From Family Security Matters.
Islam On My Mind
I've been criticized by some readers as having "Islam on the brain." It's not a very kind criticism considering the seriousness of the Islamic jihad against them and me and everyone else in the West. Why, my critics ask, don't I devote myself to more important topics such as President Barack Obama's assault on freedom of speech, on his assault on private ownership of guns, on the government's assault on private property, on Obamacare, on Holder's Fast & Furious, and so on?
I don't know where these readers have been, but I've logged in over 500 columns on those and many more subjects on Rule of Reason alone. I think I am well versed in the damage Obama and Company have wrought domestically, never mind the twisted alchemy of their foreign policies, and have written extensively on both phenomena. I've been excoriating Obama ever since he poked his head out of Illinois many years ago in a stage-managed debut at the 2004 Democratic Convention.
A faraway friend lamented the shortsightedness of my critics, as well, saying they lacked my "metaphysical intelligence."
That being said - I've penned close to a million words on all those subjects over the years, including movies, TV series, book reviews, etc.; I write these columns gratis, thank you very much - I offer this roundup of things Islamic.
The Beast That Bites the Hand that Feeds It
Winston Churchill wrote: An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Raymond Ibrahim, writing for the Middle East Forum on May 23rd, addresses the question of crocodiles in "The Calm Before the Jihadi Storm": Where did these killers come from? Who enabled them? What have they up their sleeves? If they are crocodiles, why are we still feeding them?
There is no good news, he writes.
On this Memorial Day, it's important to remember that the very same U.S. policies that created al-Qaeda in Afghanistan in the 1980s - leading to the horrific attacks of 9/11 - are today allowing al-Qaeda to metastasize all around the Muslim world. As in the 80s, these new terrorist cells are quietly gathering strength now, and are sure to deliver future terror strikes that will make 9/11 seem like child's play.
In the 1980s, the U.S. supported Afghani rebels - among them the jihadis - to repel the Soviets. Osama bin Laden, Ayman Zawahiri, and countless foreign jihadis journeyed to Afghanistan to form a base of training and planning - the first prerequisite of the jihad, as delineated in Sayyid Qutb's Milestones.
Al-Qaeda- which tellingly means "the base" - was born. The U.S. supported al-Qaeda, they defeated the Soviets, shook hands with Reagan, Afghanistan became ruled by the Taliban, and for many years all seemed well.
Read the rest of Ibrahim's article. It is one of the most compact, incisive and hard-hitting indictments of our foreign policy I've read anywhere.
But if Reagan helped create the first al-Qaeda cell in relatively unimportant Afghanistan, Obama is helping to create numerous, more emboldened, al-Qaeda cells in some of the most important Islamic nations. He is doing this by helping get rid of Arab autocrats who were effective at suppressing jihadis...while empowering some of the most radical jihadis who were formerly imprisoned or in hiding.
And all in the name of the "Arab Spring" and "democracy."
This caliber of exposé makes one question the "metaphysical intelligence" of our political leadership. But then, our political leadership is not noted for its grasp of reality or its recognition of causo-connections. So what if the logic is apparent? they'd protest. What difference does it make? When you boil it down to the essentials discussed by Ibrahim, it's the difference between our lives and our deaths. The appeasers are feeding us to the Islamic crocodile.
The Inbred Insanity of Islam
Europe News in August 2010 ran an interesting article on the worldwide gene pool of Muslims, "Muslim Inbreeding: Impacts on intelligence, sanity, health and society," by Danish psychologist Nicolai Sennels. Sennels wastes no time establishing his thesis:
Massive inbreeding within the Muslim culture during the last 1.400 years may have done catastrophic damage to their gene pool. The consequences of intermarriage between first cousins often have serious impact on the offspring's intelligence, sanity, health and on their surroundings.
We make light of the Hatfield and McCoy clans of Appalachia gunning for each other over who had an unauthorized roll in the hay with someone else's first cousin. But our Hatfields and McCoys are not flying planes into skyscrapers or preparing pressure cookers to blow up in Boston. Muslims are.
The high amount of mentally retarded and handicapped royalties throughout European history shows the unhealthy consequences of this practice. Luckily, the royal families have now allowed themselves to marry for love and not just for status.
The Muslim culture still practices inbreeding and has been doing so for longer than any Egyptian dynasty. This practice also predates the world's oldest monarchy (the Danish) by 300 years.
A rough estimate shows that close to half of all Muslims in the world are inbred: In Pakistan, 70 percent of all marriages are between first cousins (so-called "consanguinity") and in Turkey the amount is between 25-30 percent (Jyllands-Posten, 27/2 2009 More stillbirths among immigrants")
The Turks and the Pakistanis are not the only ones guilty of marrying the cousin next door.
Statistical research on Arabic countries shows that up to 34 percent of all marriages in Algiers are consanguine (blood related), 46 percent in Bahrain, 33 percent in Egypt, 80 percent in Nubia (southern area in Egypt), 60 percent in Iraq, 64 percent in Jordan, 64 percent in Kuwait, 42 percent in Lebanon, 48 percent in Libya, 47 percent in Mauritania, 54 percent in Qatar, 67 percent in Saudi Arabia, 63 percent in Sudan, 40 percent in Syria, 39 percent in Tunisia, 54 percent in the United Arabic Emirates and 45 percent in Yemen (Reproductive Health Journal, 2009 Consanguinity and reproductive health among Arabs.)
A large part of inbred Muslims are born from parents who are themselves inbred - which increase the risks of negative mental and physical consequences greatly.
The consequences are fairly evident, too, and can be seen during those noisy and noisome mass demonstrations against freedom of speech and in the criminal activities of Muslims in the way of honor killings, rapes, assaults on infidels in their own cities, and in just general hell-raising when something happens in the West that offends Muslims and sends them into the streets wielding meat cleavers and guns.
If you look into the eyes of a Muslim who is shouting "Death to blasphemers!" do you see intelligence or the dark soul of a "drooling beast"? We will never know for sure, because, for example, the Swedish authorities seem to be reluctant to take a genealogical survey in between burned out cars and torched buildings, but probably if they braved a survey they would find that a high percentage of the rioting "youths" are products of inbreeding. It can help to account for their behavior. Which doesn't excuse them, of course.
Sennells' paper is long but not dry reading. It is chock full of interesting information about the consequences of Muslim inbreeding. Unfortunately, he ends his paper with a call for a legislative ban on first cousin marriages in the Muslim world, in the European Union, and in other Western countries, which, he says, would be logical and compassionate.
A more logical and compassionate move would be to ban further Muslim immigration into the West and to offer tickets home whence they came to any Muslims unhappy with living under secular law.
Mommy! Johnny Stuck His Tongue Out at Me! Or, Islamic Grievance-Mongers
Videos of Muslim funerals in the Mideast show men shouting with maniacal and bellicose anger in their grief over the death of another Muslim. This is odd behavior because the Muslim assumption is that life on earth is transient and the deceased is now happier in Allah's paradise. So, why are they angry? It is in direct opposition to the typical, quiet Christian form of grief, usually expressed that the deceased has gone to a better life. Is Islamic "grief" synonymous with "grievance"?
Peter Huessy, in his Gatestone article of May 30th, "The 'Grievances' Defense," examines the regular fall-back explanation of Islamic "grievances" as the root of Islamic terrorism. The government, the MSM, and Islamic spokesmen all subscribe to the "Grievances Defense." Huessy warns that whether or not the "grievances" are legitimate - and they are not - then we face what Ibrahim in his article described as a "jihadi storm."
The April terrorist attacks during the Boston Marathon killed and wounded scores of people. Machete-wielding thugs last week butchered a British soldier in full view of citizens on a London street. Simultaneously, in Sweden, a full five days of riots have seen burned cars, banks and schools, and assaulted citizens. These attacks raise the uncomfortable question: "Why are we being attacked?"
A newly announced American policy to deal with such threats involves "addressing grievances and conflicts" that feed what is described as "extremism."
What is the common denominator of all the "grievances" cited by the government, the MSM, and Islamic spokesmen? American actions ranging from American intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan to alleged anti-Muslim "backlashes" to a lack of respect for Islam and Muslims, coupled with a bigoted "misunderstanding" of Muslim immigrants.
Even now, many weeks after the Boston Marathon bombing, the "Blame America" syndrome is on full display. The New York Times charged that the US had failed to assimilate the bombers' family, implying presumably, "What could anyone expect them to do other then bomb the Boston Marathon?"
Then the bombers were humanized. They were described as friendly school chums, attractive to women. The New York Times compared one of the bombers to the hero of that classic American book Catcher in the Rye, Holden Caulfield. Then came the "self-actualization" explanation for terrorism: apparently, as the two brothers were not members of any terrorist group but possibly just lone-wolf types, America had failed to "assimilate" them properly -- implying that their bombing was somehow our fault.
That rationalization was followed by strenuous efforts to avoid making any connection to their Islamic background, their travel to Dagestan, and their connection to a nearby Boston mosque from which a half dozen members and key leaders have been convicted of terrorist acts in the past decade.
What underlies this "blame America first" mantra?
This compulsion to explain terrorism as driven by grievances against America continues as the politically correct narrative. If "legitimate grievances" motivate terrorists, the thinking apparently goes, then such terrorism is justified. [Italics mine.]
If grievances explain terrorism, the implication is that removing these grievances would remove the terrorism.
Political correctness in thought and speech stunts the mind, encourages the dismissal of truth, and guarantees the deleterious consequences of appeasement. Huessy demonstrates that even though the U.S. (and the West) have bent over backwards to correct these "grievances" to the point of threatening to up-end the First Amendment and subjecting American troops to suicidal "rule of engagement" in Afghanistan to avoid civilian casualties, terrorism has not only continued but has increased in frequency. Huessy concludes his article with
If...the driving force behind terrorist attacks on the United States is a strategy to harm the United States and other Western nations, to eliminate their presence in the Middle East or terrorize them into agreeing to live under the laws of Islam, a credible case can be argued that the U.S. and its allies have the right of self-defense.
This is even truer if the threat the West faces is a force that seeks to establish totalitarian Islam throughout the Muslim world, then everywhere else. If the tip of the spear may indeed be a nuclear weapon, let us rethink what it means to "provide for the common defense."
Islamic "grievances" are endless. Islamic grievance-mongers can point to any little thing and either behead another infidel in protest or file a lawsuit in an American court. Our political leaders shy away from any notion of "self-defense" because to concede its necessity would be to acknowledge that Islam is the enemy. This they refuse to do. See my column "Why Liberals Love Islam" for a discussion.
The PsychoSyndrome of Islam
While both films are touchstones of cinematic technical excellence, Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho is not one of my favorite movies, nor is his The Birds. While the latter film depicts nature gone mad (it could be called the first ecological horror film), the former is more germane to our theme here.
Psycho is the great-grandfather of scores of copycat films of diminishing quality over the decades. It presents Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) who runs an out-of-the-way motel and apparently has little contact with the outside world. His alternate persona is governed by his dead mother. "She" comes to life when temptation crosses his path. The voyeuristic sight of Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) in semi-undress in one of his motel rooms triggers in Norman an urge to kill and eliminate the temptation. A cross-dressed Bates stabs her to death in the shower, then disposes of her body and car in a neighboring swamp. A detective, Arbogast (Martin Balsam), investigating Crane's disappearance is also murdered by Bates-as-Mother, to protect Norman from the consequences of his actions.
Norman Bates is subsequently deemed mentally ill and committed to a prison for the criminally insane.
The parallels with Islam here are fairly obvious. The Bates Motel is Islamic culture. Islam is Norman Bates who is compelled to kill whatever doesn't comport with Islam's death-worshipping doctrine (because Allah commands it). Marion Crane is the temptation, the uncovered infidel female. Detective Arbogast is the truth-seeker and truth-teller who criticizes Islam. Call him Salman Rushdie or Kurt Westergaard or Geert Wilders. Or filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was actually stabbed to death on the streets of Amsterdam in 2004.
Islam fosters a special kind of mental illness that can lay latent and fester in any Muslim until it erupts in criminally insane behavior. Like Norman Bates, who on the outside is a nice, congenial, harmless guy, the average Muslim is someone you can't really know.
Nicolai Sennels pursues this psychological angle, as well, in "Muslims and Westerners: The Psychological Differences." He interviewed 150 Muslim and 100 non-Muslim prisoners in a Danish prison and published his findings in Criminal Muslims: A Psychologist's Experiences from the Copenhagen Municipality in 2009 (published by the Free Press Society - strangely, not to be found on any Amazon Books site, including Denmark's). He discusses the archetypical character traits of the average Muslim: anger, locus of control, self-reflection, the role of "honor," and Muslim identity. Sennels writes:
After having consulted with 150 young Muslim clients in therapy and 100 Danish clients (who, on average, shared the same age and social background as their Muslim inmates), my findings were that the Muslims' cultural and religious experiences played a central role in their psychological development and criminal behavior.
Discussing psychological characteristics of the Muslim culture is important. Denmark has foreigners from all over the world and according to official statistics from Danmarks Statistik all non-Muslim groups of immigrants are less criminal than the ethnic Danes. Even after adjusting, according to educational and economic levels, all Muslim groups are more criminal than any other ethnic group. Seven out of 10, in the youth prison where I worked, were Muslim.
On the subject of anger and angry threats, Sennels distinguishes the Western attitude towards anger from the Muslim practice of it. Unbridled anger over mundane issues, he writes, in the West is symptomatic of a character weakness. In Muslim culture, such anger is a mark of strength, manliness, and honor.
In the eyes of most Westerners it looks immature and childish when people try to use threatening behavior, to mark their dislikes. A Danish saying goes "...Only small dogs bark. Big dogs do not have to." That saying is deeply rooted in our cultural psychology as a guideline for civilized social behavior. To us, aggressive behavior is a clear sign of weakness. It is a sign of not being in control of oneself and lacking ability to handle a situation. We see peoples' ability to remain calm as self confidence, allowing them to create a constructive dialogue. Their knowledge of facts, use of common sense and ability in producing valid arguments is seen as a sign of strength.
With Muslims, however, knowledge of facts, civil behavior, common sense, and the willingness and ability to calmly debate or argue a point are all signs of weakness. Muslims would rather resort to breast-beating bravado, insults, making a lot of noise about their "grievances," or settle for actual physical assaults, all while playing the "victim" card. This behavior is bizarre to most Westerners and not quite understood by them.
This cultural difference is exceedingly important when dealing with Muslim regimes and organizations. Our way of handling political disagreement goes through diplomatic dialogue, and calls on Muslim leaders to use compassion, compromise and common sense. This peaceful approach is seen by Muslims as an expression of weakness and lack of courage. Thus avoiding the risks of a real fight is seen by them as weakness; when experienced in Muslim culture, it is an invitation to exploitation.
A thorough and daily immersion in Islam and its social culture encourages the development of a religious resistance to adjusting to Western culture and a conscious rejection of the idea of assimilation into it, a resistance and rejection encouraged by not a few mosques and their manipulative imams in the West.
Western culture also has had the virtue of imbuing an individual with a sense of personal responsibility for his happiness, success, failures, and goals. Islamic culture, on the other hand, fosters a sense of helplessness and a habitual shifting of blame for his unhappiness, failures, and dubious goals to external forces beyond his control. Westerners are astonished when convicted jihadists express no guilt for their crimes, and, indeed, defiantly boast of them. Sennels writes:
In societies shaped under Islamic and Qu'ranic influences there may be fewer feelings of guilt and thus, more freedom to demand the surroundings to adapt to one's own wishes and desires. This may include demands to wear Islamic costumes which can result in more Muslim demands for Islamization of our Western societies, but it is also a powerful source of victim mentality and leads to endless demands on one's surroundings. In a very concrete way this cultural tendency, shows itself in therapy, as a lack of remorse. The standard answer from violent Muslims was always: "...It is his own fault that I beat him up. He provoked me." Such excuses show that people experience their own reactions as caused by external factors and not by their own emotions, motivation and free will.
Again, Sennels' paper is a long but insightful read into the mentality of Muslims, "moderate," "extremist," and anything in between.
Chechnyan Attacks FBI Agent with Fingernails, Is Unconstitutionally Shot
The Washington Post had this headline on May 29th, about a friend of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who was killed while being arrested (actually by his fleeing brother, Dzhokhar, in an SUV) for the Boston Marathon bombing of April 15th: "Officials: Man who knew Boston bombing suspect was unarmed when shot."
An air of mystery has surrounded the FBI shooting of Ibragim Todashev, 27, since it occurred in Todashev's apartment early on the morning of May 22. The FBI said in a news release that day that Todashev, a former Boston resident who knew bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was killed during an interview with several law enforcement officers.
In its only statement about the Todashev's shooting, which was issued on the day of the incident, the FBI said that an agent, along with two Massachusetts State Police troopers and other law enforcement personnel, were interviewing "an individual" in connection with the Boston Marathon bombing investigation when a "violent confrontation was initiated by the individual." The agent sustained non-life-threatening injuries, later described by one law enforcement official as "some cuts and abrasions."
Initial reports citing anonymous law-enforcement sources provided conflicting accounts of what happened. Some law enforcement officials said Todashev wielded a knife and others suggested that he attempted to grab the FBI agent's gun.
The term "unarmed" insinuates that the FBI agent had a gun, while poor helpless Todashev was "unarmed," except perhaps for a knife, or his fists, or his fingernails, with which to inflict those "cuts and abrasions." Such usage is par for the course in an MSM committed to white-washing Islamists and Muslims and characterizing jihadist-fighting authorities as trigger-happy morons.
In any event, the FBI had no reason to shoot the Chechnyan unless he attacked the agents and posed a life-threatening threat to them. He was a treasure trove of information about other Chechnyans and cohorts of the Tsarnaev brothers. I'm certain that a thoroughly trained FBI agent won't shoot a terrorism-related suspect if the suspect simply assaults him with Chechnyan or Russian or Arabic maledictions. Or even with broken English ones.
And no one has any reason to read this column unless he is seriously concerned about the threat of Islam and its ongoing invasion of the U.S. at the invitation and with the blessing of our totalitarianism-friendly government. Those in denial of that threat are already dhimmis and I do not speak to them.