they are the ambitious ones, regardless if they actually believe in "allah", they have achieved part of their objective, which is power and influence. What they need is a major victory to increase it and solidify it.

Basically what I'm saying is... it IS possible. No doubt my view is a minority, but I believe that the virtual voiding of the Constitution of the U.S.A. has already happened. The facts are there for anyone to examine----- YET the majority still BELIEVES or simply does not care. Words on a piece of paper are not magic nor do they possess actual power, it is people who wield power. And power is control. Control of human thought and behavior is the ultimate power, and it is ALWAYS what the ambitious ego-maniacs seek, for then the world revolves around them, they can be virtual gods on earth.
And they have the knowledge and technology to make it so.

I must say, there is no doubt we are marching towards a world socialist configuration of universal centralized governance, the nation-state concept is being little by little degraded and soon will be viewed as an obsolete relic of history.
B.F. Skinner wrote a book called "Freedom from Dignity" or something like that, supposedly it was not well recieved by those in policy making positions, I suspect it was simply considered imprudent to openly affirm his views. Much in the same way that Carroll Quigley's book, "Tragedy and Hope" was handled. In other words: "shhhh, the children are listening"(or is it the "patient"?).

During the Cold-War we had a 2-world-governments system for all practical purposes, this system was able to maintain a semi-control over nuclear weapons, this control was grievously breached when a 3rd party ideological enemy(Pakistan) obtained the "bomb". India, Israel, S. Africa, China all possessed nukes and other WMD, but ideological fanaticism to the point of murder-suicidal tendencies was not apparent in any of the various dogmas. This is not true about Islam. Islam has a special quality, it basically removes ALL responsibility for anything including cause and effect from the physical world and places it at the mercy of "allah's" will. Or whim. Islam also has an Armagedden prophesy. Combined with the imperialistic and brutal domination theme that constitutes the core(not the superficial stuff; instead the stuff that history bears out- not words, but deeds) message in Islamic dogma makes the current world situation extremely dangerous.

There is chaos in the Western world today unlike anything I have personally read about or observed. My studies have mostly been focused on the 20th century, with tracing back further to try to realize the sources or motives that brought about world-changing events. It is a mental chaos/confusion/apathy that seems to have descended upon large segments of populations in the West. There is physical chaos everywhere(as always), with war, terrorism, rape, pillage etc., but the mental confusion and lack of concern for reality seems to me to be especially acute, beyond anything for the last 100 years or so.

This indecisiveness, this denial of reality, the idea that reality can be manufactured/created/modified simply through positive-thinking or opinion-making propaganda is subjecting people to mass cognitive dissonance with no relief in sight. I see it as the result of Pragmatism and so-called "Humanism", along with the usual communist agitation.
This is not like the Cold-war or any other conflict of the past 100 years, or probably anytime before because of the self-deception and the lack of concrete identification of the enemy.
The wisdom, legality, and the consequences of American involvement in WW1 is a debatable subject. The same can be said about the Civil-War. Though I believe the foreign interventionism started by WW1 in the 20th century was the first domino that was the catalyst for the pattern that followed. American involvement in the 2nd WW is also debatable, oh, yes, it is. I think it's relatively safe to say that American intervention(breaking neutrality, then actual open war) in the 1st WW helped tip the scales and did effect the outcome. That outcome(a false victory and all that followed) provided the foundation for Hitler's rise to power.

Then there is(were) the Soviets. Who from day-one proclaimed the ultimate objective being "world revolution", with Moscow actively working to exploit, subvert and destroy Western "capitalist" civilization. In 1921 Lenin proposed the "New Economic Policy", a supposed change of outlook that ended the percieved Soviet threat. What it really was was a means to save the Soviet system that was on the verge of collapse. Stealing grain and selling it abroad during a famine, and accepting foreign aid(which was also pilfered) at the same time goes beyond incompetence, and becomes mass-murder. So the Soviets were saved by gullible or greedy Western "capitalists". That was a good idea eh?

Of course hindsight is a luxury the policy-makers did not have at the time. They did the best they could right ?, we're all human, we all make mistakes. Sorry, incompetence or ignorance is not an excuse. The fact that Wilson was elected as a non-interventionist but broke neutrality and found a way to enter the war after elected makes him a lying, corrupt, dispicable person. But he's supposed to be forgiven because he had good intentions. So did Hitler and Stalin. And the jihadis.

So after WWII the Soviets have increased their power and influence 1000%(just a guess of course), and were actually in a position to dominate half the world. From there on we had little choice but to engage in interventionism, to have remained passive would have allowed the Soviets to isolate us and dominate the rest of the world at our peril.

The "One World Government" has been advocated in higher circles for a long time, where it is seen as progressive, futuristic, and ultimately evolutionary(which it probably is). The existence of WMD was the catalyst along with technology that instilled a sense of urgency and is at the root of the radical measures taken over the last 50 years or so. This is at the root level, not at the mid, or surface level which propagates all sorts of nonsense. This is the only rational basis that I can see for the paradigm shift that has occured in such a short span of time. One that has been dragging us kicking and screaming to a destination that has not been explained and choice is not an option. What it is is an attempt to *force* evolution to happen in an extremely short period of time.
It should be noted, Carl Sagan's "Nuclear Winter" theory has been shown to have been a fraud, the outcome was intentionally "fixed". But it was bought hook, line and sinker by the West at the time and still today. The Soviets invested heavily in propagating the idea of unwinable/earth-destroying nuclear war, while at the same time they had a primary objective of developing a method of winning one.

Del,

You paint a depressing picture of group think amongst our egotistical academic and political elites, who are by natural wont blind to the mortal threat facing us. Your comments ring true. God help us.

It would appear that for us to mount a successful defense of civilization against Islam, not only the energy, but also the thinking must come from the bottom up--from the outsiders in the public at large.

For those who are blind to the Islamic threat ... we need to engage them intellectually and draw them into this struggle to preserve our freedoms.
--- posted by Stendec

Such engagement must involve two tasks:

1) Discredit multiculturalism as wishful and dangerous thinking

2) Expose Islam for what it is and Moslems for what they are.

Otherwise, everybody's hoping for the Unicorn to show up and save everybody, and that's no engagement at all.

Alarmed Pig Farmer,

While I agree that the multi-culti mindset is a huge barrier to confronting the Islamic threat to civilization, attacking multi-culti per se would merely alienate the moderate lefties even further. The psychological barrier would merely grow higher.

The key, I think, is to convince (and, by convince, I mean here honestly, not in some deceptive or manipulative way) the left that Islam motivates a false culture that does not properly deserve any toleration. In other words, Islam is a exceptional case.

A psychopathic cult cannot be the basis of a culture, even if the terminology derives from the same root word. To avoid ideological contradiction, leftists must not afford respect to Islam within multi-culti thinking because it is openly, violently, and immutably intolerant of "other cultures." Moreover, the Islamic mission is quite literally the death of (and the historical erasure from the earth of) all other cultures.

I hope the leftists will wake up to this reality, because without them in the fight, the world is in for a miserable century of perpetual violence, initiated by increasingly fanatical Muslims who are emboldened and abetted by misplaced multi-culti solicitude. It is really scary, but the fate of millions of innocents is in the hands of the left. Will they join the battle? Can they bring themselves to do the right thing? Islam must be confronted.

Stendec,
A psychopathic cult certainly can be the basis of a culture. Why not, other than when a more powerful/advanced one decides to destroy it?
Islam is a "false culture"?

Denial, denial, denial.

I also think one should look into the ROOT of "multi-culturalism". There one will find something much different from all the pretty slogans and feel-good rhetoric.
From my perspective Leftism itself is a "psychopatic cult". And I think history bears it out.

Most everything human is about POWER-CONTROL. The sooner people figure that out the sooner they can deal with reality.

From leftist perspective militant/terroristic islam is a convenient confirmation of leftist dogma. It matters not, and will matter not, what the jihadis true motivation is, the leftist will ONLY point to "inequality", exploitation, or poverty(and there can be many different ANGLES upon which to infer this) as the true cause. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT THE TRUTH IS.
To take leftism at face value and assume they are just "misguided" is to be manipulated into a position of weakness. The mindless fools, feel-gooders, and useful idiots cannot be reached intellectually, their capacity for logic and reason has been pre-empted or superceded by emotion. They allow their emotions to guide them in everything, they only use their intellect to rationalize(in the dishonest sense) those beliefs and actions.

I don't believe the real movers and shakers and strategists at the core of the leftist world are ignorant about Islam, and I don't believe the current administration is either.
While it may stroke egos to make that claim, because it infers a superiority, it does not wash with me. One reason to cling to that assumption is to maintain a denial of facts that point to what I've been saying all along. To acknowledge that islam can be "corrupted", subverted and turned on it's head one would have to consider the same thing being done elsewhere. That a version of 1984 or Brave New World has in fact been implemented, and is being implemented.

Of course those thoughts are "crazy". How convenient. Funny how that definition can be changed, depending whose in charge of making that determination.

"A psychopathic cult certainly can be the basis of a culture. Why not, other than when a more powerful/advanced one decides to destroy it?"

-- posted by Kentim

Kentim,

I see your point (maybe you will disagree with that assessment), but to me a "culture" implies the existence of independently (independent from other cultures) developed art, science, literature, architecture, etc. Islam is about piratical parasitism, basically. And the left does not see this, excepting perhaps, as you say, the power hungry leftist ideologues at the head of the movement, who are trying to manipulate their way by any means to absolute control of everything.

Certainly power, as you say, is at the root of most things behavioral. The Islamic mullahs, I am sure, love (and are protecting) the almost absolute power they enjoy after only the small investment of a 3rd grade education. And the burqa thing and lovely Islamic concepts of "plowing the tilth" is certainly about power of men to utterly dominate women.

Still, I think that that great mass of well-meaning leftists (I am speaking here primarily of leftists in the USA, who have the experience of, but perhaps not the full appreciation for, liberal democracy and the republican structure of government) who, as you say, think by their emotions, can be brought around.

An everyday leftie will emotionally react, in nothing flat, to a Nazi sympathizer, for instance. That emotion can be, and rightly should be, tapped to get a reaction against an Islamic sympathizer. So, in any particular case, if an intellectual argument is useless then an emotional argument should work.

And I agree with you that those for whom the truth does not matter, cannot be influenced and should be isolated and ostracized. Incidentally, during the last election campaign circus, I saw what you are seeing coming out of the leftist commentators (almost all the commentators being leftist in the USA) and rushed to the bookstore to buy a copy of 1984 to have another read.

Now, to stop this rambling, here is an attempt to summarize the discussion:

The ideologues at the head of the leftist movement are the only ones in that movement susceptible to intellectual engagement on the issue at hand (resistance to Islam). But these leaders are willfully ignoring the truth which they already know but cynically manipulate in their quest for power. Other people in power in the government--leftist and non-leftist alike-- don't care, because they are in power and that is all that matters to them. The large number of rank and file lefties are guided by emotion and not by intellectual argument at all. Presumably, they follow their leaders only because of beguiling charm or impressive oratory that appeals to those same controlling emotions. Therefore, in recruiting lefties to fight the good fight against Islamic depredation, one should ignore the leftist leaders and appeal to the rank and file using emotional arguments.

Does that work?

Hello Stendec,

"Does that work?"
Dunno. You can give it a shot.
I personally don't have much time for leftists. I think that the uncommitted middle is larger and more important. And lots of people don't even know the source(Marxism in whatever version(humanism?) of their viewpoint, they are just programed by the schools, media and various government institutions.
Removing leftists from power and destroying leftism is what I'm about(but that's not all).
___

Bush's propagation of Islam certainly ties a lot of people hands too.
___

I don't think the leftists follow the leaders because of charm or oratory, I think people adopt leftist ideas and concepts because their emotions are appealed to and exploited. For instance, people generally have a problem with injustice, because they realize it could happen to themselves(there is an inherrent fear) therefore they would like to encourage justice and fairness. This is something the leftist ideology taps into. The problem is that much of what they claim to be injustice is not so, and in fact their remedies will only end up perpetrating injustice upon others(classwar,minority politics). But they don't care, because in their mind it is okay because, well, it dos'nt matter. It just does not matter.
They percieve an injustice and feel so bad about it that they just must do something about it, nevermind that it is simply the product of an imperfect world, or part of the choices, risks and consequences of living in a free society. That is not acceptable, SOMETHING MUST BE DONE, THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD FIX IT!!
There's other emotions such as guilt, envy, entitlement they tap into.
The leftist believes everything should be politicized, and it basically is that way now, but that is just a tactic to reach more people. And if everything is politicized, then government/politicians must certainly be involved in everything. Eventually everyone will be working for the government. Hehe. That's the goal.

I think there is a problem with the whole left-right political construct(and political parties in general). I believe it is basically a set-up. It is an illusion of choice. I don't believe they really "balance" each other. And I don't believe they are opposites.
How, why? In a nutshell-- the Repubs are Pragmatic Utopians, and the Dems are Marxist Utopians. Or,,,, The Repubs are socialists and the Dems are communists. Of course there are a few individual exceptions.
___

The difference between me and the "opposition" party's interest in "1984" is that I did'nt just start considering it when some politician was elected. It appears to me it's been in progress for over 100 years. It's on auto-pilot. And I doubt it can be stopped.
They will eventually get control of the internet.

Just what the hell, who the hell do these people think they are???????

These people are living in another dimension.
http://pdamerica.org/

Kentim,

I guess this is somewhat OT, but, to answer your question "who are these people?" (paraphrased)here goes:

"Progressives" (at the web site you cited) are the ones who closely fit your model of creep toward 1984. A progressive is a leftist who measures "progress" as the process of moving ideologically in the leftward direction.

As far as they are concerned, once advances have been made leftward a certain distance, that location becomes the new "center." Movement back to the right is never permitted, not even to meet radically changed economic or international geostrategic circumstances.

These folks definitely are not believers in balance between right and left. They seek the permanent vanquishment and annihilation of the right. When things nudge right even a little bit, they scream bloody murder, as now during the Alito hearings. Of course, bloody murder (liquidation) of political opponents, rewriting of history, reeducation camps, and thought police are the inevitable destination of their ideological vector.

The progressives are dominating the Democrat Party at the moment, it is say to say.

I am sure you realize all of this. But this group (progressives generally), by facilitating the Islamic assault on freedom, today threatens our national survival (they seem to even wish for its destruction) and the survival of our cultural values and institutions. So let me say it here: they should be ashamed.

That's "sad to say," not "say to say."

Yeah, I definitely understand what you're saying.
What they use is the Hegelian Dialectical Process, which you are probably aware of-- thesis+anti-thesis= synthesis.(dialogue-compromise-consensus). Truth+lie= corruption. That's how the "frame of reference" is changed.

That's how BOTH parties have been dragged to the left.