The Bugs Bunny "What A Maroon!" Award Returns

It has been some time since the Geek last bestowed the highly coveted "What A Maroon! Award."  This has not been due to a dearth of candidates.  Quite the contrary, the past several months have been awash to the scuppers with moronic policies and the severely intellectually challenged folks behind them.  Simply, there have been entirely too many possibilities to single out just one each and every week.

Fortunately, a person has emerged from the fog of merely inept, incompetent, brain dead wonks and pols inside the Beltway.  Finally there has been an act of such unmitigated idiocy that the Award must be bestowed.

The envelop, please.  Riiippp.  Raise the slip of paper inside.  Read the distinguished name of the winner.

"And, the winner is.....(drum roll.)  Lick lips in anticipations.  "The winner is Hillary Clinton!"  Applause.

That's right, bucko.  The recipient is our most distinguished Secretary of State.  Ms Clinton gets the Award not for her efforts to push back on the eviscerated foreign aid budget.  Nor for her opposition to the cuts to the Foreign Service appropriation.  No.  Those were not moronic.

Well, what then?  Is this belated recognition for Hilary's hard work to bring about the Libyan policy morass?  No, although a strong case can be made for her receiving at least an honorable mention in this area.

SecState Clinton deserves the "What A Maroon!" Award for her recent collaboration with the Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC,) the Turkish proponent of political Islam and historian manque, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, in the area of preventing religious defamation.  In an announcement datelined Jeddah, Ms Clinton and Dr Ihsanoglu declared the US would host a series of meetings to focus on the implementation of a UN Human Rights Council resolution 16/18.

This measure passed by the discredited Human Rights Council last March is intended to combat in an "urgent" fashion the growth of something called "Islamophobia."  While carefully avoiding the use of either the word "Islam" or "Muslim," the intent of the resolution to single out the faith of the Prophet for special protection is clear.  The fifty plus Muslim majority states of the OIC have long pushed for the criminalization of any written, spoken, or graphic consideration of any aspect of Islam in any manner other than the adulatory.  After many failures, the OIC and its supporters such as Russia and China succeeded in getting 16/18 passed by a minority of the HRC members.

It is always essential to keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of the OIC membership is well known for limiting free expression and inquiry.  The same is true of states which have sided with the OIC in its efforts to stifle open expression and the equally free inquiry which accompanies expression.  Some OIC states, such as Pakistan, whose delegation introduced 16/18 as well as its numerous predecessors, has blasphemy laws of the most draconian sort enshrined in law.

It is equally necessary to recall that OIC states such as Egypt are (in)famous for the easy availability of antisemitic billingsgate such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.  Throughout the Muslim states, Judaism is defamed in the worst imaginable ways and in all media.  Christianity is no better treated.  Nor is Hinduism.  Or Buddhism.  Or minority groups within Islam such as the Alawites of Syria.  All religions other than the most mainstream versions of Islam are fair targets for "defamation."  Even the two largest subgroups of Islam, the Sunni and the Shia are willing, even eager, to "defame" the other.

Of course this "defamation" is not seen as such by the Muslims.  To a good Muslim, the other faiths are either bastions of the infidel or expressions of apostasy.  Thus, it is impossible by definition to "defame" them.  Having not submitted to the unique Muslim view of the deity, adherents to all other faiths are fair game for whatever vitriol any Muslim cares to spill forth.

Logically, as the only "true" faith, only Islam merits protection as only Islam can be "defamed" by the vile slanders of the infidels and apostates.  It is not extreme to assert that even the most objective, fact based, well documented assessment of Islam is automatically "defamatory" if it comes from the tongue or pen of an infidel or apostate.  Considered from a Muslim perspective, the HRC resolution and all national policies or actions which arise from its application can serve to protect only Islam as only Islam resides in the realm of true faith.

As a dedicated adherent of political Islam, the OIC Secretary General is willing to do whatever is necessary to advance and protect the interests and position of Islam.  Thus, it is not surprising that he seized upon the Norwegian tragedy to argue that now more than ever the states of the West must move quickly and effectively to turn the theory of resolution 16/18 into legal practice.  The unfortunate reaction of so many in the Western and American elites to the berserker act of Brevik gave added power to Ishanoglu's argument.

The elites in the post-Brevik days continued and amplified their assertion that any criticism of Islam or any linkage of Muslims with terror serves the end of alleged "rightwing extremists" with the results such as those in Norway.  This exercise in absurdity and political correctness automatically plays into the censorious hands of the OIC.  Somehow, even the most objective and well-documented negative interpretations of Islam or the relation between the tenets of the faith and violent political actions are seen by the left leaning elites as being responsible for the action of Brevik.  Without any documentation, the same people argue that a myriad of potential Breviks are lurking all through Western and American societies waiting to be triggered into violence by some less than hosanna laden treatment of Islam or Muslims.

Showing her elite credentials and leftward bent, Ms Clinton signed onto the OIC's gag-the-infidels gambit.  No matter what her intentions are and no matter what the outcome may be, the secretary's agreement to a series of meetings oriented to putting 16/18 into practice gives the Muslim "speechophobic" move a legitimacy it does not deserve.  Her action provides an imprimatur to a resolution which strikes at the heart of the most basic and critical right resident in Western societies.

Free inquiry and expression is a protean right.  It is also a right from which many others emerge.  It is so basic to Western liberties and Western economic, social, political, and cultural development that it is simply impossible to separate free speech from the West as it exists today.  The utter absence of any real free inquiry and expression in the countries of the OIC goes far to explain why these states are comparatively backwards in all respects.

The irrelevance of rights, including that of free expression and inquiry, in Muslim majority states is not surprising.  Islam, unlike other major faiths, has no inherent concept of rights.  Islam is all about duty.  Believers have duties to the deity and to other believers, but, as good slaves, they have no inherent rights.  In sharp contrast, other faiths, particularly those preeminent in the West, not only acknowledge the existence of rights, rights which are inherent to the human condition, but exalt those rights by stating clearly and repeatedly that the exercise of rights requires the concomitant acceptance of duties.

To the faithful Muslim, the Western emphasis on rights constitutes a world through the looking glass.  It is not comprehensible to the good and faithful Muslim with his focus on knowing his duties and executing them with willing joy.  The Muslim has a duty to protect his religion against the words of the infidels and apostates.  His duty goes so far as to seek to prevent the infidel and apostate from sullying the faith by even an honest and objective narrative treatment.  The Muslim has a duty to exalt his faith above all others, which means he is allowed to attack the "false" beliefs.  His double standard is not hypocritical but rather is an honest expression of duties and beliefs.

Ms Clinton is not a Muslim as far as is publicly known.  She is, however, an American.  As a holder of an office of trust and confidence under the Constitution, she has taken an oath of office swearing to protect and defend the Constitution to the best of her ability.  She is a lawyer by education.  Putting the two aspects of Ms Clinton's life together, it must be concluded that she understands the OIC backed resolution is repugnant to the Bill of Rights.

She became a "maroon" of the highest order when she did not meet the demand that the US support 16/18 with any reaction other than gales of derisive laughter.

Like Cockroaches They Are Back Again

The insecure, fear ridden Muslims are back at the old trick again. No, this time, they're not blowing something or somebody up. Rather, the fifty-seven member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) are trying to ram their collective censorship boot down our free speech dedicated throats. Running point in this latest attempt to stifle even the most mild, well-mannered, and fact based criticism of Islam and Muslims are two key American "allies," Egypt and, (drum roll, please) Pakistan.

The chosen forum is the UN Human Rights Council. No surprise in the choice. OIC members along with such other stalwart defenders of open inquiry and expression as Russia, China, and Cuba have an absolute majority in this body. Since raw power assures the reactionary and primitive states of the OIC can pass whatever bit of repressive resolution might be wished, it is shocking that the OIC member states try to offer a rationalization for their effort.

It seems that the Always Vigilant Protectors Of The One True Faith have discovered that a new form of "racism" is abroad in the West. The new form is termed, "Islamophobia" and manifests itself by any number of icky-poo things directed at Muslims including criticizing the faith itself, casting factual aspersions upon the Muslim historical narrative, and, actually expressing disapproval of Islamic characteristics such as stoning adulterers, chopping the heads off of apostates and blasphemers, putting women in garbage sacks, and, The Greatest Blood Libel Ever, animadverting that men who shout, "Allahu Akbar!" before flying aircraft into buildings or pushing the clicker on the suicide vest might be Muslims.

The Egyptian delegate wound himself into a state closely approximating apoplexy when he charged, "People of Arab origin face new forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia..." The diplomat also claimed that these unfortunate people suffer "intolerance, discrimination and marginalization."

The Egyptian's play was quickly backed by his colleague from Pakistan. The Pakistani demanded that the Council's Special Rapporteur on Religious Freedom investigate this "racism" particularly "in Western societies."

Wowie! Zowie! If these two diplomats were Jewish, it would be fair to say they possessed chutzpah in truckload quantities.

The nerve of these duplicitous purveyors of tergiversation. The OIC members as well as the OIC itself want the world to believe that they are motivated by a sincere desire to protect all religions from abuse. They hope that people generally are so intellectually challenged and historically ignorant that their protestations (to quote the Pakistani representative at the HRC) of a need to "create and promote an atmosphere of respect and tolerance for religious and cultural diversity" will be believed.

Fer sure, dudes. If this really, really, really is the goal of the OIC, perhaps the group and its members can establish a greater street cred by answering a few simple questions.

In what "Western societies" and the polities they have created is it illegal for a Muslim to proselytize openly? In what "Western societies" and the polities they have created is it illegal for a Muslim to pass out copies of the Koran on a public street? Or wear symbols of their faith? Or denounce Christianity? Or Judaism? Are not any and all Muslims free to question, criticize, or flat out defame Christianity or Judaism or any other religion throughout the "Western societies?"

While you are at it, boys (it is not possible to address the question to those of the distaff given the strictures of Islam) please name any Western state where conversion to Islam from any other religion is a punishable offense? That is, punishable by any measure, a civil fine even, unlike the death penalty which is authorized in Muslim countries for the "apostate."

In a similar vein, Sincere Upholders Of Islam, please name those "Western societies" where a woman's testimony in court is held to be worth less than that of a man? Or, those "Western societies" which disenfranchise a person on the basis of their having mammary glands? Or those "Western societies" which authorize the police to arrest (or administer on-the-spot physical chastisement) to any woman caught in the company of a man other than her blood relative or husband?

In how many "Western societies" are revolting antisemitic works not only sold in bookshops and in the bazaars, but spewed forth on television and radio (including those broadcasters owned or controlled by governments) available to the degree they are in, say, Egypt? In how many "Western societies" do clerical, political, or civil society leaders call for killing people simply on the basis of their faith?

The list could go on, ad nauseam but the point has been made.

The OIC members, including the two American "allies" referenced, are engaged in one more attack on the values of the West, on the very roots of Western greatness. Beyond that, their effort demonstrates yet again that the fear ridden and insecure nature of Islam and the societies and polities predicated on Islam are not simply reactionary, trying desperately to roll the centuries back and transform as much of the world as possible to a simulacrum of the Arabian Peninsula in the Seventh Century, but that they are primitive enclaves in a world which has passed them by.

That's the ground truth, Islamic majority societies, and the polities they have created have been responsible for little or nothing positive over the past thirteen centuries. Islam, by its very nature, by its reliance upon the "will of Allah," has not and cannot practice genuine science. By virtue of its many strictures, Islamic societies can not add measurably to the general store of human knowledge, artistic brilliance, scholarship, or make any other significant contribution to the overall improvement of the human condition.

Other than a certain crude capacity for the waging of war, for killing people and breaking things, Islam is not to be noted. Well, it can be argued that Islamic polities have demonstrated a skill at repression, suppression, and oppression, but these are not generally numbered among desirable accomplishments.

Perhaps there exists a dim awareness deep in the semi-consciousness of the assorted Islamic majority states that they are not the jewels in the crown of humanity. Perhaps it is this awareness of inbuilt primitiveness which makes the OIC membership (and so many individual Muslims) so insecure in the value of their faith that extraordinary measures of self-defense are indicated.

As these states and their citizens lack the self-confidence, the sure sense of self and its value which immunizes against both insult and criticism, they have no choice other than to seek to stop the voices, halt the pens, of those who would be so bold as to question, criticize, and utter unpleasant truths. The OIC and its members must try to silence the opposition lest they perish.

The Muslims and their fellow travelers on the Oppression Express may have the votes in the Human Rights Council. But that is all they have. The other side, the civilized states and their relatively secure and self-aware citizens, have both truth and history as allies.

So it has been. And, so it will continue.

Who Are We? And, Who Is The Enemy?

Major Hasan, the Fort Hood mass killer, has reawakened the slumbering pseudo-debate about the nature of (A) terror, (B) the role of Islam, and (C) how does the US respond to the threat posed by (A) and (B). Further fuel has been added to the "new" controversy by the decision to put KSM and others of equal ill-fame on trial in a Federal criminal court in lieu of one before a military commission.

Additional impetus has come from the political game surrounding the "strategic review" over the course of the "war of necessity" (per President Obama) and the potential deployment of another large chunk of American troops. This feature gives additional force to the need to finally settle just what we are fighting for--and against. It just is not right either ethically or politically to expect people to put their one and only ass on the line for unknown reasons and unknowable goals.

In past confrontations, in previous wars, on those occasions such as World War I, World War II and, at least at their outsets, the Korean War and the American War in Vietnam, We the People had a reasonable consensus as to both the goal of our fighting and the nature of our enemy. In the cases of the two world wars, the consensus held until after the shooting stopped. With the other two wars, both limited wars in support of policy, the consensus did not hold. As a necessary consequence, We the People (or at least a large, vocal segment) lost political will to continue the effort, the sacrifice.

The First World War consensus was predicated upon a nifty combination of Allied (that is to say, British) propaganda, news management, and perception manipulation with the domestic ideals so well expressed by President Woodrow Wilson of "the victory of democracy" and a "war to end war." The Second World War saw consensus built from diversity in the blinding humiliation and destruction of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The first casualty of the Japanese bombs was the very large, vocal, and politically potent isolationist movement in the US.

The Korean War achieved an almost instant but not universal consensus because the invasion of the South by the North was so blatant, so evident, and so aggrandizing in the estimate of American public opinion molders that a response by the US was virtually guaranteed. The shrewd use by President Truman of the UN (made possible only by the Soviet self-inflicted absence from the Security Council) comforted Americans in their love of multi-lateral action based on the World War II alliance structure.

In a very real sense the consensus on the sending of troops to fight in the Vietnamese Wars was an artifact. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was a ready-made, fill-in-the-blank exploitation of the expectable North Vietnamese response to the provocative actions under MarOps 34A and the twin ELINT collection by US destroyers. Waving the red flag of expansionist Communism was both possible and justifiable given the internal political dynamics of the day. (It might be noted that the documents of the day show the leaders of both parties in both houses of Congress were far more hawkish than the administration and far, far more pawing the ground for war than President Johnson.)

The consensus held remarkably well. Even in the closing days of the Johnson administration and the first term of President Nixon, public support for the war effort at its lowest was higher by far than the nadir of support for the earlier Korean conflict. In part this was the effect of the body count--in war the dead often dictate policy. In part the continued support for the war was a response by the "silent majority" to the actions and rhetoric of both the anti-war movement and the counterculture generally.

In any event there was no time during the Korean and Vietnamese wars that We the People had any doubt as to just who we were and what we stood for. Nor was there any doubt as to who the enemy was and what the enemy was all about.

True, in the cold light of history practiced with the utmost of human objectivity, We the People might have been as wrong as a soup sandwich about both us and them, but that didn't matter at the time. Nor, practically does it matter after the fact.

On 9/12 We the People were One. We lusted to strike back against those who had struck not at some far away naval base but in the heart of our greatest city and the center of our nation's capital. Worse, this new enemy had not used military ships and aircraft, soldiers and sailors, but had seized civilian aircraft and turned our own fellows into weapons against us.

The attacks were acts of war. Of that We the People were certain. In the main most still do. A very confusing factor for We the People and the government alike was simply the nature of the attackers. In all of our previous experiences, attacks had been leveled by states, by governments, by soldiers, airmen, sailors. This time the attackers were of no specific nation, no government, no armed force.

It is hard to muster and focus a consensus for war when there is no easily named enemy. Sure, Afghanistan was a convenient and justifiable target given the nature of its government and the total unwillingness of that government to turn over the ultimate architects of the outrage to the US. The invasion of Afghanistan was plausible. It might even be described without undue inaccuracy as having been a "necessity."

But, attacking Afghanistan, overthrowing Taliban, ejecting al-Qaeda to Pakistan did not constitute a blow against the enemy. It may not have been a dangerous diversion as was the later great adventure in regime change in Iraq, but neither was it an effective strike against the real enemy, the (to use another piece of fine old Soviet terminology) "main" enemy.

Eight years ago as today the US government and the vast majority of the chattering, academic, and political classes made and make a bright and shining distinction between Islam and whatever and whomever the "enemy" might be. There were those eight years ago as there are those today who maintain that the "enemy" isn't some Muslim other but We the People and our government.

Despite the well intentioned and tactically justifiable attempt to put great swaths of daylight between acts of "terror" and Islam qua Islam, it is long past time to blow a whistle on the play.

"Wait one, Geek! Don't tell us you're becoming one of them there "Islamophobes."

Not hardly, bucko. Ole Doc Geek isn't a man of the cloth. Neither is he given to the fine details of theological disputations. To the Geekmo, all religions are created equal. They all deserve their time in the public square. None inspire any more "phobia" in the Geekmeister's mind than any other.

Even given the diversity of commitment and belief which must reside in the minds of one and a half billion human beings, there are some very salient, quite clear, and horribly unmistakable facts which have been growing since long before that bright September day in 2001. These are the ground truths which have not been given proper respect in the ever-so-polite, ever-so-sensitive, neverendingly tolerant chambers of the chattering, academic, and political classes in the US (OK, and elsewhere as well).

The first of these never-to-be-spoken brutal truths is simply that the vast majority of "terrorist" acts perpetrated over the past twenty years have been conducted by people who purport themselves to be Muslims. It doesn't matter who the keeper of the numbers is or has been--the US government, the UN, independent organizations, individual students of the phenomenon--the total comes out the same.

The second of these foundation realities is simply that the acts of the suicide bombers, the rocket launchers, the trigger pullers have been and are justified, even sanctified in the sacred writings of Islam. It matters not that the majority of Muslims may not act according to these strictures and requirements or even consider them germane to their lives today. The fact remains that the sacred literature, much (though admittedly far from all) Islamic jurisprudence historically and contemporaneously supports or even compels the actions taken by the bombers and their ilk.

The third basic also comes directly from Islam. The religion is totalistic in nature. It admits of no separation between politics and belief, jurisprudence and faith, the society and the community of believers. Additionally, Islam draws a line between the House of Peace--Islam--and the House of War--everybody else on the planet. The distinction coupled with assorted strictures as well as the record of the life of the Perfect Man, Mohammad, provides the basis to carry war both defensive and offensive against the unbelievers and apostates.

Again, it is irrelevant to aver that these factors play no real role in the lives of most Muslims most places most of the time. It may be a true assertion, but it doesn't matter.

The fourth leg of the table of reality is to be found in the West generally and the US in particular. Neither the West nor, most specifically, the US can avoid being the target of those within the Islamic faith who seek to put the greatest vitality into their beliefs. By its very existence, its size, its geographic reach, its characteristics and values, the US must draw the greatest hatred, the greatest loathing.

Samuel Huntington was right whether any of us like it or not. (Be assured, the Geek does not.) The world is engaged in a "clash of civilizations." The US and the West are in a battle to the death not with Islam per se, but with those within Islam who subscribe to "political Islam" or Islamism. More to the point today we are in a battle to the end with those Muslims who accept armed political Islam (Islamist jihadism) as their duty to and under the faith.

Perhaps this seems to be too fine a parsing to be made by politicians, pundits, and academics. Perhaps these elevated minds believe it is too fine a distinction to be understood by the great unwashed of the hoi polloi who are, after all, the majority of We the People.

In either case the unwillingness or inability of the public opinion molders of the US to make the necessary, properly and historically very well based distinction between Islam and Islamist jihadism assures two outcomes. The first has become very evident with the slow but recently accelerating public disenchantment with the war in Afghanistan.

The American consensus on the "global war on terror" has gone. Period. It will not return unless and until the necessary distinctions are made clearly, repeatedly, and convincingly. We the People must be persuaded that we have a real enemy. And that the enemy is not some amorphous tactic called "terror" but a very real political ideology rooted in specific aspects of Islam which can be distinguished from other features of Islam.

The second outcome of the persistent lack of a proper definition of the enemy is a growing uncertainty as to what positive outcome we might be fighting for. This loops to a growing unease within We the People as to just what we are all about, just what our beliefs might be, our values, the sort of future (beyond material comfort and stability) we might be seeking.

Events in both Iraq and Afghanistan prove beyond a doubt that the old magic words, "democracy," "freedom," "free enterprise" and so forth to the point of projectile vomit are no longer possessed of the charm they held in past wars. Nor, can it be claimed that a victory here or there will "make the world safe for democracy" or "end war."

It may be the case that the Islamist jihadists are both collectivist (as is Islam itself) and certainly addicted to actions such as stonings, amputations, and other delights of Shariah which heap insult and indignity upon the individual. In the past the cause of the individual, the rights and dignities of every single person, have been used quite successfully to mobilize and maintain a consensus within We the People.

It may be that this set of core values is the best, the only means available today to keep We the People grimly dedicated to bear the sacrifices necessary to keep fighting against the denegrators of the individual waging war under the banner of Islam. The Islamist jihadists desire more than anything else to impose their dystopian vision upon us and the rest of the "infidel" world. They want us to submit to the religion of submission and will use any and all means available to achieve this end.

The grim robot warriors of Islamist jihad can be stopped only if We the People are willing to keep on manning the lonely ramparts. We face with the Islamist martyrdom seekers an enemy far more determined and perhaps more numerous than any we faced during the great and lesser wars of the Twentieth Century, including the Cold War.

No doubt. Fighting wears thin. Fast. We the People have already fought way too many wars against all too many collectivist enemies flying many different flags. It is tempting to say, "Enough, already! Been there. Done it. Have the scars to prove it."

In a just and fair world we would be allowed to drop the fight. Put down the burden. To take a well earned and deserved rest.

But this is not a world which is fair or just. It falls to us, the unwilling, led by the inept, to do the impossible. We have stood against German expansionism (twice), Japanese aggression, the Crimson Tide of the Kremlin, Pyongyang, Beijing, Hanoi. And, we won.

We won because we knew what we were fighting against. And, fighting for.

We can do the same today and into endless tomorrows. But, only if we have leaders both in and out of government who can tell it like it really is. Leaders with the intellectual and moral courage to say without equivocation who we are, what we fight for, and what we are fighting against.

Well, it's an idea.

Al-Qaeda In The Islamic Maghreb Puffs Its Chest

Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) has been doing a fair bunch of threatening and killing in recent weeks. The group has been littering the desert with bodies in Algeria and Mali. When AQIM could take time off from shooting soldiers and murdering captives, it wiled away the long hours by making threats.

First the group threatened France. The Islamist jihadists were mightily put out by the derogatory remarks made by Nicholas Sarkozy concerning the wearing of the burqua (AKA "a garbage sack") by women in France. Using the high and lofty wording which Islamists generally employ to justify their intentions to butcher, injure, and terrorise, AQIM warned it would "protect the honor of our sisters" living under the threats of "Islamophobia" in France. The Bravos of Allah's Army called upon French Muslims to join in the "war" against the Crusader oppressors.

Showing a resolve more closely approaching that exhibited at Verdun in 1916 than the version on display in May 1940, the French parliament went ahead with hearings on whether or not to put the body-enclosing bag beyond the pale of law. All that is missing to date is for President Sarkozy to come out singing, "Form your battalions! March! March."

Not at all taken aback by the failure of the Muslims resident in France to take up the challenge and throw up barricades in Paris, AQIM has taken on a bigger target. A much bigger target.

China. That's right, China. The scrofulous group best known for massive atrocities in Algeria and, more recently, ambushing the poorly trained and equipped troops of Mali, has tossed down the gauntlet to one of the world's most formidable militaries backed by a very fine clandestine service and political will almost beyond measure.

But, what else could a poor, humble but True Believing Warrior For the Prophet do given the provocation offered by China in its repression of the Uighurs? While Islamic governments may shy away from confronting Beijing, and the Islamic neighbors of China, the Central Asian Republics, even ally themselves with the Very Big Satan, the Desert Swords of Islam will rise to the occasion.

North Africa, particularly Algeria, is a target rich environment. There are more than fifty thousand Chinese nationals living and working there. Spread thinly across a huge, potentially hostile physical and human terrain, the Chinese, whether oil field workers or employees of other Chinese government sponsored business activities or private citizens pursuing profit and pleasure according to individual definitions, all are now at an elevated risk.

Unlike previous threats or attacks against Chinese nationals as in the Sudan, Beijing responded quickly, vigorously, and publicly to the AQIM declaration. Qin Gang, a ForMin spokesman stated that China would take all necessary measures to protect Chinese personnel and institutions against attack in Africa.

One measure which will not be taken is any backing down in Xanjiang. The central government is--quite literally--death on the three evils of "separatism, terrorism, and extremism." In the estimate of Beijing, the Uighurs are guilty of all three "evils." Being foreigners, the best AQIM can aspire to is guilt in the second two categories. That will be enough, more than enough, if AQIM carries through with its threat.

The Deep Thinkers of the Band of Relentless Fighters For Muslims Everywhere might be well advised to consult history. Knowing these devout adherents of killing their way to the Perfect Peace of the New Caliphate are too busy with prayers or bomb making to consult the books, the Geek, in his public spirited way will give a thumbnail of the relevant historical experience.

Long ago (say in the 1980s CE) and far away (in a place called Lebanon) there were a number of groups which combined True Love of the Prophet with such secular concerns as driving Israel into the sea, freeing the Palestinian people from bondage, removing the apostate rulers of sundry Islamic states, and generally raising merry hell. As part of achieving these Glorious Goals and assured eternity in Paradise, these Fine Men of the Faith practiced the kidnapping of hostages.

They took captive assorted Americans and Europeans. Some were (in a style already familiar to AQIM) murdered after torture. Others (again in a way copied by AQIM) were released upon the payment of ransom. Still others were held until somehow, somewhere, sometime, they simply disappeared.

Simultaneously flushed with success and frustrated at their failure to drive Israel into the sea, free the Palestinians from bondage, force the US to abandon its role in the Mideast, and achieve other goals sanctified in the Koran, the Deep Thinkers of one group among the multitude resolved to alter matters by kidnapping some Russian diplomats.

Some appropriate minions of the Soviet state were duly taken hostage. The captors sat back secure that they had achieved a measure of leverage over events previously denied them.

Having failed to study Soviet history and the methods by which the Soviets often responded to such acts of base counter-revolutionary activity, the hostage-takers were themselves taken by surprise.

Far from bowing to the Will of Allah as expressed by the kidnappings, the Soviet leadership dispatched a team from their highly efficient clandestine service. This team snatched close relatives of the chief kidnappers. After getting frankly Medieval on the bodies of these relatives they were delivered personally to the local Thug-in-Chief.

The surviving Soviets were speedily released. Appropriate funeral services were held for the relatives taken by the clandestine team.

End of story. Well, not quite. The real end is that while Americans, Europeans, and even Israelis were captured by the Intrepid Men of the One True Faith, Russians were now immune from this fate.

The sweep of Chinese history both before and after the Communist Revolution indicates strongly that the Chinese are far more likely to take the Soviet approach than they are to emulate the hand wringing, can't-we-talk-this-over approach of the Americans, particularly the Americans of the Age of Obama. The French did not roll over and ask AQIM to forgive them for the nasty things said by their president. The Chinese are even less inclined than the French to collapse before AQIM's interpretation of the Will of Allah.

Here endeth the lesson--unless AQIM has a further attack of terminal stupidity. (As Allah wills.)

"Jews Infect Food With Cancer"

That's the view of a Muslim cleric preaching on al-Nas TV a little less than a month ago. The Egyptian cleric, Ahmad Abd Al-Salam, went on with similar antisemitic vitriol in order to prove his point.

His point?

"The Jews are never remiss – they invest their utmost efforts, day and night, in conspiring how to corrupt the Islamic nation, the nation led by the Prophet Muhammad. " He concluded by remarking, "This is why we hate them." ( http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2035.htm)

The Mideast Media Research Institute's Anti-Semitism Documentation Project archives are laden with similar clips from Muslim clerics and political figures from across the Mideast. Taken in total these outbursts of hatred constitute the richest, most frightening exhibition of hate-mongering and violence-promoting statements extant today.

These religiously based sermonettes and akin statements have the net effect--whether intended or not--of promoting violence against Jews generally. They are a blot upon the human race. And, they go by unchallenged and unremarked by the mainstream media of the world.

These hate filled incitements to violence certainly are not challenged by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. Oh, no, no way! The OIC is too sensitive to the presumed existence of a phantom. A phantom the OIC wants to battle relentlessly.

Unlike the "Jewphobia" which is present somewhere on television or in print throughout the Muslim states every day of every month, the OIC chooses to fight the figment of its collective imagination--something it calls "Islamophobia."

The OIC has become so afrighted of the lurching golem, Islamophobia, that it is robustly promoting a UN effort to ban free speech. It seems that the OIC has defined its mythical beastie as consisting of any--even truthful--exposure of the links between the religion of Islam and acts of violence or terror. The OIC wants absolutely no criticism nor commentary (unless laudatory) of Islam.

No mention of "honor killings," no whisper of stoning women and other forms of gender specific torture, no allusions to suicide bombers yelling, "Allahu Akbar" as they push the clicker and exterminate men, women and children.

Certainly, the ever-so-sensitive men of the OIC want no quoting of the Quran or Hadith--or at least those parts which justify and approve of killing, enslaving or otherwise degrading the infidels which comprise the majority of the human race. And, no mentioning of jihad as the waging of holy war--lest some Muslim, somewhere, somehow be disquieted.

A bigger bunch of flat-out hypocrites is impossible to imagine.

Where is the OIC on the issue of religious defamation when it comes to the billingsgate of Muslim preachers? Where is this bloc of sensitive and concerned humanitarians when it comes to Muslim clerics and political leaders urging or inciting hatred, violence, murder directed against the Jews and other despised infidels?

Or to put it bluntly: How many members of the OIC were among the forty nations whose representatives composed the London Declaration Against Antisemitism? This document is new, so new that only one national leader, Gordon Brown, has signed it. Perhaps it is so new that the OIC's you-infidels-must-stop-talking-about-us noise machine hasn't been silent long enough to hear of it.

The London Declaration calls upon signatory states to confront and challenge antisemitic statements. Further, it calls upon them to live up to previously agreed obligations to combat antisemitism. That's all. No denial of the right of haters to spew poison against Jews. Just the duty to confront, challenge and combat with more speech--better speech, true speech.

How many OIC member states are willing to both sign and abide by the provisions of the London Declaration? How many of the OIC governments are willing to confront or challenge, let alone combat, antisemitic outbursts?

To zero in on one recent cry for holy war against the Jews, let's go to the videotape. Again it's from MEMRI. (http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2033.htm) The preacher is one more Egyptian cleric, Zaghloul Al-Naggar. He's on al-Rahma TV. His message last January 6th was simple and blunt.

"Let me be clear. Jihad is the only way to resolve this issue. With the Jews, one cannot achieve anything by means of peace, or a settlement, or open borders, or diplomatic and commercial ties. They are devils in human form."

The one way to deal with the Jews to which the cleric refers?

The interviewer asked, "So, are you calling to wage jihad?"

The cleric answers, "Absolutely."

When the OIC can find the moral and intellectual courage to challenge this sort of blatant appeal to violence, to war, to jihad, then and only then will it deserve any polite hearing before the UN or the UN's Human Rights Commission (or Council, whatever they are calling that groups of fools, hypocrites and Islamist apologists today.)

Only when the member states of the OIC step up and both sign and abide by the London Declaration will the group and its constituents have the ethical and political foundation to make demands (or even mildly worded requests) of the civilized states of the world. Until such day as the Islamic states can behave with civility toward those states and peoples of differing religious views can they make any claim of their own.

The Obama Administration has the opportunity to draw a bright and shining line with the OIC as well as any and all who wring their hands over the phantom of "Islamophobia." Not only must the US sign the London Declaration without delay. It must go further.

The Obama Adminstration must use both the planning process for Durban II and it must use Durban II itself as the forum to challenge, confront and combat the OIC and its partners in crime not only on blatant, violence provoking and justifying antisemitism but on the move to ban criticism or comment on Islam itself.

Not only does the truth set one free. The truth is an absolute defense. It is the leakproof defense against the Islamist assault on the rest of the world.

It is the sovereign remedy to the hate and bile of the Islamists and their armed expression, jihadism.

It is the first, best weapon to assure that our values and core beliefs are not sacrificed to the idols of hyper-sensitivity, political correctness and fear of Islamist violence.

The Obama Administration must use it or there is no hope--only change, for the worse.

One More Bitch Session of the Old OIC

Lord love a duck! The Organisation of the Islamic Conference is having yet one more whine, moan, bitch and threaten meeting. This one is in Uganda, former home of the noted humanitarian and political reformer, Idi Amin. Once again the OIC Secretary General gave the keynote speech.

In past years the Geek wouldn't have done more than briefly glance at the festivities. For most of the OIC's thirty plus previous meetings that was all he did. Glance, yawn, perhaps chortle at a particularly stupid comment.

Since the OIC and many of its member nations to say nothing of Islamic activists and their non-Muslim apologists have invented the thought-crime they term "Islamophobia," the Geek has paid much attention to the sophistries of the OIC regarding "responsible free speech."

Let's listen in to the SecGen courtesy of http://www.oic-oci.org/oicnew/topic_detail.asp?t_id=1144. We join the speech already in progress.

Honourable Ministers, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, In face of the adverse and mounting phenomenon of Islamophobia in the West, we placed this issue at the top of our priorities and preoccupations, while conducting a large-scale world-wide effort to confront it at four levels: First: The official level of countries and governments of the West, where this phenomenon is rampant and wide-spread. We have exhorted the officials in these countries to assume their inherent legal responsibilities in order to stem this illegal trend in conformity with international and domestic laws which prohibit discrimination based on incitement to hatred towards individuals or groups because of their religion, race, or other grounds. Second: The level of major international organizations, such as the United Nations General Assembly in New York or the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, as well as organisations concerned with Dialogue among Civilizations, or inter-religious and interfaith dialogue. Third: Renowned academic institutions, intellectual and research centers, and think-tank circles. Fourth: The level of the OIC Islamophobia Observatory, which we have established in order to monitor and document all manifestation of this scourge, and to deal with them in an interactive manner. Taken together, this plan has proven its merit and we have been able to achieve convincing progress at all these levels mainly the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, and the UN General Assembly. The United Nations General Assembly adopted similar resolutions against the defamation of Islam. In confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film “Fitna”, we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed. As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.

Parse the statement carefully. Read it more than once. Slowly, carefully.

To give the remarks an appropriate context recall that Muslims are demanding that which they will not, and, according to Islamic doctrine as currently and widely interpreted, cannot give in return.

"That is?" You ask.

Respect. Muslims as shown by the foregoing (and many previous statements by OIC) demands--that's right--demands thorough, absolute and total respect for all matters Islamic. As defined solely by Muslims.

The OIC has made this demand. It will make it again.

A parliamentary delegation from Pakistan levied this demand on the European Union. Pakistan will not be alone in making it.

The same demand is being made upon the United States.

"So what do the Muslims offer in return?" You want to know.

Nothing. There is no quid pro quo in the demand. Read it again.

The OIC and the countries which make up that organisation have never, and according to Islamic injunctions, can never offer equal and balancing respect for either other religions including Judaism and Christianity or for the secular institutions of states.

The most an Islamic interlocutor can offer is the conditional guarantee of no bombings, no shootings, no burning down your embassy, no violent street protests.

Some deal, right?

You give us the right to ban from your public square anything of which we do not completely approve and we will try really, really hard to stop the thugs from harming you or your citizens.

Now consider the OIC members themselves. In a previous post the Geek noted a study of the forty-eight members of the seventy plus countries which comprise the total OIC membership. With three exceptions the "OIC 48" ranked at the bottom of the human rights-democracy--economic freedom index. Saudi Arabia ranked dead last with Pakistan barely above it.

The lever-pullers in the OIC are well on record as being totally opposed to freedom and totally in love with the unquestioned dominance of an unelected, non-transparent, heavily militarised, authoritarian regime backed by a reactionary clerical crew.

While quite willing to throw fits that go plumb off the Richter Scale over cartoons and Internet videos (including a call for an "international death penalty" by one really over-the-edge Pakistani lawmaker), Muslims generally and the OIC in particular are stone silent on the matter of defaming other religions.

Say it ain't so, Geek.

Ah. good buddy, but it is so. Were you to go to Cairo and wander the Arabic language bookstores or that supposed outpost of British liberal values, Jordan, and hit the bookstores there, you would find shelf after bloody shelf of anti-Jewish billingsgate.

Not simply works denouncing Israel or the "Zionist Entity," but Judaism per se.

Since Cairo or Amman, let alone Tehran may not be on your travel plans in the next few days, let your fingers do the walking. Take a look at this, http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/site/html/search.asp?isSearch=yes&isT8=yes&searchText=T98&pid=118&sid=15&preview=.

Scroll through. Take your time. Make sure you flip to the page covering Britain and the West.

Try not to get too sick. But, it's all there from the (Christian originating) Medieval "Blood Libel" through the Czarist secret police forgery, Protocols of the Elders of Zion to new inventions.

While it is unfortunate that the various Christian denominations including the Catholic Church do not have such a nice central registry for Christian defaming materials of Muslim origin, the Geek well recalls having seen such years ago throughout the Mideast and portions of Northwest Asia.

The likelihood of the situation having changed for the better is equivalent to finding that whales fly.

Or that the Saudis will allow Christian travellers to bring in a Bible or a crucifix medallion.

For many Muslims and certainly for Islamic states such as the big movers of the OIC as well as the OIC itself, respect is a one way street. It has to be that way. Islam means and compels submission.

As far as the political leaders of Islamic states are concerned, the question of submission to whom or what is settled. Them and their demands.

It has to be that way. The Islamic states are by and large fear-ridden enclaves of reaction. Trapped by fear, Islamic political/religious autocrats must not allow the base of their power be exposed to unfettered debate or even factually based criticism in the public square.

These same political/religious fountainheads of diktates and fatwas hope to make us afraid enough to give up the hard won fruits of long fought wars against limitations in expression, inquiry and thought. Fear is the natural ally of the oppressor.

Not the only ally of course. Misplaced love of multiculturalism and an overly zealous desire to be solicitous of the sensitivities or feelings of others can be an equally powerful aid to the would-be oppressor.

Some today term the Muslim playing upon the current fads of sensitivity and political correctness "stealth jihad." The Geek prefers an older, harsher term from the Cold War. Subversion.

By the combination of fear and subversion, the OIC hopes and plans to silence criticism and counterarguments to Islam throughout the West. It is a necessary way station on the road to the dream of a Global Caliphate.

They have told us clearly what they are up to.

Are we going to let them get away with it?

Finally! A Couple of Moderate Muslims

Being reasonably familiar with the Quran and other basic written materials of Islam as well as the sweep of Islamic history, the Geek has been unconvinced by the repeated assertions on the part of the United States Government as well as the legions of politically correct, high-minded journalists, academics and their ilk that there existed such a person as a "moderate" Muslim. The Geek is quite willing to acknowledge that the vast majority of Muslims are more concerned with the problems of living and securing a better life for their children than striving for mirages such as a Global Caliphate or A New World Under Sharia.

Even with that large caveat, the Geek has been far more impressed with the sheer bloody mindedness and "Death to---!" orientation of so many in the Muslim population of the world than he has been with expressions of something as ambiguous as "moderation." This is why is was impressed with and commends to your attention two writings from opposite ends of the globe.

The first is from Pakistan, a country which, as has been posted previously here, is far more a part of the problem than a portion of the solution. The writer is Farooq Sulehria and his article appears today at http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=118852.

His theme includes some features which are notable. Sulehria argues powerfully that the time has come for Muslims to stop blaming others such as the West, the US, the Jews, the Christians, for the problems which best Muslim dominated societies and states.

When all else fails, "Jews" and "Christian" West are there to lay the blame for all our ills. Conspiracy theories instead of scientific, rational thought holds sway across much of the Muslim world. And every time a rights abuse is highlighted in Iran, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, a typical Muslim answer is: Look at Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and Chechnya. True, imperialism and Zionism have a hand in our predicament. However, there are many wounds one can only describe as self-inflicted. Take, for instance, the Iran-Iraq war, one of the last century's bloodiest conflicts. There is no denying the fact that the United States backed the Saddam regime. But it was the Arab sheikhdoms, panicked at the Iranian revolution, that stoked the flames of war. And, ironically, now in the post-Saddam era when the "Christian" West has written off Iraq's Saddam-era debt worth $66 billion, Iraq's Arab brothers refuse to write off that country's $67 billion loans.

How is that for a gale of honesty! But, wait. There's more.

Similarly, last century's bloodiest Muslim genocide was not carried out by Serbs, Israelis, Americans, Europeans or Hindus. It was Pakistan's military that refused to respect a democratic verdict and plunged East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, into an ocean of blood. Millions were killed, maimed, raped and rendered homeless. Luckily, Pakistan has a "Hindu" neighbour. "Hindus are born enemies of Islam'. Hence, Pakistani children are now taught that a Bengali traitor (revered by Bengalis as founder of Bangladesh), in connivance with our "Hindu" neighbour, dismembered Pakistan. Ironically, of all her South Asian neighbours, Pakistan enjoys most cordial relations with the world's only Hindu state, Nepal. The other big genocide was perpetrated by Indonesia. The target was: its own citizens who were members of the Communist Party.

That defines "telling it like it is!

A second point is tellingly made. Islamic countries are at best pathetic in their guarding of human rights. Using a twisted reading of the internally contradictory injunctions within the Quran and hadith, Muslim dominated states run rampant and roughshod over the rights that do (or should at the very least) belong to all of us in possession of a navel. Consider,

The Amnesty International report on human rights for the year 2007 is out. The Muslim world constitutes, as usual, bleakest chapter. Every single country across the Muslim world has been pointed out by the Amnesty International either for executions and torture or discrimination against women and ethnic and religious minorities. Punishments never handed down even during the Stone Age, have been awarded in 21st century Muslim world. In one case, two Saudi nationals were awarded 7,000 lashes. Yes, 7,000. And executions? Well, 335 in Iran, 158 in Saudi Arabia and 135 in Pakistan. Violation of human rights, it seems, is the only thing that unites the otherwise divided Muslim world. The report is no exception. The Muslim world cuts a sorry figure every time a global watchdog releases its findings. Freedom of expression here remains curtailed, Reporters Sans Frontieres annually reports. Regarding freedom of expression, there is a joke often told in Arab world. At a meeting, a US journalist says: "We have complete freedom of expression in the US. We can criticise the US president as much as we like." The Arab journalist replies. "We also have complete freedom of expression in Arab world. We can also criticise the US president as much as we like."

If the Geek had written that factual statement, here in the United States, an entity such as CAIR (The Council on American-Islamic Relations) would have screamed, "Islamophobe! Hate criminal!"

Sulehria adds a grace note which might be overlooked in the thundering symphony of condemnation he composed. It shouldn't be. It strikes right to the heart of the matter. Right to the heart of why so much of the Islamic population is condemned to life-long servitude and no hope for a better future.

Similarly, it is either Bangladesh or Pakistan or Nigeria which is on top of Transparency International's corruption indexes. However, when Nobel laureates gather in Stockholm every December, Muslim scientists and writers are conspicuous by their absence.

There can be no real hope of a better today without governments which are open, transparent in their operations and honest in their dealings. Can anyone imagine a corruption investigation of a Muslim head of government such as that which has been underway in Israel?

There can be no real hope of a better tomorrow without talented, free-thinking and creative scientists. Not only are Muslims conspicuous by their absence when the Nobel prizes are passed out, they aren't to be found in the peer-reviewed literature unless they are living in non-Muslim states.

The Geek can't help but wonder when (not if) some Islamist/jihadist cave dweller will take it in his mind to kill the apostate. Likewise the Geek can't help but wonder how diligently the Pakistani authorities will seek to prevent the success of the assassin.

With that cheery thought in mind, let's switch to the Netherlands. The writer of this post hides behind a pseudonym out of fear. The fear that may silence so many others who share her views or those of Farooq Sulehria.

Take a look at, http://ayaanhirsiali.web-log.nl/ayaanhirsiali/2008/06/muslims-show-so.html.

The author is described as an educated Dutch Muslim. That demands the question, "What is her nativity, ancestry?" The article does not make clear if she is a Muslim by birth or by conversion although that distinction would do much to put the thoughts in a proper context.

She raises an issue which is very important not simply to the Dutch but to all of us in the West. The issue is simple: Why do Muslims demand what they will not grant--respect for other cultures, religions, ways of living?

The writer ascribes the responsibility for the Muslim unwillingness to offer reciprocity of respect to their historical tradition of "arrogance." In her words, "It is time that we Muslims let go of our feeling of superiority, hypocrisy and ignorance."

She backs her contention with a brief account of her understanding of Islamic history, which, in the Geeks' professional estimate is fundamentally correct.

Muslim history writers wrote with pride about what they saw as successful heroic deeds. And we still live under the delusion that the quality of the lives of indigenous people is improved by replacing their temples and churches by mosques, and that we conquer their hearts by doing so. But nothing is further from the truth and why the Dutch say 'our culture is disappearing as we do see mosques everywhere' when yet another church is transformed into a mosque.

Leaving aside some translation problems, her understanding is correct and is certainly backed by Islamic writings including those of Muslim historians of the the classic period. If one adds the necessary comment that Mohammad was a political leader using a religious doctrine for the political purpose of establishing a regime and that his successors of all stripes were political figures seeking to expand or maintain authority employing the same religious doctrine, her assessment becomes all the more convincing.

A very brave woman who acknowledges that "with the support of my parents" she both studied and thought long and hard about Islam levels a key indictment. Consider it--and its source.

The present time: consider the decapitation of non-Muslims in Iraq and Pakistan. Those so-called heroic deeds are perpetrated in name of Allah. What is our response to this? Do we condemn this? No, we look on silently, but do demonstrate on streets when an insulting cartoon is published in a newspaper and we threaten politicians with their murder. Embassies of non-Muslim countries are attacked, and numbers of murders are committed out of our passion for heroic martyrdom.

That's asking for a bomb on your bus, a knife across your throat or a bullet in the back. After all the Heroic Warriors of Islam seem to get far more jollies out of killing a woman than a man.

The lady asks a question which every self-proclaimed Islamic "moderate" ought to be shouting throughout the US, the West and even the Islamic states. See if you agree--

Why don't we show respect in the Netherlands where we adhere to few rules and civic norms, and where we perpetrate senseless violence - while we make use of their medical facilities, ask for special attention of teachers and community-workers, complain a lot while expecting non-Muslims to take account of us?

Non-Muslims ought to asking the same question of CAIR and similar groups as well as other apologists for the "Religion of Peace and Tolerance." It's our world, our countries too.

We Americans are an accepting bunch. We have welcomed all sorts of people and beliefs. We continue to do so. In the past we have expected that religious beliefs would be primarily private, and certainly not imposed on others. We have expected that a live-and-let-live attitude would govern our attitudes and behaviors regarding each other's beliefs (or lack thereof.)

In spite of occasional and lamentable excursions into policy accommodation of religious values, our easy going approach has worked and worked well. We must insist that it continue today.

This means that the use of Islam qua Islam as a basis for demanding accommodation or being forgiven criminal trespass or silencing the voices of those unliked is totally unacceptable. We the People should and must show the same level of courage as the anonymous lady in Holland and the Pakistani Rebel With A Cause, Farooq Sulehria

The Geek Makes A Confession--And A Demand

Once upon a time the Geek flirted with being an ant-anti-communist. That was the inevitable result of having come of age in the Sixties after years of anti-communist indoctrination in the public school system.

(Perhaps you remember those days too. Duck and cover. My Weekly Reader with primitive political cartoons showing a red octopus holding the globe in his tentacles. Maybe you even collected the bubble gum cards featuring commie atrocities.)

If you are chronologically disadvantaged, you may have read or heard of the dismal days of the Great American Anti-Communist Crusade, better known as the Era of Great Fear or the Age of McCarthyism. Those were the days of blacklists. The days of loyalty oaths. The time of shrill demands to know, "Are you now or have you ever been...?"

By the time the Vietnam Debacle ended and Nixon left the White House covered in Watergate disgrace, the cause of anti-communism seemed dead. American communists and the wide assortment of fellow-travellers were seen as the victims of the worst sort of political assassination. Anti-communists were lumped together with J. Edgar Hoover and the wacky loonie-tunes Billy James Hargis sort as violators of the First Amendment at best and out and out Hitler clones at worst.

Even the most respectable anti-communists such as Paul Nitze, Norman Podhoeritz, and Alexander Solozhenitsyn were branded as mentally disturbed, neo-conservative warmongers, or throwbacks to the Stone Age of the Cold War.

Anti-anti-communism was one feature of a generation's defining mythology. The spirit of anti-anti-communism merged with other streams to form the current American focus on sensitivity, diversity, and the belief that there are no fixed, absolute ethical standards which apply to all people, all cultures, at all times and places.

This combination of over-sensitivity and fear of seeming to be reactionary has become a barrier to success in the new Cold War forced upon us by the Islamists.

Without standards of conduct, it is impossible for us to know what we are for--as well as what we must oppose in others.

Without real and absolute benchmarks, it is all to easy to fall prey to Islamists or their sympathisers accusing us of false crimes, for example, religious persecution. The cry of "Islamophobia" is hurled at anyone who takes a jaundiced look at the goals and methods of the Islamists and their armed component, Jihadism.

As a current example of this abuse see, http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200710/CUL20071031b.html.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has been eager to heave the Islamophobia grenade at any person, organisation, or group in the West which finds some Islamist gambit such as issuing a fatwa of death on the Danish cartoonist who put Mohammad's head on a dog's body objectionable. The OIC has been working the halls and lobbies of the UN long and hard in an attempt to enlist support in its effort to outlaw free speech in the West.

Free speech is a good candidate for an absolute standard. Authoritarian movements and regimes ranging from Nazism to Communism to Islamism are defined in large measure by their need to prohibit free speech. Liberal, democratic nations and peoples are in large part defined by free and open speech (even by their bitter, internal fights over what speech should or should not be protected.)

One of the most objectionable and self-defeating features of the Great American Anti-Communist Crusade was the willingness to curtail free speech in the interests of "protecting" Americans (particularly young ones) against the blandishments of Communism. It is a cliche to assert that the answer to "bad" speech is more speech.

Cliche? Yes. But, like all cliches this one contains a large grain of truth.

There is no Gresham's Law in speech. Bad speech need not automatically drive out good.

It is no wonder that Islamists all the way back to Qtub loath free speech, particularly as practiced in the United States. Freedom of speech leads to any number of other social and political features which are anathema to Islamists as they have been to other authoritarians.

You want some examples? The Geek is happy to oblige. You can add to the list.

The dignity of the individual is one.

Equality is another. (Feel free to add all the ways in which equality can manifest itself.)

Then there are advancement, evolution, and change. (Again the ways in which these can take form are legion.)

This gives some basis for the Geek's contention that freedom of speech is an absolute standard by which we can measure ourselves--and know our enemies.

There are other standards which may be advanced as well. During the Cold War between the US and USSR many were suggested. Political pluralism was one. Another was the freedom of the individual to practice a religion without the permission or hindrance of the state. Still another was the right of private property ownership. Yet another was access to economic opportunity without state interference or the necessity of party authorization. Then there was the right to travel, to move freely within a state, or to emigrate.

Arguably, these are all standards by which a country's or a movement's commitment to the dignity, opportunity, and integrity of the individual might be measured. Some can be defined as absolutes. Others are inherently conditional.

Be that as it may, we Americans--and all of us threatened by Islamism's global goals--must develop and at least tacitly agree on a set of standards. Only by doing this can we advance our cause by knowing what we are for.

Only by doing this, by developing and firmly enunciating a set of absolutes, can we assure that the opposition does not engage in the same successful tactic as did the anti-anti-communists of thirty and more years ago. To succeed against a challenge at least as severe as that posed by the Soviet Union, we must not allow the moral high ground to pulled from under our feet by shrieks of "insensitivity!" or "religious persecution!" or, worst of all, "Islamophobia!"

Only by knowing and declaring what we are for, will we ever know what and who wer're against.

Where's The Religion In Religious Wars?

The "Global War on Terrorism" is a religious war, right?

Islamists and their armed force, the jihadists, are fighting for religious reasons, right?

Must be.

All sorts of bloviators, politicians, journalists, academics say so. We are warned against the dangers of something called Islamophobia by defenders of sensitivity and multiculturalism. We are cautioned against the dangers of discriminating against religious beliefs and believers. We are urged to recognise the great contributions to human civilization made by members of all religious faiths.

The Geek has to blow the whistle. It's time to get a grip on a few historical realities.

Religion has often been used as a motivator for war. It has been used to rile up societies, gin up the troops, and head a country into war.

Now comes the big "but."

But, the wars fought under the banner of religion when examined with the cynical eye of history show themselves to have been fought for the usual reason. Politics.

First, a rule of the thumb, historically justified definition of the word "politics." Politics means quite simply the acquisition, expansion, or defense of authority over the population of a defined territory. To make it simpler: politics describes the struggle for power.

Take as an example the war(s) so often invoked rhetorically by Islamists--the Crusades. When Urban II preached the First Crusade, he used "liberation" of the Christian holy sites in and around Jerusalem as the hot button to motivate the population of Europe to go to war.

While that might have been one reason, it was not the primary one either for the papacy or the secular rulers who organised the armies, waged the war, and waded through the bloody streets of Jerusalem. The primary reason was the expansion of power. The papacy sought to extend its power over the several secular rulers of Europe. These secular princes and kings sought to expand the extent of territory under their sway.

How about the grunts of the day, the knights and men-at-arms? Their goal wasn't necessarily power per se. They were men with a firm, hard eye fixed on the main chance. The chance for land, wealth, status, glory--and power.

The same may be fairly argued about the Islamic figures who waged the Counter-crusade. Salah al Din may have been a good Muslim, the Geek is not in a position to evaluate that. He can say that Sala al Din was a man ambitious for both military glory and political power.

The ebb and sway of Crusaders and Counter-crusaders over the years following the final ejection of the Christians from the lands conquered during the First Crusade show (as does the original Muslim expansion across the Mideast, the southern shore of the Mediterranean Sea, and the Iberian peninsula) the same political goal under religious garb.

Politics, the struggle for power over the people of a given piece of real estate, was the reality. Not the greater glory of any given religion. Religion was simply the cosmetics on the face of war.

Flash forward to the bloody century (more or less) between Martin Luther's nailing of his theses on the cathedral door in Wittenberg to the end of the Thirty Years War. This was the period of the Reformation and Counter-reformation. It's often called the the time of the Wars of Religion.

Get a grip!

The wars were political. They were waged for power. Protestantism and Catholicism were cosmetics. Even a man such as Philip II of Spain, who was at least as devout a Catholic as the Pope, was more concerned about maintaining and expanding the political power of the Spanish Empire than about the destination post mortem of his immortal soul.

(And, there is no doubt but this king was quite worried about getting his ticket punched for heaven.)

When Phillip took on Queen Elizabeth and England, it was against the background of the long-standing, bloody insurgency waged by the Dutch against Spain. Sure, Henry VIII had broken with the Catholic Church. Sure, Bloody Mary hadn't lived long enough to reclaim the apostate English for the Holy Mother Church. True, Elizabeth had declined marriage (and subsequent conversion to Catholicism) with Phillip.

The reason for the Armada was quite simply to take out England as the "over-the-horizon" external sponsoring power of the Dutch insurgents. The Spanish equation was simple. Dutch rebels minus English support equalled Spanish victory. Holland would be maintained in the Spanish Empire--and England gained.

Doesn't that hit you as a purely political calculation?

The same sort of calculus can be seen at work under the cloak of religion in the Thirty Years War. Sweden didn't head south into the cockpit of the German States out of a sense of Protestant solidarity. No. The move was defensive of Swedish royal authority at home. At the same time it was offensive--a seeking to expand the scope of Swedish power.

The grunts, the guys who did the fighting and dying, as well as most of the commanders were not after power in its own right as they were men with an eye on the main chance--the chance for loot, booty, land, status, glory--and the power those might bring in their wake.

In recent years, conflicts such as those in Northern Ireland used religion as a means of choosing sides and motivating combatants as well as those who supported them. Nonetheless, the reason for fighting was political.

Who would have the power over whom? That was the question over which bullets whined, bombs exploded, and people died. The same dynamic existed in Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion.

Regardless of what Osama bin Laden and his coterie might believe and say, the multi-party war during and after the Soviet invasion was all about politics. Taliban eventually triumphed over the others because religion is a very good way to assure both group coherence and sufficient combat effectiveness.

Right now and into the future there is no religious war being waged. It's the same old, same old. It is as Karl von Clausewitz correctly stated, "continuation of politics by violent means."

The enemies are not religious. They are ideological, that is to say of antipodal political views. On one side is the defining ideology of the West with its emphasis on the free individual: dynamic differences of political, social, economic and cultural views, electoral processes, and a functional separation between the institutions of religion and those of the state. On the other is Islamism with its emphasis upon the collective: subordination of the individual to authority, and a complete melding of religion and state.

The war can be (and should be) primarily of the "cold" variety. However, the initiative to make it "hot" lies with the Islamists, not the West, not the US.

If the jihadists, the men with an eye on the main chance--the chance for glory, family status enhancement, a perceived avenue out of a life of self-ascribed meaninglessness and impotence--and those who give the orders and make the plans, choose to make the war hot, we have no option except to defeat them. As we fight them in the field and take the war to their lairs, we also must wage the "cold" side of the conflict.

To do that it is necessary to remember that this struggle is not about religion. It is every bit as political as past wars--both hot and cold--which we Americans and our allies have fought and won.

What's New About Racism and Religion?

There are times when the Geek wants to quote Mr Natural (note for the chronologically challenged, Mr Natural was an iconic figure from the comix of the late Sixties and early Seventies.) This is one of those times.

The quote?

"Son, I'm a slow man to anger, but, frankly, this rankles my ass!"

Next question, what is rankling the Geek this time around?

Not politics. Not politicians. Not even John Edwards.

This time the Geek is torqued off by the perception, the allegation actually, that has been floating around the mainstream media, portions of the blogosphere, and the United Nations which holds that we in the US are "racist" if we do not accept without question every piece of spittle from Muslim lips as a precious pearl of wisdom.

Right at the giddy-up the Geek wants to make it clear that he has nothing against Islam--nor for it. He avers the same about all other religions as religions.

Until a religious derived ideology has an impact upon international politics, matters of diplomacy, war and peace.

Had the Geek been alive back in the Twenties and Thirties as the Japanese militarists came to power, he would have had no problem with either Shintoism or the code of Bushido. That is until the Japanese used both as the basis for a ethno-religiously derived ideology of regional and even global expansion.

Both Shintoism and the code of Bushido had and have many good points, but like any religious or semi-religious belief system, are ambiguous and easily distorted through situationally driven reinterpretation. That is what happened during the years before the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

In the hands of the expansionist oriented ideologues of Tokyo, reinterpretation of old beliefs led to the exultation of the Japanese at the expense of their "little brothers" in the rest of Asia. Beyond that, it led to a warped view of the Western nations, particularly the US and Great Britain.

Get a grip on this.

The ideologues reinterpreted ancient and honorable beliefs to excuse, justify, and rationalise both aggressive, unprovoked war and the gross mistreatment of civilians and military personnel so unfortunate as to fall into their hands.

Not different from the Islamists, is it?

In such official works as Read This Book and The War Is Won, The Way of the Subject, and, issued by War Minister Tojo in 1941, Field Service Code, the Japanese soldier, sailor, and civilian were all assured that a war of expansion through and beyond Asia, a war to "gather the eight corners of the world into the Emperor's house," was a "holy cause."

The soldier was told to live in a spirit of self-sacrifice, austerity, simplicity, honor, and commitment to the Living God. He was told, as was the civilian in the Home Islands, that death would mean eternal life.

Not unlike the Islamists, is it?

In the same official publications as well as those issued by the Ministry of Education and a slew of unofficial or semi-official books and articles, the Americans were portrayed as weak-willed, materialistic, lewd, decadent, exploitative, and, all-in-all, icky-poo, despicable and easy to defeat.

We were excoriated for our treatment of Blacks, Indians, and others. We were held up as the ultimate example of all that is bad, sinful, evil. Our lack of "moral fiber" was commented on repeatedly.

Even Admiral Yamamoto, a man who was fluent in English, had served for years in Washington as the Naval Attache, and had even driven from coast to coast meeting Americans and seeing the industrial strength of the US wrote that since, "...the Americans are merchants. They will not fight a protracted, unprofitable war."

Guess he got that one wrong.

The admiral also wrote that he "hoped with the massive attack on Pearl Harbor to cast the Americans into such despair that they would be unwilling to fight."

Guess he got that one wrong too.

Get a grip on this.

The Japanese were every bit as much racist as are the Islamists today.

Now, get a grip on this.

The Japanese were blinded to the real American temperment by their religiously derived racist ideology as are the Islamists today.

It is an interesting and important exercise to place the writings of the Japanese from seventy-five years ago alongside those of Islamists ranging from Qtub to bin Laden. The Islamists could have lifted the Japanese justifications for a holy war as well as their critique of the Americans nearly word for word.

(Hint to intelligence analysts: This comparison is relevant to understanding both strengths and weaknesses of today's Islamist adversaries. It is also relevant to appreciating the appeal of faith derived political ideologies.)

It is important to recognise that not all Japanese were willing, let alone eager, to die for the Emperor's crusade. It is important to acknowledge that the heavy emphasis placed by the militarists of Tokyo upon sacrifice and solidarity in the holy war was propaganda intended to enhance the coherence of the Japanese public in support of the war.

Similarly, it is critical to separate Islam from the Islamist ideology. Not only must we in the US and the West generally do this, so also must Muslims. Muslims must realise that most, if not all, the Islamist tracts are intended as propaganda intended to unify Islam behind the Islamist ideology and its practitioners. A believer in Islam who is not an adherent of the Islamist ideology must stand up and say so.

At the least, the Muslim who is not an Islamist must cease proclaming how offended he is by defining Western practices and values such as freedom of expression. Every single time that a Muslim objects to basic freedoms in the West, every single time he screams, "Racism" because someone somehow somewhere does something he finds offensive, he has joined the Islamist movement.

The Geek would suggest to Doudou Diene, the UN special rapporteur on racism and others of similar mind that the West with its freedoms of expression, belief, and dissent are not the racists. No. It is the Islamists like the Japanese expansionists of seventy-five years ago who deserve that designation.

Racism whether of the assertive sort as shown by the Japanese and Islamist ideologues or the passive version of paternalistic hyper-sensitivity exhibited by Mr Diene, is counterproductive. Assertive racism results in its own destruction as shown by World War II.

Passive racism, to the contrary, results in surrender. The active racists of Islamism have forced us into a new Cold War. Surrender is not an option.

Get a tight grip on this! Calling an Islamist with the gleam of conquest in his eye and a bomb under his shirt a racist is not Islamophobia--it's just the truth.