Aug 29, 2007

Cargo Cult Multiculturalism

"It's difficult to understand different cultures sometimes. We get set in our own ways and can only picture life the way we live it. How do we open ourselves up to understand that there are more people in this world who do things differently? What makes one culture more right than another? I ask myself questions like these and realize that when the soccer balls are dropping, kids playing and having fun is a good thing no matter what cultural or religious beliefs you may have."
~ Chief Warrant Officer 4 Princeton Soh (Operation Soccer Chopper)

Like many, I find myself hard-pressed to dare question the benevolence or nobility in wanting to bring a bit of joy into the lives of the children of Afghanistan, but I find myself unable to endorse the notion of the cultural or moral equivalence of anachronistic Islamic and contemporary Christian societies. Often times it's the children and those whom we perceive to be the innocent victims of war that eventually will succeed in trying the discipline of our nation's fighting men. It is above all the very innocence of a child that has the innate power to somehow ennoble the uncivilized in the eyes of the suitably disposed.

CWO Soh finds himself asking the question "What makes one culture more right than another?" Well, to quote Ayn Rand "A culture that values freedom, progress, reason and science, for instance, is good; one that values oppression, stagnation, mysticism, and ignorance is not." If CWO Princeton Soh and the rest of our fighting men in Afghanistan continue to find themselves unable to draw a distinction between the two, then we'll either follow in the footsteps of the mythical John Frum leaving the Afghanis waiting patiently for the return of the mechanical black dragons that drop Snickers bars and soccer balls from the heavens or at the mercy of another anachronistic Islamic regime.

CWO Princeton Soh's story should serve as a lesson to us all of how cultural relativism inevitably drags moral relativism in it's wake. If what is wrong for one society can somehow be right for another, then what is wrong for one generation can justifiably be right for the next. If we continue to find ourselves compelled in the "spirit of multiculturalism" to accommodate and appease these "noble savages" and feel that our culture is no better than theirs then perhaps it's high time that we pack up the rest of our soccer balls and just head home.

HT - LGF and Michelle Malkin


Aug 27, 2007

Jihad: From Jakarta To The Whitehouse

When I first saw the recently released Indonesian translation of Barack Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming The American Dream", over here in Southeast Asia I was completely taken aback not only by the violent imagery in new title of the book, "Menerjang Harapan: Dari Jakarta Menuju Gedung Putih", but by the fact that it was not really a translation at all, but rather a completely different title than the original book.

A correct translation of the title of Obama's book would have been "Keberanian Harapan: Pemikiran Untuk Meraih Kembali Impian America" which translates into "Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming The American Dream". However, the title for the Indonesian translation of Barack Obama's book is "Menerjang Harapan: Dari Jakarta Menuju Gedung Putih" which translates into "Assault Hope: From Jakarta to the White House".

The problem with direct translations is that often times they never make sense. The words "menerjang" (assault or attack) and "harapan" (hope or expectation) make sense when used separately, but used together, the term "menerjang harapan" makes no sense in Indonesian. But while the term makes no sense, it does however present a mental picture to the native Indonesian speaker, the imagery of a "hopeful assault" a "struggle for victory" or to put it more bluntly, a "jihad", or as the Indonesians see it, Obama's "jihad" for the Whitehouse. For the native Indonesian speaker, this figurative language creates a mental image whereas the translation of the book's title can actually come to mean "Jihad: From Jakarta To The Whitehouse".

Why would the publishers drastically change the title of the book for the Indonesian translation and make use of such figurative language? Your guess is as good as mine, but it would seem that Barack Obama is quite interested with promoting himself in Southeast Asia as a crusader for the cause of Indonesia's Muslims.

I've only just picked up the book, but judging from the changed title I'm sure we're in for a lot more surprises inside.


Aug 26, 2007

Pelosi: Unlikely Advocate For Women's Equality

On the 24th of August, Speaker Nancy Pelosi released the following statement commemorating Women's Equality Day, the 87th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment, an amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote in the United States. Women's Equality Day will be celebrated on Sunday, August the 26th in the United Stated.

In what's become typical of Nancy Pelosi's lack of dignity, grace and leadership she would once again use the occasion as an opportunity to slam the Executive branch of our government and promote her socialist agenda. But what was even more profoundly disturbing was Pelosi's hypocritical attempt to pick up the baton and lead the crusade for women's equality around the world.

"We must remain vigilant in the fight for equality for women. Those who came before us would expect no less. Let us honor our history and their sacrifice by continuing through our voices and our actions to support our sisters throughout the nation and the world until true equality is no longer a goal, but a reality."

As you may recall, Nancy Pelosi is the same women that only a few months earlier naively donned a hijab and then proceeded to blaze a trail of sociopolitical destruction through the Middle East under the guise of Congressional oversight.

Perhaps Ms. Nancy Pelosi could start her crusade by honoring the sacrifices of women like Zilla Huma Usman and countless other women throughout the world who have been beaten and threatened and in many cases killed for refusing to wear the hijab. The very same hijab that Nancy Pelosi submissively chose to adorn so that she might not offend her Middle Eastern hosts.

Related Posts

Submission of the Dhimmicrats


Aug 25, 2007

Castro's Death - Fake But Accurate


Despite Cuba's insistence that Fidel Castro remains alive, Hollywood, the MSM and Time Magazine all wait with bated breath for the official confirmation on the demise of their favourite dictator while Miami prepares to party.


Rumor has it Fidel Castro is dead — once again


Aug 24, 2007

Where are God's Christian Warriors?

A newspaper catering to Malaysia's ethnic Indians published a front-page apology Thursday after causing an outrage by printing an image of Jesus Christ holding a cigarette. Malaysia's national news agency Bernama would report that, Malaysia's Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi slammed the picture as hurtful and an insult to Christians, and called on people not to play with religion. Malaysia's Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi would further state -- "If the Christians get to know about it, it will create problems". Well, guess what Mr. Badawi, the Christians have already found out about it, and needless to say, many of us are still befuddled. Where is the global outrage, the violent worldwide protests and the calls to behead those who insult Christianity?

Leading in what Charles Johnson of LGF would describe as "CNN's Moral Equivalence Marathon" would be veteran reporter Christiane Amanpour who would endeavor to prove throughout a "unprecedented six-hour television event," that there exists no moral or ethical hierarchy between the three Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and that all three religions are equally capable of producing virulent warriors in support of their beliefs. The problem is that CNN's viewers and the world hardly need to be convinced that Islam is capable of producing violent warriors, and so Amanpour's crusade (for lack of a better word) is to convince her viewers that Christianity and Judaism are just as bad. And so, a preview for the segment "God's Christian Warriors" juxtaposes file footage from the bombing of an abortion clinic in into segments of her interview with the late Jerry Falwell.

The majority of the segment "God's Christian Warriors" however would focus on a Christian fundamentalist movement called "Battlecry" and an interview with it's founder Ron Luce. Accompanied by an ominous soundtrack, Amanpour would describe the scene at the Battlecry event as - "22,000 screaming teenagers and adults, Christian conservatives armed with their faith and ready to do battle."

It was at this point in the show that Amanpour might have come to the realization that she was about to falter and yet like Monty Python's Black Knight she continued. The coup de grâce would be delivered with Amanpour's sanctimoniously smug remark where she had the audacity to compare the modest dress of the girls in attendance to that of the Taliban.

John with Verum Serum would have these words to say

"Amanpour’s strained and tendentious effort at secularist fear mongering and moral equivalence is finally brought down under the weight of its own desperation. Though she tries repeatedly to put frightening words in other’s mouths, in the end there’s just nothing there, or not much anyway..."

And so, back to our original question - "Where is the global outrage, the violent worldwide protests and the calls to behead those who insult Christianity?" Armed solely with their faith rather than machetes, the Christians it would seem are much more interested in collecting souls rather than collecting heads.


Aug 23, 2007

Exposing God's Muslim Warriors

In a six hour documentary entitled "God's Warriors" CNN reports on fundamentalism in the three major Abrahamic religions – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. For the segment entitled "God's Muslim Warriors", Christiane Amanpour speaks with Rehan Seyam an American-born Muslim who lives in New Jersey and who is allegedly part of a new generation of Muslim-Americans who are suddenly finding themselves compelled to embrace their faith.

In a fallacious appeal to emotion CNN allows Rehan Seyam to recall an improbable anecdote where she claims to have been intimidated and tormented by a man who sang "The 12 Days of Christmas" using insulting lyrics about terrorism and Osama bin Laden. Instead of avoiding the man or running off like any normal person might do, the alleged victim would courageously confront her oppressor and boldly ask "Do I look like a terrorist to you?" In an effort to support Mrs. Seyam's story, CNN would claim that stories like Mrs. Rehan Seyam's are "not altogether uncommon" and then à la Michael Moore proceeds to cite statistics that would appear to substantiate Mrs. Rehan Seyam's claim. The viewer is needless to say, led to a predicable and self-evident conclusion.

The reality is that Mrs. Rehan Seyam and individuals like her represent a new generation of self-radicalized Muslim-American extremists who have come to reject Western cultural values and who are continuously abusing a nation's tolerance. By Mrs. Rehan's own admission, her commitment to Islam while living in a "materialistic America" is her own "jihad". Lets not kid ourselves, these are hardly the words of a "victim" desirous solely of expressing her religious beliefs without persecution.

Equipped with a degree in applied clinical psychology Mrs. Rehan Seyam has the audacity to claim that "people look at me as if I am threatening and I do not feel like I am threatening looking ... I don't feel I should instill fear in anybody's heart ..." By her own admission, she is making people anxious and uncomfortable, and that is entirely understandable considering the fact that we happen to be at war with Mrs. Rehan Seyam's co-religionists who have already attacked our homeland once before. It's hardly likely that Mrs. Rehan Seyam's is oblivious to the anxiety that she puts many Americans through with her arrogant display of chauvinism. So we are left with a nagging question, why does she do it?

Simply put, it's a political statement and a repudiation of everything that our nation stands for, it is the so-called moderate's way of instinctively showing their fraternal support for their violent co-religionists. Inadvertently, Mrs. Rehan Seyam makes it quite clear that the hijab for her is a symbol of Islamic self-assertion and ethnic chauvinism, it is a reactive revolutionary response and a rejection to assimilation and integration. You might notice that many of these displays of Islamic self-assertion and ethnic chauvinism only became popular after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Prior to September 11th it was a rare occurrence to find someone asking if they can pray before a flight departure or insisting to wear a hijab. You'd be hard pressed to find a cabdriver who would refuse a passenger simply because he was carrying a bottle of wine and you can rest assured that no one would have the audacity to demand that you finance and build "foot basins" for them to wash their feet.

It goes without saying that the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001 in fact played an instrumental role in radicalizing many individuals such as Rehan Seyam not only in the United States, but around the world. The challenge the West faces is to determine not only the source of the radicalization, but who has already been radicalized and to what degree. Alluding to her insignificance and professing a dualistic worldview, Rehan Seyam's closing comments might actually shed some light into the source of her radicalization - "I'm not here to live my life and do whatever I want. I'm here to worship God,"... "I don't think that everybody has that, and I think that I'm lucky for it."


Aug 21, 2007

Islam's Mythical Moderates

My first interaction with Islam and with Muslims would be in the late 80's when I would find myself, a single American expatriate living and working in Singapore. Often traveling on business in the region to Indonesia and Malaysia I would slowly begin to pick up the language out of necessity, and familiarize myself with the local customs. Looking back, and despite the warnings from those fellow expatriates that had traveled the path before me, I eventually committed the cardinal sin of the "matt salleh" and found myself dating my Malay secretary.

Stunningly beautiful and English speaking with flowing black hair, long slender legs and a short business skirt, she seemed so contemporary and so modern compared to the many of the other Indonesians and Malays that I had seen throughout my travels. Professing herself to be devout in her faith, she saw herself as a contemporary Muslim as opposed to an anachronism. It's interesting to imagine how she might have reacted back then in being labeled a "moderate", a word that seems to have a veiled and pejorative implication that she was not a "complete Muslim". Would an outward display of ethnic and religious chauvinism, perhaps electing to don a tudung make her more complete in the eyes of her accusers? Perhaps refusing to date someone outside of her religion? Or would it require something more extreme? Looking back, the ambition, the confidence and the intelligence of this girl seemed in many ways to delineate for me the black and white verities of an inchoate religion riddled with contradictions and riven by internal feuds over just how to define itself.

Ironically, provocative parallels exist between the ideology of the today's advocate of Islamic extremism and that of the moral relativist, with many of the so-called extremists often adopting an authoritative and yet cavalier attitude towards their own religion by cherry-picking what they themselves consider to be inerrant passages from the Sunnah and Hadith.

But while Islam struggles on how to define itself, the West has found themselves struggling as well, struggling to define Islam and Muslims by hastily adopting the terms "moderate" and "extremist" in what history might one day recognize as nothing more than a sophomoric attempt to differentiate the good Muslim from the bad Muslim. Despite their ambiguity, these divisive, imprecise and superficial terms have nonetheless become the lexicon of a post 9/11 world. There is an inherent power in words, often times we fail to understand exactly just how powerful communication is, and in a increasingly globalized world we need to not only be conscious of not just what we say, but in how our communication is interpreted, perceived and ultimately understood. In a recent post, I would attempt to delve deeper into the subject and it is worth reading.

We are engaged in a ideological struggle with a human anamoly, not so much an extremist, but with an anachronism who has found themselves perpetually trapped in time and sentenced in their own minds to pace a "trodden path" for eternity. An anachronism who can only achieve victory by turning back the hands of time. Our allies are not moderates willing to subject themselves to this regression in any measure of the term, and to call them such is nothing more than a travesty. They are contemporaries, contemporary Muslims not moderates.


Aug 18, 2007

Rendezvous With Destiny - Part 3

"They seek to establish a radical Islamic caliphate, so they can impose a brutal new order on unwilling people, much as Nazis and communists sought to do in the last century. This enemy will accept no compromise with the civilized world ... Against this kind of enemy, there is only one effective response: We must go on the offense, stay on the offense, and take the fight to them." ~ President George W. Bush - 1 May 2007

It takes much more than bravado and military might to win, it takes among other things a willingness to do that which you think you can't and a determination to accept nothing but victory. But most importantly, it takes moral self-righteousness and self-confidence two essential elements that up until now, we still seem to be lacking.

Shorty after 9/11 the cracks would begin to appear in our resolve. The first indication should have been when Americans couldn't name their enemy for fear of offending Muslims around the globe. Americans meekly settled the term "War On Terrorism", thereby going to war with an "intangible tactic" rather than with an actual enemy. Next would be the Pentagon's code name for our military buildup, "Operation Infinite Justice". Denouncing the name as unislamic, Muslims fervently protested against the term "infinite justice" and stated that only Allah is qualified to administer "infinite justice". Instead of telling our adversaries to go and pound sand, we chose to subjugate ourselves to Muslim protestations and after consultations agreed to refer to our mission as "Operation Enduring Freedom".

On the 20th of September 2001 President George W. Bush would address a nation and reaffirm our commitment to freedom and liberty -- "...this will be an age of liberty, here and across the world ... Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom -- the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time -- now depends on us". And yet on the 26th of January 2004, rhetoric would come face to face with reality. A reality that becomes painfully evident in article three of Afghanistan's new constitution, that "No law shall contravene the tenets and provisions of the holy religion of Islam in Afghanistan." Both Afghanistan's and Iraq's constitutions were not forged in in the fires of liberty and freedom, but in the fires of accommodation and appeasement. Accommodation and appeasement that history has proven time and time again to be the path to disaster.

Epitomizing our government's incompetence on Islam, Sharia and more importantly taqiyya, on the 27th of May 2007 George W. Bush would state -- "In Iraq and Afghanistan, millions have shown their desire to be free. We are determined to help them secure their liberty. Our troops are helping them build democracies that respect the rights of their people, uphold the rule of law, and fight extremists alongside America in the war on terror." No President Bush, millions have not shown their desire to be free, they have shown their desire to be ruled by fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) and despite being warned countless times of the threat that an Islamic caliphate poses to our nation you have chosen to aid and abet our adversaries with not just our nation's treasure, but with the blood of American citizens. Allowing themselves to be manipulated by our enemies, our nation's leadership have conscientiously chosen accommodation, appeasement and consensus over liberty, freedom and victory.

Osama Bin Laden once said that "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse." For the so-called moderate Muslims in South and Southeast Asia the strong horse is undeniably the one who's message conveys with it clarity and certainty as opposed to obscurity and uncertainty. The leadership of Al Qaeda and Hizb ut-Tahrir, speak often of America's and the West's decline and malevolence, attempting to stir up and ignite ideological passions of a global caliphate. Emboldened by what they perceive to be a morally and spiritually weakened West, Hizb ut-Tahrir has now thrown down the gauntlet.

Since 9/11 and perhaps for the first time in twenty years, this has become one of the most dangerous developments I have personally seen and witnessed in Southeast Asia. While the movement has been fairly active in the past and even before 9/11, it was not until late 2005 that the movement began to really pick up steam with it's recruitment efforts with not just the proletariat but with the so-called moderates and urban elite as well. In May of 2003, the Heritage Foundation would issue a report entitled "Hizb ut-Tahrir: An Emerging Threat to U.S. Interests in Central Asia". With well over one million supporters and representation in over 40 countries around the globe, Hizb ut-Tahrir is not hiding in a cave and they won't be going anywhere without a fight. A fight against America and the West that Hizb ut-Tahrir feels confident of winning.


Aug 16, 2007

Rendezvous With Destiny - Part 2

"You gain strength, courage, and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face. You must do the thing which you think you cannot do." ~ Eleanor Roosevelt

Often times I wonder how the historians of the future will look back on the events that led up to World War III and find themselves perplexed at how the "greatest generation" could have given birth to the what could quite conceivably come to be known as the "worst generation", a generation that chose disgrace over danger.

Before going into the consequences or the reasons for our inability to act decisively against Islamic totalitarianism, imagine for just a moment that in the aftermath the attacks of 11 September that the United States had a precedent for the challenges ahead that we faced.

Interestingly enough, that precedent that can be found in a telegram sent from Secretary of State James F. Byrnes in 1945, transmitting the radio remarks of John Carter Vincent, head of the Office of Far Eastern Affairs, to General Douglas MacArthur, the supreme commander of the Allied Powers in Japan.


The telegram reads:

"QUOTE -- Shintoism, insofar as it is a religion of individual Japanese, is not to be interfered with. Shintoism, however insofar as it is directed by the Japanese Government, and is a measure enforced from above by the government, is to be done away with. People will not be taxed to support National Shinto and there will be no place for Shintoism in the schools. Shintoism as a state religion -- National Shinto, that is -- will go. Our policy on this goes beyond Shinto. The dissemination of Japanese militaristic and ultra-nationalistic ideology in any form will be completely suppressed. And the Japanese Government will be required to cease financial and other support of Shinto establishments -- UNQUOTE."

In a paper entitled "No Substitute for Victory" The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism, John David Lewis cites a "nation's moral self-confidence" as the main reason for our impotence and inability to act decisively. This is not a paper that you should read, it is a paper that you must read despite it's length.

While not with the same eloquence and prose, much of the what Dr. Lewis mentions with regards to our inability to act has been often cited here. Dr. Lewis liberally cites multiculturalism as a factor that inhibits us to act and also cites the resolve needed to "filet the political attributes from the religion of Islam" as an imperative if we are ever going to ensure peace, two subjects that have often been addressed here. In part three I will endeavour to expand on the reasons for our inability to act and how Hizb ut-Tahrir might actually present us with one last chance.

HT: Gus Van Horn


Aug 14, 2007

Rendezvous With Destiny - Part 1

This past weekend's events in Jakarta, Indonesia should have been a start reminder and a wakeup call to the West of the terrible dangers the world is currently facing in the dark days ahead. To paraphrase Franklin D. Roosevelt, the experience of the past six years should have proven to us beyond a doubt that no nation can appease the the advocates of Islam. No man can tame a tiger into a kitten by stroking it. There can be no appeasement with ruthlessness. There can be no reasoning with an incendiary bomb. We should have, as a viable nation come to the realization that we can have peace with the Islam only at the price of total surrender.

And therein lies the first mental stumbling block that we have yet to overcome, which is the inability to name our enemy. To highlight the profound sophistry, if Islam is a religion of peace, then we seem to be at war with peace.

Historically, the fascism and totalitarianism of the past have for the most part been secular in nature whereas the fascism and totalitarianism that we face today is religious. In Islamic usage, civil society and the congregation of the faithful are conterminous and unlike other religions, Islam is and has always been as much a socio-political ideology as it is a religion. This isn't merely an opinion or speculation on our part, Hizb ut-Tahrir makes their intentions quite clear when they state --

" by Islam refers to all aspects of our relationships, all must be in line with Islam. Therefore downplaying the importance of the Khilafah/Islamic State/Imamah in order to emphasize personal rectification is akin to missing salah (prayer) in order to conserve energy for siyam (fasting)..."

What we witnessing now firsthand is not only historical rebirth of fascism and totalitarianism now on the march, but the culmination of our policies of accommodation and appeasement and the fateful consequences of Western fecklessness.

In the aftermath of the attack on Pearl Harbor, it's almost impossible for us to image that Americans would have found themselves on their knees constructing "giant penis-venerating shrines" in the nation's airports to accommodate pious Japanese travelers or that our president Franklin D. Roosevelt and the State Department would be donning kimonos and yukatas as they flitted around from sushi bar to teahouse shouting "kampai" and sipping sake and green tea. Surely none of us could ever imagine our President at the time profusely and tirelessly professing the glorious wonders of Shintoism as he removed his shoes and dedicated a plethora of new Shinto shrines around the country.

If you find yourself outraged and asking what the hell went wrong, then you are not alone. In a previous post here I would offer an opinion on what went wrong which can be summed up in the following -- and that is the belief "that all cultures, from that of a spirits-worshiping tribe to that of an advanced industrial civilization, are all equal in value." If we can affirm the preceding statement, one of the central tenets of multiculturalism, then the hypocrisy in our mission and our self-proclaimed vocation to spread freedom and democracy in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere around the globe becomes painfully evident. In other words, we've lost.

It's often been said that ~ "The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage."

Having seen the abyss firsthand and with a prescience of what is to come, these final words from Ronald Reagan reflect with great clarity the danger ahead. "You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness."


Aug 13, 2007

Hizb ut-Tahrir Propaganda Videos

In the spirit of the late Leni Riefenstahl and Michael Moore, Hizb ut-Tahrir has utilized slick professionally produced propaganda videos like the ones you see below to spread their message calling for the return of a global caliphate. Videos like the ones below, are being distributed and sold in VCD format in the night markets and outside the mosques in Southeast Asia for less than US1.50 a piece.

Part Two

Part Three

Part Four

Part Five

Several times in history we have had quasi-fascist movements calling for a new world and each time we rose to the challenge. Will it be different this time? I'm not so sure. To quote Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, I find it hard to believe that this generation will be able to muster the courage to fight for the sort of imperfect humanity which is willing to abort innocent lives while sanctifying those of criminals, or which undermines it's own principles by banning moral absolutes as politically incorrect.


Aug 12, 2007

The Rise Of The Second Caliphate

Sunday afternoon over 100 thousand activists crowded into the Bung Karno Stadium in Jakarta, Indonesia shouting "Allah hu Akbar" and denouncing democracy and secularism the attendees called for the return of a global caliphate, a one world Islamic state. Many of the Indonesian attendees had traveled for hours from smaller villages and towns outside the capitol to attend the massive rally in Jakarta. Despite his plans to address the rally, Indonesian authorities requested that cleric Abu Bakar Ba'asyir refrain due to security concerns. Two other radical speakers from Australia and Britain who had planned to speak at the rally and had landed in Jakarta on Friday were refused permission to enter the country. Smaller simultaneous conferences in support of this rally were help in various other countries including Britain, Denmark, Malaysia, Netherlands, Pakistan and Palestine.

Hizb ut-Tahrir is an international, Islamist political party whose goal is to unite all Muslim countries in a unitary Islamic state or caliphate, ruled by Shariah law and headed by a Caliph. Banned in several countries including China and Saudi Arabia, Hizb ut-Tahrir is flourishing in the West under the guise and pretense of "freedom of religion", tolerance and you guessed it, multiculturalism. At times employing violent symbolic imagery the leaders of Hizb ut-Tahrir in England preach their hatred of democracy, freedom and secularism and call for the overthrow of the government with impunity. Enfeebled by their own inconsistencies and bound by the chains of political correctness, England's commitment to - and in defense of human dignity, individual freedom and social justice has become like a candle in the wind.

And while a hapless Saint George finds himself hopelessly sliding down the dragon's throat in England, you'd think that someone might have noticed the recrudescent rise of political Islam in Southeast Asia. Surely someone would have noticed what was happening in small towns and the and villages. Well... think again.

On the 22th of May, America's ambassador-designate to Indonesia, Cameron Hume would give a glowing assessment on Indonesia to the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations citing, of all things, the success of U.S. policies in promoting Democracy in Indonesia. Two days later, on the 24th of May, I would post an article here entitled "Challenges Ahead For Cameron Hume" where I would dispute and question the veracity of some of the claims made in Mr. Cameron Hume's testimony. Mr. Hume either was not aware or didn't seem to think it necessary to inform the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations that US tax dollars have been inadvertently spent in Indonesia to promote the establishment of a caliphate and the promotion of Shariah law. Next time try to remember, feets on the ground in Southeast Asia trump brains in think tanks in Washington every time sir.

With over one billion adherents spanning the globe, it's often been believed that Islam is too big and too diverse for any coherent political action and the West still seems to find themselves unable to accept the fact that Islam is as much a political ideology as it is a religious one. Being perhaps one of the most protean belief systems on the planet it's even more difficult to imagine that Islam could ever become a single amalgam. Recent events in Indonesia might end up making the unthinkable become a reality.


Aug 11, 2007

Jackie Mason on Making Muslims Happy

With his own distinctive style and with a clever twist of subtle sarcasm comedian Jackie Mason questions a nation's collective madness in appeasing those "humble, sweet gentle souls". Enjoy!

And for Christ's sake, what is it with the "foot basins" already? Will America's collective madness never end?

Related Posts:

"All Your Toilets Are Belong To Us"

"Airport Toilet Proselytization"


Aug 10, 2007

Michael Medved Shows His Cards

In a recent column entitled "Why not bomb Mecca?", conservative pundit Michael Medved excoriates Tom Tancredo describing him as an "unhinged and wildly irresponsible" and a "two-bit demagogue". What was Tom Tancredo's crime you might ask? Tancredo was hypothesizing on how our nation might induce moderate Muslims to rein in their violent co-religionists and then suggested to small group of supporters that perhaps the threat of a retaliatory attack on Mecca or Medina might serve as a deterrent in global war against Islamic extremism. Tancredo's remarks would make him a target for the long knives.

Besides eviscerating Tom Tancredo, much of Michael Medved's 1,944 word screed is devoted to the author's defeatist fantasies where the reader is relentlessly subjected to Mr. Medved's namby-pamby hand-wringing over what might happen if the natives get any more restless than they already are. At the height of Mr. Medved's self-flagellation he compares a retaliatory attack on Islam's holy cities to the attacks and Hiroshima and Nagasaki where he then proceeds to agonize over just how many angry Muslims we will eventually have to kill in order to finally bring about peace. And this is really what encapsulates the overall theme of Mr. Medved's long-winded essay, that our resolve is or should be incumbent on the size and tenacity of our adversaries. To put it bluntly, Michael Medved believes that the cost of freedom under these circumstances comes at much too high of a price.

Michael Medved offers no alternative course of action of his own other than reigning in our freedom of speech out of the fear that we might further anger our adversaries and curling up in a fetal position under the dining room table while we wait with bated breath for the next big attack. While Michael Medved does not come right and and say it, the reader is left with the implication that our only salvation lies in doing everything in our power to make the Muslims happy. While I wouldn't want to distract anyone from "staying the course" and expediting the construction of "foot basins" and special prayer rooms, the entire drama gives me a sense of deja vu.

I'm sure there are many will interpret Michael Medved's sanctimonious sermonizing as a voice of reason and moderation, which of course is something that we are going to be in need of when three or four of our cities erupt into nuclear fireballs. It's comforting to know that Mr. Medved will there urging us to show restraint.

History is replete with individuals like Michael Medved who eventually find their usefulness as an arbitrator, in the years ahead it will be people like Mr. Medved who make sure that our children and grandchildren get put in the "good line".


Aug 8, 2007

The Doctrine of Collective Responsibility

"It is absolutely outrageous and reprehensible for anyone to suggest attacks on holy sites, whether they are Muslim, Christian, Jewish or those of any other religion ... Any suggestion that the defense of the American homeland or the defense of American interests would ever justify attacking holy sites or religious sites is just simply an idea that goes against the length or breadth of US history"

State Department spokesman Tom Casey

Perhaps one of the greatest tragedies in contemporary United States history has been the gross usurpation of our nation's State Department by those ignorant of history and who would relentlessly promote and pursue a self-destructive and treasonous policy of accommodation and appeasement.

Besides being ignorant of our nation's history, it is even more disturbing that a State Department spokesman would have the audacity to defile the sacrifices of those men and women who fought in the Battle of Monte Cassino or those who paved the way to victory for the dropping of the atomic bombs on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It goes without saying that those fateful decisions made at the time were controversial, but were nonetheless, necessary at the time, not only to ensure victory but to save American lives.

After 9/11 and up until now our policy with Pakistan's military dictatorship as well as Saudi Arabia has undeniably been one of accommodation and appeasement. A policy that history has repeatably shown us, leads to disaster. Why the United States would embark of on such a policy that has historically proven to be disastrous remains a mystery to many and can perhaps only be understood in the context of the zeitgeist of which we are currently living. Decades of assiduous secularization and the adaptation of diversity and multiculturalism in lieu of the great melting pot has taken it's toll by morally weakening us, stripping us of our shared identity and leaving us bound by the chains of political correctness. Cultural relativism brought on by our misguided doctrine of multiculturalism has led us to question for the first time in history the very supremacy of our own democratic ideology, ironically though there can be no ideological supremacy without a sense of superiority, of which we are lacking, and which needless to say goes against the very tenets of multiculturalism. We've become a nation not only confused and divided but morally and spiritually weakened as well. Historians looking back one day will see with clarity how this ideology of multiculturalism was instrumental in compelling us to seek accommodation and appeasement with our adversaries, knowing full well the consequences.

The consequences that we are therefore forced to accept and live with is that we will perpetually remain cowering under the threat of a devastating conventional or nuclear attack, forking over our lunch money every month to a military dictatorship and hoping that we can perhaps delay for another day what we know in our hearts is ultimately inevitable.

And so, Republican hopeful Tom Tancredo steps forward and has the courage to ask an intriguing question for which he immediately faces the venomous wrath from a nation of quislings. "What deterrent do we have now?" - and the answer is none - we don't have a deterrent because our adopted policy of accommodation and appeasement does not call for nor require one. We are expected to sit defenseless and wait to be attacked choosing as Hamilton would say, "disgrace over danger".

To construe Tancredo's suggestion of bombing Mecca and Medina as a reckless act of retaliation and vengeance is grossly missing the point, and that is that we choose self-assertion over self-sacrifice and elect to adopt a doctrine of collective responsibility over a policy of accommodation and appeasement thereby viewing Islam in it's socio-political context as a political unit, a sort of suzerain or in the alternative, a borderless decentralized, virtual nation-state.

The doctrine of collective responsibility is nothing new, in fact it is and has always been the way that nations conduct their international affairs. In many ways our adopted policies now have attempted to elicit collective responsibility. Unfortunately a combined policy of punishment and placation has not served us well. Instead of viewing Islam as a single unit, we have bought into the propaganda that their exists a "moderate" and a "extremist" within Islam. The "extremists" receive the stick whereas the "moderates" receive the carrot. The collective responsibility comes about from the expectation on our part that the "moderates" will choose repay us for our benevolence and hopefully expose and isolate the "extremists" in their midst. There are a few instances of success, but overall the results have failed. Tancredo's suggestion would be to do away with the carrot and use the stick on Islam as a single entity and political unit, thereby holding all of the adherents to a collective responsibility.

The outrage to Tom Tancredo's suggestions seem to focus on two main issues of contention, the first being that such a policy would anger all the innocent and so-called moderate Muslims around the globe. My response to this is simple. That is the whole point of collective responsibility. Hopefully it will anger these moderates enough that they will take responsibility for their own brethren. Secondly and even more importantly is this simple question. On what basis should one's serenity ever trump my own safety and security?

The next issue of contention seems to be the very target itself. A entire city that remains to this very day completely off-limits to all non-Muslims. But why should should Mecca be any more significant than say London, Moscow or Washington?

Suffering from our own "conflict of conscience" and psychosis of self-hatred it would appear that Mecca and Medina have become our Achilles' heel rather than that of our adversaries. Sun Tzu once said that if "you know your enemy and know yourself," "you need not fear the result of a hundred battles." But, Sun Tzu also warned, "If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat." This isn't about not being patriotic or not supporting the troops - it is about common sense and logic. It is a tragic mistake to let our enemies know our limitations.

Those that would ridicule Tom Tancredo's suggestion of using the doctrine of collective responsibility as a deterrent need to ask themselves if it is any more ridiculous than employing a doctrine of mutually assured destruction?

Like many Americans, I grew up in a different time - a time when we did not find ourselves bound by the chains of political correctness, a time when the size or the tenacity of our adversary did not intimidate us - a time when our President had the courage, foresight and resolve to know that accommodation and appeasement can only lead to disaster. Ronald Reagan didn't threaten to bomb a mosque or a religious site - no much worse - he threatened to turn an entire country into a parking lot, and the world believed him. We lived through a policy of "mutually assured destruction" with the Soviet Union and it served as a deterrent.

No one walked around in the 70's and 80's with their finger in their butt mumbling about a "War on Collectivism" and with our State Department going on high alert issuing profound apologies whenever someone decided to take a dump on Lenin's Book of Marx. We knew who the enemy was and we were not afraid to name them. Disgrace over danger was never an option.

You and I have a choice to make. We can give up our dreams of freedom and liberty and continue with a policy of accommodation and appeasement, one that gives no choice between war and peace, only between fight and surrender or we can stand together and demand once and for all that our elected leaders get up off their knees and lead.

No more aid for Pakistan or for Saudi Arabia or for any nation that does not share our democratic principles. No more foot basins, no more special prayer rooms. No more accommodation and no more appeasement.


Aug 6, 2007

Brevis Esse Laboro, Obscurus Fio

In an ever increasing globalized world often times the lines of distinction between cultures tend to become blurred. We live in a world where now where one can jet from New York to Paris to Tokyo and on to Kuala Lumpur without experiencing even the slightest bit of cultural dislocation. We imagine the world getting smaller when in fact it is only getting bigger. For the sanguine traveler today, plopping themselves down in cookie-cutter Starbucks in some exotic locale with a WiFi laptop and ordering -- in English -- a cafe latte from the local barista only seems to fuel this illusion of verisimilitude.

In recent years, America and the West seem to have imposed inadvertently perhaps a pro-linguistic bias in communications which in turn has led to a lexicon for instant communications and shared imagery around the globe. Not only has led to a growing pressure for conformity, it has also gradually created what seems to be a disturbing complacency for many who have failed to recognize that the medium is unable to transcend the limitations of linguistic communications.

Over the years whenever speaking English overseas one learns to avoid specific words or phrases that might seem ambiguous, confusing or duplicitous to the native-speaker here and you become intensely aware of how prevalent culturally specific idioms are an integral part of our language. Of course always having to speak slowly and methodically to non-English speaking foreigners can easily dull your wit but that doesn't necessarily mean your not allowed a little fun now and then. Irritated with the slow service I got in a hotel bar once in Manila I left a measly tip. As I was leaving, the Filipino dwarf waiter told me "I'm not Happy." to which I replied "Oh I'm sorry, which one are you?"

The point is that words were never intended to mean just one thing, but are employed to express any number of feelings and attitudes which recently seem to be missing the global lexicon whereas now our communication seems superficial at best. We might all be speaking the same language, but are we truly communicating?

What inspired this post I suppose is a conversation I had earlier today which I found interesting afterwards only because of my inability to translate the conversation back into English. From my observations, it seems to be an inexplicable trend that I have been experiencing more and more recently. Ironically as the world gets smaller from the advent of global communications, the cultural divergences in languages seem to be increasing. And on that note, I hope you can see what I'm saying. Absum.


Aug 4, 2007

Britain's Judicial Legacy in Southeast Asia

For many, the use of corporal punishment in Southeast Asia represents a clash of civilizations between Asian values and an ever changing view of what defines human rights that is all too common in liberal western cultures. Ironically though, the use of corporal punishment in Southeast Asia today has it's origins in British Common Law. It's an anachronism alright, it's just not Islamic.

When the Straits Settlements, comprising the three predominantly Chinese-populated port cities of Singapore, Melaka (Malacca) and Penang (George Town), was formed as a British colony in 1826, the criminal law of England was applied. Corporal punishment was imposed for such offenses as begging, pornography, treason, garroting, and robbery with violence.

In 1871, the common law was replaced with the Straits Settlements Penal Code Ordinance IV. It was based on the Indian Penal Code, which had been enacted in 1860 to unify the criminal laws of the various provinces in India.

Offenses punishable by whipping in the Penal Code were robbery, aggravated forms of theft, house trespass or house breaking, assault with intent to outrage modesty, and a second or subsequent offense of rape, or a second or subsequent offense relating to prostitution or living on or trading in prostitution.

This list of "whipping offenses" is broadly similar to that of England and Wales at the time.

Corporal punishment as a judicial penalty was abolished in England, Wales and Scotland in 1948, and in India in 1955. In all parts of Malaya, however, as in Hong Kong, caning has been retained as a primary penal sanction.

The six minute video entitled "Malaysian Caning Judicial Corporal Punishment" along with photos can be seen here.

My rough translation of the video is as follows:

Officer: Your number and full name.

Convict: 93245

Convict: Azman Bin Hassan

Officer: Azman, You are in jail for 10 years (5 years) and 20 strokes. Understand?

Officer: So this morning we are to give you 20 strokes. Do you understand?

Convict: Yes I Understand.

Officer: Turn around

Officer: "Dua Puluh Kali Se Batang!" -- 20 strokes of the cane

The rest is simply counting the strokes and is pretty much self-explanatory

It should be noted though that corporal punishment is carried out every day in the United Kingdom and throughout the United States -- the only difference is that outside of Southeast Asia, it is administered by lawless thugs and yobs to the old, the weak, and those who are helpless to fight back.

And on that note, Malaysia's Deputy Internal Security Minister Fu Ah Kiow was justified in saying:

"Let's not be hypocritical about this. Look at the harm done to victims of drug pushers and drug users, and the increase in violent crime ... We must show more concern to the victims than to the convicts."


Aug 2, 2007

Reagan on the "War on Terror"

"Rendezvous with Destiny: A Time for Choosing" -- It's amazing how clearly Ronald Reagan's speech from 1964 reflects the challenges that our nation faces today. Not only does it reflect the challenges that we once faced before, but highlights the fact that we have become a nation completely void of true leadership.

"If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based upon what we know in our hearts is morally right. We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of Islamic fascism by committing an immorality so great as saying to millions of Americans now being forced to accommodate in the name of diversity, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skin, we are willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Let's set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace--and you can have it in the next second--surrender.

Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face--that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand--the ultimatum. And what then? When Osama Bin Laden has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we are retreating because we lack the courage to fight, and someday when the time comes to deliver the ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary because by that time we will have weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he has heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "the Iraq war is lost," And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us. You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin--just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well, it's a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." There is a point beyond which they must not advance. This is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said that "the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits--not animals." And he said, "There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness."


Our children and grandchildren will have to muster the courage where we failed. The first step our children will have to take is to do away with the inoffensive politically correct euphemism "War on Terror" that we have foolishly elected to use fearing that we might unintentionally offend someone.

Today America and the West are not winning. They are losing. While it might look at times that the battle is being won, we are in fact losing the greater war. Freedom is being lost on all fronts.

There is not amount of money that is going to ever buy our freedom or appease our enemies. The billions of dollars being thrown at Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are clearly indicative of how desperate and shameful we have become when both of these countries were directly involved in the attack on our nation.

Alexander Hamilton was right when he said "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Maybe America does deserve a master.

Dear America, it is the bottom of the 9th inning. Wake Up!


Aug 1, 2007

The Road To Pakistan

"...And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists ... From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."
That Thursday evening back in 2001 when President Bush addressed a joint session of Congress we had the hope that this current wave of recrudescent Islamic fascism was about to come to a screeching halt. It didn't. Shortly thereafter, our nation's leadership would begin to lose it's resolve.

For reasons that many of us know in our hearts and yet are reluctant to ever admit, our nation's leadership would choose to give Pakistan and Saudi Arabia a pass for their involvement in the September 11th attacks. Years from now we will come to see that that it was at that time that our leaders chose to sacrifice our freedom for security. A line had been drawn in the sand and we chose not to cross it out of fear, fear of offending and angering the peaceful adherents of an ideology that calls for our slavery.

You and I are continuously told that a brutal military dictator and nuclear-armed extortionist in South Asia by the name of General Pervez Musharraf is our trusted friend and ally. Pervez Musharraf is not our friend and no amount of public relations campaigning by the media or the Whitehouse is ever going to change the fact that General Pervez Musharraf is and has always been nothing more than a brutal military dictator.

Despite the fact that since 2001, General Pervez Musharraf has had the audacity to dupe the United States out of over 12 billion dollars all the while professing his commitment to eradicating the current surge of Islamic extremism and the very "culture of jihad" that his nation created.

Pervez Musharraf's supposed commitment to eradicating the extremists has and continues to be wrought with nothing more than contradictions and half-measures. Listen below and hear how their intention is not to eradicate terrorism but rather to control it and use our money to win the hearts and minds of those who hate us. I for one resent the fact that our nation is paying money to the very people and nation who gave birth to the Taliban.

You and I are now told by Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri that we are not to make Pakistan angry or dare to question their commitment to the war on terror. Khurshid Kasuri does not elaborate on his veiled threat, but the message is quite clear. Offend them and we risk another 9/11.

We are not dealing with a viable friendly nation here, but rather with a power-crazed group of nuclear-armed extortionists and terrorist sympathizers wearing business suits and masquerading as a legitimate government. You and I are now told that we must resign ourselves to the fact that our nation's security and the our children's future is dependent on our continued payment of this "protection money".

So desirous of peace at any price, our government has actually fooled themselves into taking Musharraf and his military junta at their word that they are eventually committed to installing a genuine democracy in Pakistan. How stupid have we become not to learn from our own history?

History is replete with the misguided and often tragic appeasement of dictators, from Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Adolf Hitler to Jimmy Carter's appeasement of North Korea's Kim Jong-il. Accommodation and appeasement is not, nor will it ever be the path to victory.

The United States has a choice to make, we can place our nation's safety and security in the hands of Pakistan's military dictatorship and pray that our appeasement prevents another attack on our nation or we can do that what we must and ensure that those of us who gave their life for freedom did not die in vain.

The message to Pervez Musharraf should be loud and clear. Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.


Creative Commons License