Political trompe-l'oeil

The paintings creating illusion of 3D reality on a 2D surface are fascinating. While looking online for ways to fix our living-room fireplace whose beautiful century-old face bricks had been mercilessly painted over by previous owners, I found suggestions to paint a trompe-l'oeil fireplace if a room was lacking a real one. This could be a solution particularly in an apartment, where a real fireplace is unfeasible or unusable. This also reminded me of the Pinocchio fairy-tale, where the painted boiling pot was so realistic that the hungry wooden boy's nose grew two inches longer out of frustration that he could not take the lid off.

In the Soviet version of Pinocchio, The Little Golden Key, whereby the story was transformed into a class struggle of oppressed and exploited puppets against their evil owner, behind the trompe-l'oeil painting there is a door that is opened by a golden key, and behind that door there is a wonderful puppet theater, miniature and mechanical, but as realistic as life. There is nothing at all, let alone reality, behind Obama's politics. 

Or behind himself, to start with. I am not even talking about his nonexistent credentials for being the choice to lead the most powerful and wealthy nation on earth. I am talking about his gaining and losing dimensions at will, as a painter can do to depictions of reality. The millionaire Obama, born from a native well-off Kenyan by a white mother and raised by a well-off Indonesian step-father and white grandparents under affirmative action and no influence of racism, is a trompe-l'oeil of poor black Americans who descended from slaves and only in the 1960's gained civil rights. In contrast, his millions of dollars, made with no responsibility for any business, disappear from the mental view of the masses. Of course, Romney's millions, to which he contributed his talents and efforts as a businessman, are an unforgivable vice. 

Romney's religion was the atheist progressives' favorite topic during elections: he was a "Bishop", possessed "magic pants", was a hereditary polygamist, and, in the most uncool fashion, used no intoxicants. It did not matter that Obama belonged to a fascist church, and had Farrakhan's friend and America-hater as his spiritual advisor, his daughters' godfather, as dear to him as his own grandmother. Because the Christianity of Mormonism is suspect in the religious Republican base, Obama's kind of Christianity could not be raised as an issue in the Romney campaign. Being the first president who had admitted to drug abuse to the point of being a junkie deducted no points either from Obama in the evolving surreality of America. 

The magic of illusion does not stop at home. Here is a recent example of how Obama and Arab fascists mutually benefit from each other, painting the trompe-l'oeil of peace-making. Muslim Brotherhood, by its Hamas arm, conducts terror war against Israel.  After years of bombardment by thousands of rockets causing mass posttraumatic stress disorder in children and adults, let alone fatalities, Israel finally intends to put a stop on this. A ground invasion and decisive elimination of the terror cadre and infrastructure - much more feasible than it was in the abortive 2006 Lebanon war - could solve the problem for a long time. To be sure, the calm would not last forever, considering that Islam doctrinally hates the Jews, the Land of Israel for the Muslims is Islamic waqf that can never be relinquished, and every true Muslim is duty bound to wage jihad against Israel as the Jew and an aggressor on the Muslim land. The removal of the terror organization would give Israel a respite and a chance to resume a semblance of normal life. Obama knows that but is not interested in the welfare of Israelis (and, for that matter, Gazans). He will paint himself a peacemaker by using what he knows will work with Egypt - a threat of withholding the $2 bln help to the fascist regime. Responding positively to that threat is a multiple win for Morsi: the money, the recognition by the US as a legitimate government, no loss of face because the result is presented as victory (everything short of radical defeat is a victory for terrorist Muslims), the showing-off of the ability to control the situation and manipulate the terror force. 

After I wrote this, Morsi showed the world another "win" of his: immediately after "arranging" the cease-fire between Hamas and Israel at the behest of Obama, he issued a set of decrees conferring dictatorial powers on him - the price of Obama's "peace". It is a win-win for Obama as well: he will dispense the tax-payers money to make a false vision of supporting Israel, but will not allow the weapons to be used for Israel's defense even though the case for that is clear; it will be the Jews' fault that the US has to spend more  money, which will feed into his antisemitic agenda; he will (already has) co-opt the Republican threat of depriving Egypt of the money while losing no political standing by that.  Although the rocket rain on Israel has stopped, the only loser in this game is Israel: it is a matter of time that the terror starts again, as it is Hamas's main goal, identical to its means. The intensity of the Hamas rocket bombardment of Israel justified invading Gaza with the potential of Hamas's liquidation or at least substantial damage. Now, if, or rather when, the bombardment restarts, there will be no such justification. Israel's threats are now empty: no benefit except from the temporary cessation of rockets is apparent - whatever empty promises they got from Hillary. No point in mentioning any Hamas's promises.

More peacemaker illusion by our Commander-in-Cheat: Obama's informing the Taliban enemy of the departure schedule renders unnecessary the losses the enemy would suffer through the continuous fighting. The low intensity of the war also protects Obama from the responsibility for active military actions - those could be dropped in full onto the successor. Alternatively, the enemy takeover that will render all US sacrifices senseless is postponed and would also be somebody else's, not Obama's, fault. 

The Benghazi story started as a very convincing trompe-l'oeil of the administration's victory over terrorism: it was all spontaneous and vaguely righteous if wrong reaction to a bad YouTube video blaspheming Islam that Obama had sworn to protect as one of his duties as a US President. Albeit slightly shaken, the illusion still works, because the discussion now is whether that was an intentional illusion or just some miscommunication between the diplomacy and the intelligence - not about the fact that Muslim terrorists successfully attacked a sovereign American territory and killed Americans - again - and again on 9/11.

There is no depth behind the painting drawn by Obama's junta to entice its willing followers - just the tireless populist slogans, largely translating into coveting neighbor's wealth, now that religion is a sign of backwardness just like it was in the leader of all progressive forces in the world, the Soviet Union. There is no reality behind the pitifully petty arguments the progressive intelligentsia puppets repeat after their political puppeteers, using at will the agitprop tools of Bolshevism. 

"Progressive" as a term originates from among those tools, the Soviet propaganda machinery, designating fellow travelers and - the same thing - enemies of capitalism, colonialism and Zionism (e.g., "всё прогрессивное человечество", "all progressive humanity"). In other words, allies of communism who have just not had a chance to enjoy political victory. Progressivism, like any totalitarian ideology, does not tolerate alternatives. It is thus eliminationist. The opponent is not to argue with, but to annihilate. The thought apparatus for such annihilation is there, and only a slight historical turn is needed - to incite and justify pogroms and "defend" order by abolishing the hard-gained American freedoms (does the arrest of the anti-Muhammad "movie"-maker tell you anything about the 1st Amendment?). By the time that happens, the masses will be only grateful for that to the dear fuhrer, scared by another "spontaneous" riot to death. This will finally puncture the canvas of the illusionist painting. No golden key will be needed to open the abyss hidden behind it. A bad dream? So thought the incredulous Russian intelligentsia in 1917 and later, relieved of its possessions for the sake of "fair share", of its freedoms for the sake of the triumph of communism, and of its freedom and lives for the sake of state security and order.

Losing a Facebook friend, Or Obama's new duties

"Wowie! Wowie-wa-wa-wow!" says Cristopher Walken's amazed character in "The Continental" - and so do I. Then, of course, Walken's ladies' man only pretends to be amazed that he is rejected. He should not be amazed, because he has just offended the lady. Neither should I. 

Well, I won't torment my scarce and thus precious readership with the prelude to my dramatic story any longer. Everybody, of course, remembers my Facebook "friend" (FBF) I mentioned before, a fine statistician but, regrettably, a leftist. I have just found out he "unfriended" me. He could not take me anymore. You can see my post on his page, linking to "Filmmaker Taken in For Questioning", and the discussion that ensued, which I know I will cherish as my last memory of the dear FBF. How have I found out I was disowned? Facebook mercifully does not notify its users of those friends who  cruelly reject them, and only checking the number and then the names allows the hapless loser to detect the loss. How then? I did check. I did  - not because I keep track of that number, but because of the question I had asked my now former FBF. That question was intended to drive him into eliminating me from his virtual friendship, as I am not fond of dramatic gestures myself. Here is that entry of mine: 

"Whatever have I already been in your astute analysis of my person - and now this, "UNPLEASANT"! "Most unpleasant" out of 427 friends, no less (for statistics, I'd love to know how many of them are rated simply unpleasant). And none of this astronomical number has apparently pointed out to you the deficit of common courtesy in your "interacting", while it's hard for me to believe I've been the only one graced with your rudeness. A question arises, why you continue keeping my unpleasant self among that selected circle, let alone interacting, while you quite obviously hate my guts. Even more mysterious is how you can expect any continued "interacting" after your first paragraph in your last post - not that it is unique in your stream of personal attacks." 

I really could not imagine "interacting" (as he put it) with him any longer - not because I was offended by the ad hominems filling his posts, but because that last fit of his philistine rudeness clearly showed me the futility of my talking with him. 

Here is what it was about: I tried to present the case that the "movie" had little if anything to do with the ambassador's murder. I started with suggesting that the arrest of the author of the video smacked of violation of the 1st Amendment, and made a point that the real cause of the murders was murderous Muslim fanaticism. He started with protecting the right of Obama to distance himself and the government from the "movie" (as if anybody even as fanatical as the Muslim mob could believe that the US government had anything to do with it), and defended Nakoula's arrest despite the obvious contradictions in the account he cited:  "federal probation authorities called on the local sheriff's office to bring Nakoula in for questioning", he was taken for "a voluntary interview", "never handcuffed, he was never arrested, never detained, never in custody -- it was all voluntary" (all lies, as he has suddenly become a "flight risk"). This was topped by the FBF's own contradictions: while taking Muslim fanaticism for granted and contending that there might have been a group that targeted the ambassador, he still needed the "movie" to play a role in that - he had to, because so spake Obama and his camarilla. Then, of course, there was his unbeatable if calumnious argument that my thinking is guided by my "requirement of incessant hatred of all Islamic people", and his keeping to the line that "in Libya the people knew something about the film and the film was used to get them to the embassy" (which was in fact the Benghazi consulate and a so-called safe house) even though it was a "military group". Contradictions do not matter when whatever "Obama says ... about the video, he is only trying to weaken that opportunity [for using the video] by making it clear to as many people as possible that the video was not created by the US government nor endorsed by it, and we also condemn it. By doing that he weakens the power of people like Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah..." Imagine how much Nasrallah's power has been diminished by Obama's condemnations, unique in their sensitivity to Muslim and no other religious sentiments. 

I have no desire to gloat about my perspicacity in detecting Obama's clique's lying as well as its likely cause, which is their desire to get rid of their responsibility for criminal negligence and incompetent assessments and to mollify Muslims. There is no glory in understanding the obvious while Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, Carney and Obama himself were still lying about the "spontaneous attack", and no happiness can derive from that event that has only recently become "an assault on America" after lying that "it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary that we know of or to U.S. policy." As we know now, there was no "protest" - to the "movie" or otherwise - in Benghazi. By now it has been recognized by the administration and even by the US intelligence that it was a preplanned terror act having nothing to do with any "movie" - real or imagined, - which was followed the next day by the obscene act of Obama's smiling and enjoying himself in Vegas. He must be forgiven his insouciance - he could not possibly think that anything as mean as that could be organized after all his reaching out and bowing to Muslims. That was exactly the sentiment expressed by Hillary in the aftermath of the attack: "how could this happen? How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction?" Indeed, how? One has to be a rabid Islamophobe like myself to be able to see that it is 9-11 and what it represents that in the triangle of 9-11, the Benghazi attack and the "movie" is the source of their co-occurrence. As I told my unlamentedly former FBF, YouTube is full of anti-Islam videos. The Bakoula video that was used could be replaced by any other. Anything - everything - can be used as the pretext for murderous Muslim mobs to start rioting in the realm of the "religion of peace", and no pretext is needed for Muslim terror against America, Americans, Israel, or any other country or individual who does not share Muslim values. Perhaps Obama should establish a department for finding parole violations or any alleged crimes for all of the anti-Islam posters on YouTube - that would surely disempower Hizballah, al Qaeda and the rest of the "hijackers" of peaceful Islam, so readily converted by them into the powerful mass murder weapon.

It would only be consistent with the fact that the president of the United States has turned from the sworn protector of the US Constitution with all its inconvenient amendments into the protector of Islam, declaring from the UN podium that "[t]he future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam". The only question remains is how exactly he intends to deprive them of their future. His language is different from that of jihadis only in that they clearly explain what should happen "to those who slander the prophet of Islam". Meanwhile, he slanders those who speak of Muhammad by calling them slanderers, because it is they who speak the truth: the "prophet" was a genocidal highway robber chieftain, extortionist, child rapist... - there are too many inhumanities of his to list them in one sentence.

As befits such a dramatic change in the duties of the US President, Obama's campaign logo has now replaced the American flag (before clicking, beware that your computer may freeze - only fitting: such is Obama's commerce). It remains only to put his iconic picture - with oddly familiar raised chin - on that mutilated emblem.

Which brings me back to my sad story of losing the FBF. What is convenient about the left is their robotic predictability. Because they are firmly held within the strict confines of their Manichean ideology, dichotomizing the world into the "left" and "right" as respectively good and evil, the entities at war, anybody familiar with this ideology can say with near certainty what their reaction will be to anything that concerns it. Because the ideology is totalitarian, virtually anything concerns it, and anything can become a point where the dimension of opinions breaks into the irreconcilable dichotomy. With him, it could have happened earlier - for instance, when he compared Republican education plans with Auschwitz, because Republicans "promote this working-student program". Or when he supported his correspondent's deranged viewpoint that people hold the anti-abortion position because it would "keep the labor supply up and the labor costs down" "for the bourgeois to take advantage of" (the progressive view should then be to increase abortion rate: that should really hurt Obama's "millionaires and billionaires"). In retrospect, our inevitable falling out took too long. Unfortunately, America's falling out with its FBF in the White House may take much longer.

Lying tradition of "Palestine"

Somehow, Arab/Muslim propaganda does not need consistency. It asserts that there was never a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, and Jerusalem has always been "Palestinian" capital; then the contemporary Jews are not real Jews by "blood", but Khazars, so they have no rights in Jerusalem (why would they, if that was not a Jewish city in the first place?); that Jesus is a prophet of Islam, but somehow nothing that connects him with prophecy, e.g., preaching at the Temple, is true in the eyes of Muslims (there was no Temple, was there?). No history of the destruction of the Temple by the Romans (and by Nebuchadnezzar before) exists for the Muslims - it is not even replaced by any coherent lie. 
 

They steal Jewish Psalms, like they have stolen the lands they've declared theirs - North African, Asian and European, like they've stolen Jewish and Christian prophets, following in that Muhammad's example. Plagiarism is always pathetic, an ugly child of intellectual impotence - be it by a writer or a politician like the current US vice-president, - but that is of negligible consequence when compared with the global repercussions of Muhammad's and Islam's plagiarism and distortions - of time, space, past and present, names and events. From the warp-speed night travel of Muhammad from Mecca to Jerusalem (Koran never mentions Jerusalem, and says, to "the farthest mosque", "Masjid al-Aqsa" - but today's Islam places it in Jerusalem where the al-Aqsa mosque was built when Muhammad had long been dead, on the Temple's ruins) - to the 500 Jenin civilians "massacred" by Israel, a Goebbelsian lie stated by  the "Palestinian" chief negotiator Erekat and (mis)Information Minister Abed Rabbo, and readily repeated by mainstream news agencies and supported by European politicians. 
 

Hard to understand how so many people, including intellectuals, can be satisfied by the Koran, a disjointed hodge-podge of inventions and ad hoc justifications of Muhammad's horrific actions, imitating divine revelation, childish in its scary-fairy-tale refrain of hellish punishment sadistically executed on unbelievers by Allah, the deity, himself. Then again, it is not surprising, as the same people, the "Palestinian" Authority, declare recently found shekels of year 66 CE, bearing the inscription of "shekel of Israel", a "Palestinian" coin. That is especially amusing because "Palestine" would not be invented, by the Roman Emperor Hadrian, for another 66 years.  Amusing, that is, if one is not thoroughly disgusted by insults to intelligence, doublethink and constant fantastic rewriting of history that is so peculiar to the Muslim culture.  "Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: The Prophet said, 'War is deceit.'" (Sahih Bukhari, 4:52:269). The war goes on.

The pretty sounds of Islam

Defending Islam is a job that is dark but far from lonely. While the whole world observes if not feels the effects of Islam daily - in the continuous warfare Islam wages against it, - apologists of Islam are legion. Moreover, the intended audience for Islamic propaganda is generally quite willing to accept it, happily providing it with high pulpits of the leading newspapers and magazines, and amplifying that propaganda with its own progressive and "tolerant" scholarly commentary. This is understandable - after all, if the world refused to deal with terror-producing Muslim countries, it would have to also refuse another product of theirs, without which it simply cannot survive. Oil, you know. Then there is so-called religious tolerance , which is a definitive sign of civilization and progress. Because Islam is known as a religion, it is immune from the just criticism and accusations that could target its very existence. Thus Muslim propaganda dutifully continues to be fed to the "well-informed" Western audience, which then builds its political sympathies on this information platform. Meanwhile, politicians that are drawn from the same progressive and educated audience know that it's best for them to be in tune with their constituency, and increasingly are on the side of Islam. We now have a US president who, having received Muslim education during his formative childhood years, refers to the call to Muslim prayer as "one of the prettiest sounds on earth at sunset”. Perhaps it is worth remembering that this sound contains the same words as heard by Danny Pearl and others who shared his fate, before they were beheaded by other lovers of that sound, - "Allahu Akbar!" and the statement of acceptance of Muhammad as the Apostle of Allah. Barack Obama recites those words perfectly and knows their meaning well. It does not matter to what political orientation the willing or inadvertent propagandists of Islam belong - whether it's George "the Religion of Peace" W. Bush or the naive leftist Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times - as long as the job is done, by omission or commission. 

The printed word from the sources accepted as serious and progressive, such as The New York Times, is perceived by the "educated" public like Pravda was by faithful Communists in the Soviet Union - unquestioningly, immediately becoming part of the foundational axiom. Our omniscient intelligentsia like to think of themselves as independent but follow the media's call like Pied Piper's - pick yourself the appropriate group of his listeners. Both their ignorance about Islam and disinformation are used by the Muslim propagandists. In this disinformation, the apologists of Islam employ deceptive cliches that, thanks to the progressive media, never get tired. Recently I wrote about one that was used by the Muslim congressman, Keith Ellison. To counter Bill Maher's characterization of the Koran as a "hate-filled book" (forward the video to 2:26), Ellison quoted a wonderful passage from that book, "anyone who takes the life, it's as if he killed the whole world" (Koran 5:32). What he failed to say, of course, was that the Koran gives that passage only as a quote from what the Jews were "decreed", nowhere indicating that this decree pertains to the Muslims. The Koran mentions this decree only to accuse the Jews of violating it, among their other transgressions ("And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors"), to justify the Koranic hate toward the Jews, unambiguous and lethal. It is remarkable that hardly any other Koranic quote is usually given to illustrate Islam's pacifism - so hard is it to find expressions of tolerance in the "religion of peace". One possible and oft-repeated exception is "There is no compulsion in religion", which is quoted without mentioning, of course, that it was abrogated by verses like "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war" (Koran 9:5). The journalists Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig, kidnapped and forced to convert under pain of death, can testify to the veracity of "no compulsion".

No wonder that the same Jewish decree, lifted by Muhammad from somebody familiar with the Talmud, was cited by the 9/11 mosque imam Feisal Abdul Rauf in his recent article, in which he tries to bring the reader to understanding that Islam is just another Abrahamic religion. That decree, having nothing to do with Islam and negated by the whole history of Muslim conquest, is the only support he could muster to his "fact ... that true adherence to Islam at its essence is as peaceful as true adherence to Christianity". These propagandist lies were published by another beacon of the Western capitalist freedom - The Wall Street Journal, which could not stay behind the progress. Now that we know what "true" adherence to Islam is, we only need to enlighten the miriad of Muslim clerics of the highest authority who swear by violent jihad as the primary virtue of a Muslim. Rauf has as much right to call Islam "Abrahamic" as a thief who stole an heirloom to claim his membership in the family he robbed. Muhammad used the Biblical names he learned from Jews and Christians who had lived in Arabia before he mass-murdered and expelled them. Pathetically plagiarizing the Scriptures while accusing the Jews and Christians in intentionally perverting Allah's word (Koran 5:13-15, 41), he distorted the meaning of and relations between those names, conflating Mary the mother of Jesus with Miriam the wife of Moses, and Haman with pharaoh. In contrast to the Pentateuch, the Koran never names Abraham's son in the sacrifice story, which results in the Muslims' belief that it was Ishmael, the progenitor of the Arabs, not Isaac, the ancestor of the Jews. Islam's founder and "perfect man" whose example is to be followed, Muhammad could do no wrong - whether he "married" a 6 year-old girl (Sahih Bukhari 7:62:64), murdered his critics, ordered genocide of the Jews, or reneged on treaties at a concocted pretext. 

As for Islam being a religion, it is telling how imam Rauf describes himself in the article's footnote as "the founder of Cordoba Initiative, an independent, multifaith and multinational project that works to improve Muslim-West relations." Usually, in expressions like that "Muslim-West", a certain symmetry is implied: "Jewish-Christian", "capitalist-communist", "East-West". The "West", to be sure, is not a religion - but so is "Muslim", a totalitarian political ideology counter to the "West" democracy, with the goal of making Muslim both the West and the East, conquering Rome of the West as it did Rome of the East, Constantinople, reconquering Cordoba and Andalus, killing and subjugating the disbelievers - truly a "multinational" project. "True adherence to Islam", Rauf says, "would end terrorist attacks" - and he is right. Of course it would, as that true adherence, from the Muslim standpoint, is when the entire world adheres, and terrorism is needed no longer. When everybody hears the call to Muslim prayer as pretty, and the sounds of other faiths are heard no more, as they are in Saudi Arabia, the land of Allah's Apostle. 

Talking tough

Remember courageous Mr Kristof? The one who took a Bible to Saudi Arabia with him - not because he needed it, but "to see what would happen"? You can feel how Mr. Kristof is excited about his bravery in his new piece now: wow, he got enough of it to ask "a politically incorrect question: Could the reason for the Middle East’s backwardness be Islam?" (I like that preemptive recognition of "incorrectness" - Allah forbid somebody decides he does not understand how severe that thoughtcrime is). 

Nah, don't worry, surely this question is only to dismiss it with alternative balanced views, the best of which he finds to be that it's all because of "various secondary Islamic legal practices that are no longer relevant today", not because of Islam. One wonders, however, why those "secondary practices" are still working today well enough to keep 1.3 billion people in "backwardness". And how, if those practices are Islamic, is there no connection between them and Islam. Well, it's the same Mr. Kristof, after all, who thinks that Saudis ban Bibles from their country not because of Islam, but "out of sensitivity to local feelings". Where do those "feelings" come from, I wonder, if not from Mohammad's ban on any religion but Islam in Arabia? You can imagine what the chances are for realization of Kristof's "hope we'll have some tough, honest conversations on all sides about what went wrong". Perhaps the Muslims would be talking tough. One could even risk a guess, they already are. "We" - won't.

Europe's revolutionaries & Hamas

As reported in Jerusalem Post on October 18, Proinsias De Rossa, an Irish member of European Parliament, said that Hamas should be officially recognized by the European Union. De Rossa is not your average politician, of the kind that seek offices in the forthcoming midterm elections in the US. He is also a former  President of the Workers' Party of Ireland. The Party originates from the Official IRA, whose activities included bank robberies. The latter, while probably profitable, still did not cover funding needs, and in 1986 De Rossa, who was at the time "Chairperson Executive Political Committee" of the Party before its split, signed a letter to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union requesting such funds for "special activities". Those activities, in quotes in the letter itself, were of such variety that it was "not possible to detail ... because of reasons we are sure [Secretary of the CPSU] will understand." The letter appealed to the Soviet comrades with touching sincerity: "The 'special activities' are unable to always be effective and so on occasion the party has to seek loans... We are confident of achieving in time all that we have set ourselves to do, but what we urgently need now is an injection of capital to enable us to devote our time to the tasks in hand and to relieve us of the daily burden of financial constraints". De Rossa and his comrades knew they could rely on the generosity of the CPSU (more precisely, KGB), because they knew "well the tremendous sacrifices made by and the support the Soviet Union rendered to liberation movements and Revolutionary Parties struggling all over the world". As reported in The Independent, the KGB and the CPSU did approve the one million of Irish pounds requested, albeit it took quite awhile, three years, when perestroika was already in full bloom. According to the article, since then De Rossa "has taken a consistently anti-IRA position, organising 'peace trains' between Dublin and Belfast to protest at the bombing of the trains by the IRA". Nevertheless, the "special activities" that have become bad for the revolutionary Irishman (after all, it's hard to be a politician and still support bombing trains in your backyard), may still be viewed as good for "liberation movements... all over the world".

One of those movements is surely Hamas. It is indeed only fitting for Europe to recognize Hamas, as proposed by De Rossa. While for him Hamas are fellow revolutionaries, supported by KGB and its current successors, Europe has for a long time had the same aspirations as Hamas and has only recently been actively engaged in the same business as Hamas. Moreover, Hamas can so far only dream of Europe's success in murdering Jews. De Rossa ridiculously claimed that "Hamas has said it is willing to recognize Israel; we have to ask why this is not reported in the media very often." The answer is simple: there has been nothing to report, unless one is willing to lie like De Rossa - not that recognition by and negotiations with terrorists could be reasonably desired by any state. Of course, Hamas has never changed its foundational Covenant that not only rules out  recognition of and negotiations with Israel, but follows Muhammad's call for the genocide of the Jews, quoting the famous hadith about the Muslims' need to kill the Jews for the Judgment Day to come.

Europe faces perhaps the worst thing in its history - an ideology openly declaring world domination as its goal, whose followers prefer death to life and thus are deaf to anything rational, taking over Europe's cities already - and all it sees is the hated Jews it did not manage to finish off.

Islamophobia?

You hear that, and bad things come to mind. Claustrophobia, agoraphobia, and other similar extreme anxiety conditions disabling people. Judeophobia, which is a more precise synonym of antisemitism. Phobia is an irrational, intense fear/hate and avoidance of something that poses little or no actual danger. There are phobias related to animals (e.g., spiders), environments and situations (heights, storms). There are some phobias peculiar to a culture, such as taijin kyofusho, specific to Japan - an exaggerated fear of offending somebody. Most if not all  phobias appear to be extreme variants of normal human fears and apprehensions. It follows that once this word is attached to an entity, you know that the latter is really nothing to be afraid of, let alone hate. It is a disease or extreme prejudice not to see that.

Is that what we are dealing with, when the word "phobia" is attached to "Islam"? Is there indeed an irrational fear or hate of Islam? If so, is it as grotesque and morbid as agoraphobia, or perhaps as dangerous and murderous as Judeophobia? I won't delve much into the ancient history, because the fears or comfort of the living are not so much influenced by what happened centuries ago, unless the same events occur in the present, and then the present may not connect with the past. For instance, in the Russian language there is an archaic word, бусурманин (busurmanin), that is derived from "Muslim" and was used as recently as in 19th century to scare children and designate any enemy. The origin of that scare is in the times of Muslim raids on the Russian territories and in the centuries of Muslim khans' domination and enslavement. The word was not revived, however, when the children of Beslan were murdered by Muslim terrorists, or hostages of suicidal Muslims died in a Moscow theater, or Muslim "Black Widows" blew themselves up in the Moscow metro. Indeed, even though Chechens are Muslims, and it is hard not to see Islam's involvement in their cause, that cause is more nationalist than Muslim. Nowadays, the language is either more specific  - "Chechens", "Wahhabites"; or more generic - "terrorists". Muslims comprise a large proportion of the population in Russia, and are not persecuted for their religion. Russia, like the Soviet Union before, is good friends with  Islamic countries. Interestingly though, devout Muslims to this day call Christians "Crusaders". They also jumped at the word "crusade" (against terrorists), used by Bush in the wake of 9-11 in no connection to a Christian cause. Of course, because for Muslims the suicidal mass murder of 9-11 was an act of their faith, they considered any response to be religious  as well - Jewish and Christian. Never mind that Bush became a spokesperson for Islam, "religion of peace".

According to Obama, the explanation of 9-11 is in the "tension [that] has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies". Not according to Osama. His "fatwa" was titled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places" - his grievance was in the violation of Muhammad's prohibition of any religion but Islam in that land, one of the early manifestations of Islamic tolerance. That's why the Saudi monarchy that allowed the American/non-Muslim presence on the Arab soil is Osama's enemy as well. According to Obama, "America and Islam ... overlap, and share common principles -- principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings." Not according to Islam, which denies justice and dignity not only to other faiths (unless you consider dhimmitude just), but to even Muslim women and children. OK, let's assume that Islam is not defined by Muhammad's "marrying" a six-year old Aisha and raping her at the ripe age of nine, by his genocide of the Jewish tribes in Arabia, by the bloody conquests and Islamization of North Africa, Asia and large part of Europe  - that's all ancient history. There is a lot, they say, bad stuff in any religion's past.  What good is Islam defined by in our times? What is coming out of the Muslim world that serves, or at least does not hurt and promise to hurt more, humanity? These questions are rhetorical. No, I take it back. There is good coming out of Islamic world - people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who leave us hope that Islam's hold on its adherents is not absolute even in the darkest places of Dar al-Islam.

Ancient history aside, it's hard to miss Islam's influence in present-day events. The negative stuff in the name of Islam, by Islam and for Islam happens - well, every day. Everybody knows about that, so I'd like first to consider the positive. Let's see.  Can you? I can't. What I can see is that the only way for a Muslim not to think or do horrible things - not just to others but to family members - is to become a "bad" Muslim and neglect the Koran of Allah and the Sunna (tradition on the conduct) of the Prophet, which a "good" Muslim is supposed to dutifully follow.

Inconsistent with the definition of phobia, the fear of Islam is not irrational - it is well justified by the actions of Muslims in the name of Allah, whether it is a stoning of Muslim "adulterers" or Jewish children, a decapitation of a captive,  or incessant murderous attacks on anybody, any group, or any country that Muslims view as a problem. It does not matter how small the proportion of the 1.5 billion of Muslims that commit those actions is, as long as they are committed, not prevented, and condoned or even celebrated by the majority of the Muslims. It is those actions that are justifiably hated - not Muslims, who are the first victims of the cult of Allah. As a real phobia is a mental disorder, so is a lack of fear of something that presents clear, present and mortal danger - this is the other side of the same psychological coin. It is pathological or at least not very smart not to fear a lion and jump into his cage in a zoo. It would be pathological not to fear Islam.

Attaching "phobia" to "Islam" does not make the fear of Islam prejudicial, bigoted, or morbid. It is an attempt to subvert reality and turn the norm into pathology. In the same manner, Russian fascists invented the word Russophobia, serving a similar purpose - to render pathological the fear of the antisemitic and repressive Russian nationalism. Many Russians see through that and use the term only ironically. Those who use it seriously are known for what they are - fascists, who often are so transparent as to use swastika in their symbolics. I hope, the Americans are able to hold on to their rational fears, including that of Islam. The alternative is too dire - and scary.

Maimonides and the Gazans

A respectable blogger, William Jacobson (Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion), has recently noted that he was right predicting that lifting the Gaza blockade would be detrimental to Hamas because it would take away the need in a source of its business - the tunnel trade. Indeed, now that the blockade is lifted, it is reported that "Hamas panicked". I disagreed, however. Although there may be some revenue difficulties because of a drop (likely temporary) in the tunnel traffic, the key personnel is unlikely to suffer. Although that personnel may be interested in revenue, the main goal of Hamas in its volatile environment is  maintaining its hold on power. It is power that makes Hamas's income possible. That power is always under threat - not only from the "moderate" terrorists of Fatah, but also from the less prominent jihad warriors always yelping on the periphery and waiting for their turn.

It may well be that lifting the blockade slightly diminishes a source of Hamas's income, but in that part of the world it is symbolic victories that matter most. Symbolically, lifting the blockage is Hamas's, Turkish Islamic and leftist victory, ultimately helping Hamas. Besides, I am sure that the US help to Gaza will take care of any fiscal shortfall for Hamas. See, "Obama described the situation in Gaza as 'unsustainable'." Naturally, he promised to sustain the Hamas electorate with an infusion of $400 million. This is because, in the endless wisdom of the White House, the terror-supporting Gazan people "deserve a better life and expanded opportunities". The UK government has also squeezed its pockets to promise "an extra £19m in aid" - not that it has not given anything before. The poor philistines can always count on generous donations. In fact, they receive the greatest amount of international aid of any entity in the world. We should not also underestimate the help from Hamas's brothers in faith, Iran, Syria, and other anti-imperialist donors. Terror and jihad have been a lucrative business ever since Muhammad started it from Medina.

But let's get back to the more reliable source of income for the work-loving Gazan population that prefers destroying hothouses (which used to provide a quarter of produce in Israel and were given to Gazans free) to growing vegetables. Namely, the alms, a.k.a. international aid. Aid is charity, one of the commandments in Judaism. The Hebrew word is tzedakah, translated as righteousness, clearly an important issue for a religious person. Rambam, which is the Hebrew acronym for Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, known to Gentiles as Maimonides, the great Jewish lawmaker and Torah commentator, considered eight gradations of tzedakah, called Maimonides' Ladder. The rungs of the ladder are viewed from the perspective of the charity's worth to the giver's righteousness (obviously, it is the giver who is righteous, not the taker) - they are levels of giving, but the scale is the usefulness to the taker. Donations are good, but better if the donor is anonymous, to an unknown recipient, before being asked, particularly via a public fund. The highest rung, however, is a rehabilitating kind of charity, such as an interest-free loan that would allow an individual to stand on his own feet. Clearly, of all forms of charity, this is the best to the recipient. By contrast, the worst must be a charity that deprives the individual of initiative, of incentives to improve, ultimately of the future, and makes him feel humiliated.

This, worst, is the kind of charity that is served to the Arabs of Gaza and of Judea and Samaria. The kind of charity that requires no accountability or work, allowing the Arab leaders to steal as much they wish, and their subjects to enjoy their miserable lives, exercising their "idleness, uncertainty and despair". With the feeling of humiliation whipped up by the leaders to support the crowd's rage they could channel to their benefit. Misled by Hamas's "victory" in lifting the blockade to allow more handouts in. Always blaming Jews for this parasitic existence, while supported in that murderous self-pity by the New York Times and world media, "flotillas" and "human rights" organizations, governments and intelligentsia. Murderous, because that self-imposed and artificial beggar status and humiliation are translated into rockets targeting Jewish kindergartens and suicidal murderers' bombs in Jewish discotheques. 

Parasites lose their organs, as they lose their need in them. Professional beggars, if not lacking extremities, frequently pretend they do - it's easier for them to be disabled than to lose their income. The endless unconditional charity, with no accountability and no need to make something of themselves, exploits "the natural indolence of mankind; their tendency to be passive, to be the slaves of habit, to persist indefinitely in a course once chosen" (John Stuart Mill, "The Principles of Political Economy"). Disabling and killing Arabs softly by charity just to prove that Jews (a.k.a. Israelis) are bad, the world prepares "Palestinians" for another explosion under the guidance of their chosen jihad chieftains - leading them from spiritual death to "work accidents" to Israel's inevitable response to banditry and terror. 

July 19, 2010. - The shockingly "unsustainable"  situation in Gaza has just reached a new level of "uncertainty and despair" with opening a luxury mall. Please urge President Obama not to procrastinate with his life-supporting donation of $400 million, lest "Israeli men's trousers at an attractive price" are not affordable to some Gazan sufferer. 

July 20, 2010. - What a horrible thing - to be right so often. Reena Ninan, the Fox News reporter covering Israel (with dirt), has just reported about that mall (some "news"), and  commented that salaries may be too low to afford everybody  in Gaza to buy everything in this mall.  A young round-faced Gazan man (clear signs of starvation) was on hand to authoritatively confirm the hardships. I couldn't hold my tears. Considering that salaries in Gaza are paid by Hamas, there is no doubt where you and our generous President should urgently send money.

Islam: Religious mimicry

This is part of the page titled On the Brink I posted in August 2006, upon returning from Israel after spending vacation with my family in a miklat, shelter (see a little story about that here). Although the whole page is still relevant, this text on history in particular provides the perspective on the July 2006 war with Hizballah as well as current events.

Islam was founded by Muhammad in the first half of the VII century. Muslims are taught that Islam and its holy book, the Koran, had existed as long as had the Universe, and all Jewish and Christian prophets had been Muslims. The truth, however, is that nobody had heard about Islam until Muhammad, an illiterate, poor and mentally unstable husband of a rich and much older wife, decided to turn his dreams or hallucinations into a message to humankind under her insistence. Perhaps her plan was to solve her family problems. In the patriarchal Arab society, Muhammad’s dependent status might have been considered not quite kosher. That could have contributed to his frequenting caves and sitting there, depressed and prone to scary visions under sensory and alimentary deprivation – these were the conditions under which he received his first revelation. The divine character of that was far from clear to the future Messenger of Allah, who was scared to death by his vision and needed his wife’s reassurance.

Reassured, however, he realized the benefits of his newly acquired Messenger status, and proceeded in his career from a pathetic charlatan, laughed at by the people who knew him the best, to a highway robber chieftain, to a genocidal mass murderer and totalitarian ruler, removing any opposition, real or imaginary, literally by sword. That removal was really an equal opportunity treatment, as he murdered regardless of the sex, age, and ethnic origin of the opponent. This included his extermination of all men of the entire peaceful Jewish tribe of Banu Quraiza and enslavement of children and women. This was the first recorded application of the Nazis’ Babiy Yar method, long before Hitler. Jews were brought in groups and murdered on the brink of a ravine that was to be their mass grave. By Muhammad’s desire, expressed on his deathbed, Jews cannot settle in Arabia, which had been their home for centuries. The same rule, incidentally, was introduced by the British for Jewish immigration to the part of the Land of Israel they decided to call Trans-Jordan (later shortened to Jordan), assisting Hitler in murdering Jews. This has since been the rule enacted by Jordanian rulers, who consider themselves Muhammad’s direct descendants. No wonder, as Muslims are bound to follow the Sunnah (the example) of the Prophet, as they have followed it in their barbaric conquests.

Muhammad’s revelations would come to him conveniently when he had to justify another crime of his, perversion, political expediency and, eventually, the social order he created to facilitate his autocracy. That divine order (the Islamic state is supposed to be perfect) collapsed immediately upon his death into the war between the followers of Muhammad’s daughter and her husband, Muhammad’s nephew Ali, and the supporters of Muhammad’s favorite wife Aisha and her father the strongman Abu Bakr. The conflict was of the same type as the one between Anna Nicole Smith and her late husband’s children. Except that Aisha probably had a better claim to the spoils, as Muhammad “married” her when she was six and consummated that marriage when she was nine (the paragon for all humanity himself was over 50). The stakes also were much higher, and the two groups, respectively Shia and Sunni, have been killing each other since – just observe the endless slaughter in Iraq. Imagine how easy it is then for both to kill infidels.

By sword has been the way Islam has spread from the Arabian peninsula, brought under the Islamic yoke by Muhammad by the time he died in 632, to North Africa, to a large part of Asia, and – for a long time – some parts of Europe. Nowadays, helped by the boundless tolerance of Western democracies to everything they perceive as underdog, the Islamic violent takeover, still in full force with a weaker adversary as in Sudan, is supplemented by unstoppable Islamic immigration and the ensuing demographic and political changes in the world of the infidels – Crusaders and Jews. This perceived underdog position of the 1.3 billion-strong umma sitting on the oil treasure of the world has served the dual function of lulling the Western societies into deafness to Islam’s inhuman teachings while raising Muslims’ anger at their “humiliation,” which the true believers perceive as any state in which Islam is not über alles, superior. Naturally, Islamic immigration has no intention of assimilation – quite the opposite, its leaders have overt plans of (gradual) government change.

Muslims have no right to befriend Christians or Jews (Koran 5:51), let alone non-monotheists. They believe Jews are cursed by Allah (Koran 5:64) – because of the Jewish beliefs that are nowhere to be found except in Islamic teachings. They believe that Christians and Jews are to either convert to Islam, or keep their faith but assume a subhuman dhimmi position in the society under what is called “protected status” (of the kind of mafia protection), or die if they violate these conditions. Non-monotheists have no choice but to convert or die. Whether to offer a choice or not is under Muslims’ discretion. There is no choice as to who will eventually rule the world, currently divided into Dar al-Islam, the realm of Islam, and Dar al-Harb, the realm of war. Democracy, with its freedoms and human-made laws, is incompatible with Islam. Adding free elections to Islamic ideology as an attempt to introduce democracy is less meaningful than holding free elections in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Freedom does not necessarily create good neighbors – not when a neighbor is a criminal.

Whereas Islam is thus first and foremost a political doctrine and movement, the “religious” facet of Islam adds to the picture not merely the neutralization of the instinct of self-preservation but indeed its reversal. The brain-washed Muslim suicidal murderers perceive their certain demise not as death but as the virtually only way to ensure their staying alive (and well in Paradise). They are also convinced that they do a great favor to those Muslims who unintentionally get killed in a terror act because those are supposed to attain similar benefits. Most importantly, this eternal life is contrasted not with death, but with the almost certain alternative of their ending up in Hell, which is described in great detail in the Koran and the Sunnah, leaving little to imagination. Hell is virtually unavoidable for a believing Muslim, unless he is committed to jihad. Therefore, both negative and positive reinforcements are employed in the Islamic indoctrination, which has shown a great efficiency with a large number of people – not only when they receive it from their childhood, but – tellingly – with new converts as well. The usual straw-man counter-argument that only a small proportion of Muslims are in this altered state of consciousness is clearly invalid because there is no need for more than a minute proportion of 1.3 billion Muslims, properly educated and armed, to achieve a catastrophic effect. It is true, as human rights defenders in the US declare, that it is bad in general to discriminate in accordance with faith. It is not true, however, when the faith includes the current and actively enacted mainstream notions of human sacrifice and the subjugation or extermination of the other faiths. However highly developed the Aztec civilization was, had it survived till now, its bloody rituals would be forbidden, and if they were an inseparable part of the Aztec religion, it would be categorized into cult and banned. Islam, the ideology whose followers, led by Muhammad’s example, rape, enslave, behead unarmed civilians, execute “blasphemers,” and commit mass murder of children, thrives. The concept of Islam as a monotheistic religion serves this political ideology to protect it from the eradication that would certainly be in the cards for it due to its fascist and violent character. This religious mimicry, first used by Muhammad for ennobling, nay, sacralizing his morbid desires and immunizing himself from human critique, is still employed for the same purpose and perfected by Muslim spokespeople.

It is uncanny how the ongoing events resemble the pre-WWII layout. Russia, jealous of what it perceives to be the imperial position of the US, is playing, again thinking that it will gain dominance through pitting today’s Nazis against the West. France, true to its colors, stubs its allies in the back and is trying to appease the enemy. The rest of Europe keeps silence, thinking that if it keeps its head low, it will keep it – with profit. Antisemitism, reinforced by anti-Israelism, is as rampant around the world as in 1930’s, if not more. The left intelligentsia, ignorant in the matter as usual, but omniscient regardless by default, supports a totalitarian ideology – as long as that claims to fight for the “insulted and humiliated.”

Despite all experience with Nazism, the world has yet to grasp that violent ideology can only be fought as an infectious disease: by correctly identifying the agent, and by stopping its propagation by eliminating it and/or raising immunity against it - not by trying to appease it. Translated into the situation with Islam, that would mean first and foremost neutralizing those who spread the violent ideology - imams, mullahs and sheikhs, whose almost uniform obesity and penchant for hoarding female resources suggest that they themselves are not in a hurry to see the huris. This gives a strong hope that they can be persuaded to relay to their flock that jihad is about learning the multiplication table, brushing teeth and doing good deeds rather then cutting infidel throats, as the believers are used to erroneously think. Ataturk knew that well enough to deal with mullahs and employ healthy anti-Islam safeguards that have survived and protected Turkey till now as a relatively modern and open country, despite all its mosques and muezzins [again, this was written in 2006]. This is what should have been done in Iraq, instead of allowing its post-Saddam constitution to be based on the Koran - which is a bit like if Germany were allowed to use Mein Kampf for the same purpose after WWII.

“War on terror” may be a convenient shorthand. It is politically correct, but is as senseless as would be a war on guns or tanks, because terror is only a tool of war. The war that has been conducted by Islam, with variable intensity, against Dar al-Harb. Now is the first time, however, when the means of waging a truly decisive jihad have become available. Unless the complacent Western world learns from past lessons, it will be taught new apocalyptic ones, already under preparation by true believers in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and wherever there is a mosque with a properly thinking imam. One who knows that

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews. (Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 6985; also Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 6981-6984; and Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176-179, 56: 791).

If you are a good Muslim, you must follow the Sunnah. I doubt there are so many Gharqad trees around.