THE OVERRIDING ISSUE AND CHALLENGE OF OUR CENTURY*
PROF. PAUL EIDELBERG
“Islamic Imperialism” (2006) is the title of Efraim Karsh’s illuminating book on Islam’s relentless, global ambition.
One doesn’t have to read very far into Professor Karsh’s book to see the validity of his thesis. The first page of the Introduction begins with the following quotes:
● “I was ordered to fight all men until they say ‘There is no god but Allah.’”
Prophet Muhammad’s farewell address, March 632
● “I shall cross this sea to their islands to pursue them until there remains no one on the face of the earth who does not acknowledge Allah.”
Saladin, January 1189
● “We shall export our revolution throughout the world …until the calls ’there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah’ are echoed all over the world.”
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, 1979
● “I was ordered to fight people until they say there is no god but Allah, and his prophet Muhammad.”
Osama bin Laden. November 2001
Karsh goes beyond those who, like Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington, correctly interpret Islam’s 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as symbolic of a “clash of civilizations.”
As for the legions of commentators who portray Islam as a “religion of peace” hijacked by Muslim extremists, Karsh’s study shows this is sheer nonsense. This nonsense, however, leads pundits to think that the terrorist attack on 9/11 was merely an Islamic reaction to American foreign policy in the Middle East in general, and to its allegedly pro-Israel stance vis-à-vis the Palestinians in particular. This apologetic view of Islam is actually tainted by anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism.
Karsh brilliantly reformulates the dynamism of Islam going back to Muhammad himself. He shows that in contrast to the gradual development of Christianity and its doctrine of separating the church from the state, the birth of Islam was initially and ideologically linked to the creation of a world power. Karsh boldly states that “Muhammad used God’s name to build an earthly kingdom”—the goal of Islam to this day.
By rejecting the dichotomy of God and Caesar, Islam rejected the very concept of independent nation-states. For Muhammad and all true believers, there is only the Arab nation, the umma, and it has no borders. A world empire has thus been the logic of Islam since its inception. This is what pan-Arabism and pan-Islamism is all about.
Moreover, whereas Western imperialism maintained political and cultural separation from its colonies in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, Islamic imperialism spread throughout these continents by converting the inhabitants to the creed of Muhammad. And insofar as Islam tolerated, when it did not slaughter, these “infidels,” the surviving victims were reduced to a condition of “dhimmitude,” which, according to Bat Ye’or, was often worse than slavery.
On the other hand, and as Karsh explains, some Muslim rulers “were less interested in the mass conversion of the conquered populations than in enjoying the material fruits of their subjugation. For them the triumph of Islam was not so much a cultural or civilization issue as it was a territorial and political matter. The lands they occupied became an integral part of the House of Islam whether or not most of their inhabitants became Muslims.”
Islamic imperialism, never simply political, remains the driving force of the Middle East. Even a “secular” pan-Arab leader like Saddam Hussein had to “brandish his religious credentials” to justify his invasion of Kuwait. Karsh adds: “For all its professed secularism …pan-Arabism has not only been forced to claim allegiance to the religious beliefs …to which most Arabs remain attached to date, but has effectively been Muslim in its ethos.” Even Christian Arabs have been urged to preserve Islam as “the most precious element in their Arabism.”
The inescapable logic of Islamic doctrine, fortified by a lust for Islam’s lost and lamented glory, is the inexorable reason why no Arab or Muslim ruler has ever recognized, except for tactical reasons, the land called “Palestine” as separate from the House of Islam. Arab rhetoric about a “Palestinian” state is intended solely for Western consumption—yes, and it also prompts the US and the EU to bankroll the Palestinians and their supremely cunning terrorist leaders.
Karsh quotes the eminent Arab-American historian Philip Hitti, who in 1946 described the common Arab view: “There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not.”
It was never “perceived as a distinct entity deserving national self-determination but as an integral part of a unified regional Arab order, no element of which should be conceded at any cost.”
As late as 1974, ten years after the formation of the Palestine Liberation Organization, Syrian president Hafez Assad still referred to Palestine not only as part of the Arab homeland but as a basic part of southern Syria. There is no
evidence that his son and successor, Bashar Assad, has renounced the power-lust of Islamic imperialism.
Syria is particularly revealing. Its multi-ethnic and multi-religious character facilitates the presence in Damascus of a variety of terrorist organizations linked to diverse Arab or Muslims regimes. This linkage confirms that Middle Eastern leaders and ideologues have remained under “the spell of the imperial dream.” In the words of the senior Hamas leader, Mahmoud al-Zahar: “Islamic and traditional views reject the notion of establishing an independent Palestinian state …[Hence] our main goal is to establish a great Islamic state, be it pan-Arabic or pan-Islamic.”
These would-be Saladins may have delusions of grandeur; but they now have within their reach weapons of mass destruction. This makes the world-conquering aspiration of Islam in the past Islam’s vision of the future.
Even now al-Qaeda has terrorist networks in England and Europe. Even now Muslims have in sight the conquest of England and Europe where, in a few decades, they may outnumber the native populations. And this is not all.
Even now, with more than a thousand mosques in the United States, imams are preaching anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, and Islamic imperialism. Even now, with all this in front of his nose, an American president insists on the establishment of an Arab Palestinian state along side Israel—a fantasy embraced by Israel’s prime minister! Yes, and there is not a single party in the Knesset that stands up and calls for an end to this appeasement of Islam—nay, an end to this cowardice.
What statesman has the courage to call upon his country to go on the offensive against Islam—a “culture of hate” now spreading throughout the world? Islamic imperialism is animated by a political religion that denies the sanctity of human life, the foundation of Judeo-Christian civilization. Throughout the world Muslims cheered and chanted “Allahu Akbar” when Muslim kamikazes murdered 3,000 innocents on 9/11.
Infinitely more is needed of America than a military “surge” in Iraq and negotiations with Iran. Islam has declared war against America as well as against Israel. Yet neither country has truly identified the enemy, let alone developed a strategy for defeating this deadliest of foes—the overriding issue and challenge of our century.
As I read Karsh’s exhaustive study of Islamic history, the only rational response to Islamic imperialism is a war strategy whose goal is victory. Needed to achieve this victory is the realism and ruthlessness that animated Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman in the Second World War. One does not negotiate with Nazis or their Islamic successors.
Oprah’s SA luxury school ‘too strict’
Mon, 12 Mar 2007Rules at Oprah Winfrey’s posh school at Henley-on-Klip near Johannesburg apparently make a reformatory look like a holiday resort, the Witness reported on Monday.
Its website said that was the word from upset parents, who felt the school rules made it difficult for them to keep contact with their children.
They would have aired their concerns during a satellite link-up with the chat show queen a week ago, but that was cancelled at short notice by the school’s management body.
Meanwhile, the school appeared to have made the rules even stricter. Until now, the girls could receive visitors every fortnight, but parents could now only visit once a month.
Frances Mans, foster-mother of pupil Gweneth Mulder, said cellphones and email correspondence were out of bounds during the week.
Girls were only allowed to phone their parents at weekends.
The maximum number of visitors per pupil was four, and visits had to be approved by the school at least two weeks in advance.
Parents were not allowed to smuggle junk food in to the girls past the matrons.
“Then the girls lose points,” said Mans.
Angela Conradie, whose daughter Michelle is at the school, was just as upset about the strict visiting times.
“Michelle phones me in tears sometimes, and then I don’t know what to say to her,” says Conradie.
John Samuels, the executive head of the school, confirmed only one visit a month would be allowed in future.
He said: “We have the security and well-being of the girls at heart, in every respect. They are our priority. If there’s too much movement on the premises at the weekend, it disturbs the school spirit.”
The United States talk show host opened the school at the beginning of the year to give less privileged South African children an opportunity to receive a first-class education.
“Islamic extremists ‘infiltrate Oxbridge’,” by Roya Nikkhah for the Sunday Telegraph:
Leading universities including Oxford and Cambridge have been targeted by Islamic extremists who remain widely active on campuses, a prominent academic is warning.
The claim calls into question the Government’s attempted crackdown on Islamic extremism in universities and casts doubt on claims by Bill Rammell, the Higher Education Minister, that the problem is not widespread.
Prof Glees will warn the Association of University Chief Security Officers (Aucso) next month that the disbanded extremist group, al-Muhajiroun, claims to have infiltrated “the main campuses such as Cambridge, Oxford, the London School of Economics and Imperial College”.
His speech on “radicalism in universities” also states that at its peak before the July 7 bombings in 2005, al-Muhajiroun had a presence at “more than 48 universities and faculties”, and that Omar Bakri Mohammed, the group’s founder, claims it is “still operational” in several campuses.
Prof Glees, the director of Brunel University’s Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, said: “We must accept this problem is widespread and underestimated. Unless clear and decisive action against campus extremism is taken, the security situation in the UK can only deteriorate.”
Following a report from Prof Glees showing that 31 universities and colleges had hard-line Islamic groups within their campuses, the Department for Education and Skills last year issued guidelines on dealing with any extremism.
Student Islamic societies have faced growing scrutiny after it emerged that one of 12 men charged in connection with the alleged plot to blow up transatlantic airliners was president of the Islamic Society at London Metropolitan University. Last year, Aucso launched a “counter-terrorism” group to tackle the spread of Islamic fundamentalism on campuses.
Prof Glees called on the Government to provide extra investment in campus security and urged university officials to interview undergraduates to ensure that they were bona fide students.
A spokesman for Oxford University said: “We always take any extremism seriously and work closely with the police on any form of extremism that might affect our students or staff.” A Cambridge University spokesman said he was not aware of any current extremist activity but that the university “remained vigilant”. The Government’s controversial guidance asked university staff to “monitor” student Islamic societies and report any “Asian-looking” students they suspected of extremism to the security services. Student groups attacked the move as “bearing on the side of McCarthyism”.
Other critics suggest that the guidelines are widely ignored. Chris Pope, an associate fellow of the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies, said: “My understanding is that this problem is ongoing and expanding in some campuses.”
A spokesman for Universities UK, the umbrella group for British vice-chancellors, said: “In the rare event of such problems, universities work very closely with the police and other authorities.”
In a recent report from a London-based Arabic newspaper, Anjem Choudary, the former head of al-Muhajiroun in Britain, who joined the group as a student at the University of Surrey, confirmed that while the movement officially disbanded in 2005, “the students of Omar Bakri continue to preach on campuses”.
Last year, Dhiren Barot, said to be al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden’s “UK general”, was jailed for 40 years for planning terrorist attacks. Barot, 34, faked his identity in order to study at Brunel University.
The London School of Ecomonics and Imperial College were unable to comment.
Mr Rammell said: “Our assessment has not changed. Violent extremism in the name of Islam is a real, credible and sustained threat to the UK and there is evidence of a serious, but not widespread risk of violent extremism in the name of Islam on our university campuses.”
Hmm. Define “widespread.”
Diana West, who is consistently perceptive, has written what may be her most outstanding column yet. (Thanks to PRCS for the link.)
Only one faith on Earth may be more messianic than Islam: multiculturalism. Without it — without its fanatics who believe all civilizations are the same — the engine that projects Islam into the unprotected heart of Western civilization would stall and fail. It’s as simple as that. To live among the believers — the multiculturalists — is to watch the assault, the jihad, take place un-repulsed by our suicidal societies. These societies are not doomed to submit; rather, they are eager to do so in the name of a masochistic brand of tolerance that, short of drastic measures, is surely terminal.I’m not talking about our soldiers, policemen, rescue workers and, now, even train conductors, who bravely and steadfastly risk their lives for civilization abroad and at home. Instead, I’m thinking about who we are as a society at this somewhat advanced stage of war. It is a strange, tentative civilization we have become, with leaders who strut their promises of “no surrender” even as they flinch at identifying the foe. Four years past 9/11, we continue to shadow-box “terror,” even as we go on about “an ideology of hate.” It’s a script that smacks of sci-fi fantasy more than realpolitik. But our grim reality is no summer blockbuster, and there’s no special-effects-enhanced plot twist that is going to thwart “terror” or “hate” in the London Underground anymore than it did on the roof of the World Trade Center. Or in the Bali nightclub. Or on the first day of school in Beslan. Or in any disco, city bus or shopping mall in Israel.
Body bags, burn masks and prosthetics are no better protections than make-believe. But these are our weapons, according to the powers that be. These, and an array of high-tech scopes and scanners designed to identify retinas and fingerprints, to detect explosives and metals — ultimately, I presume, as we whisk through the automatic supermarket door. How strange, though, that even as we devise new ways to see inside ourselves to our most elemental components, we also prevent ourselves from looking full-face at the danger to our way of life posed by Islam.
Notice I didn’t say “Islamists.” Or “Islamofascists.” Or “fundamentalist extremists.” I’ve tried out such terms in the past, but I’ve come to find them artificial and confusing, and maybe purposefully so, because in their imprecision I think they allow us all to give a wide berth to a great problem: the gross incompatibility of Islam — the religious force that shrinks freedom even as it “moderately” enables or “extremistly” advances jihad — with the West. Am I right? Who’s to say? The very topic of Islamization — for that is what is at hand, and very soon in Europe — is verboten.
A leaked British report prepared for Prime Minister Tony Blair last year warned even against “expressions of concern about Islamic fundamentalism” (another one of those amorphous terms) because “many perfectly moderate Muslims follow strict adherence to traditional Islamic teachings and are likely to perceive such expressions as a negative comment on their own approach to their faith.” Much better to watch subterranean tunnels fill with charred body parts in silence. As the London Times’ Simon Jenkins wrote, “The sane response to urban terrorism is to regard it as an avoidable accident.”
In not discussing the roots of terror in Islam itself, in not learning about them, the multicultural clergy that shepherds our elites prevents us from having to do anything about them. This is key, because any serious action — stopping immigration from jihad-sponsoring nations, shutting down mosques that preach violence and expelling their imams, just for starters — means to renounce the multicultural creed. In the West, that’s the greatest apostasy. And while the penalty is not death — as it is for leaving Islam under Islamic law — the existential crisis is to be avoided at all costs. Including extinction.
This is the lesson of the atrocities in London. It’s unlikely that the 21st century will remember that this new Western crossroads for global jihad was once the home of Churchill, Piccadilly and Sherlock Holmes. Then again, who will notice? The BBC has retroactively purged its online bombing coverage of the word “terrorist”; the spokesman for the London police commissioner has declared that “Islam and terrorism simply don’t go together”; and within sight of a forensics team sifting through rubble, an Anglican priest urged his flock, as The Guardian reported, to “rejoice in the capital’s rich diversity of cultures, traditions, ethnic groups and faiths.” Just don’t, he said, “name them as Muslims.” Their faith renewed, Londoners soldier on.
This is the problem, isn’t it? That nice smiling “Paul Hall” who then takes the name “Hassan Abujihaad” (or is the other way round? And does it really matter what name he goes under, or is it the underlying beliefs that matter?) may smile, and smile, and even sign up, a stout patriot, for the armed services — but for his fellow Americans, if they are Infidels, there is only murder in his heart. And we have no good way of telling who, among those Muslims allowed to arrive on these shores, shares that hatred, or who, while not actively participating in violent Jihad, will support it with money, with political maneuvering, with civil agitation, or with sowing propaganda to swell the ranks of other Muslims. Those other Muslims, meanwhile, are also conducting Jihad using the various instruments that are available — and mere presence, and procreation, constitutes use of the instrument of demographic conquest. Some are merely Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only Muslims, shunning entirely the central tenets of Islam that require the world be viewed as divided between Believers and Infidels, and a permanent state of war between the Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb must exist until the latter succumbs entirely, but there is no way to tell which ones these are.
“Paul Hall” or “Hassan Abujihaad” or one grading into the other, or one using the life experience of the first to protect the other? Nice “Mike” Hawash, Little League father and Intel engineer with a $360,000 annual salary, co-author of a book on computers, or Maher Hawash, buying his ticket, inspired as he was by the 9/11/2001 attacks, that he hoped would take him to Afghanistan where he would take the side of Al Qaeda and kill his fellow, but Infidel, Americans?
Why should we take a chance? We know, from all of the evidence, that a very great number of Muslims in the West become not less but more radical. We know that a very great number of Muslims everywhere, including the West, support Al Qaeda, or Hamas, or Hizballah, or Lashkar-e-Toiba, or Gemaa Islamiyya, or the Ikhwan al-Muslimun, or a thousand other groups (their separate names hardly matter).
Why do we continue to admit them into our countries? Why do Infidels believe they have some kind of duty to make their own lives, and those of their children and grandchildren, far more unpleasant, far more expensive, far more physically dangerous, than they would otherwise be, without a large-scale Muslim presence? Can’t they look and see, at least in this country, at Holland and France, at Great Britain and Germany? Can’t we learn from the horrible immigration mistakes of others? No? Just not possible?
From a posting I put up on February 2, 2007, one will see in the last sentence of the second paragraph mention of “other stories, less-publicized, of a Muslim sailor, on a ship in the Persian Gulf, through an intercepted communication offering to reveal secrets about the ship to make it more vulnerable.”
Quaere: is this Abujihaad (“Father of Jihad”) that sailor, or is there yet another Muslim sailor out there?
Here is that post (lightly edited for clarity):
1. The fact that some Muslims say it is all right to “join the army” should not be a source of Infidel satisfaction, but worry. “Joining the army” in order to find out about how the enemy (that is, the Infidels whose Infidel army it is) operates, or to learn certain skills that be applied against Infidels, or even to commit acts of sabotage and betrayal while in the army, might be the motivation.
We have every evidence of this, from the American Muslim soldier who threw a grenade into a tent of sleeping American soldiers, killing two to the Marine who slipped away, apparently to Lebanon (but who knows exactly what he was doing, or what information he gave out, or secrets he betrayed?), was caught, in America gave a press conference in which he declared his complete innocence, ending “Semper Fi” (quite a performance it was, like so many Muslim performances), just before somehow eluding capture and making it out of the country, presumably back to Dar al-Islam. And still the American government has been unable to locate him or bring him back, or perhaps isn’t really trying. There are other stories, less-publicized, of a Muslim sailor, on a ship in the Persian Gulf, through an intercepted communication offering to reveal secrets about the ship to make it more vulnerable.
Then there is the evidence of a lack of patriotism of an identifiable group that, one would think, under all the circumstances, would be moving heaven and earth to prove itself patriotic, yet has done nothing of the kind. A few years ago, while happening to be at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, I visited its military museum. On the desk at the entrance there are bound volumes of World-War-Two era copies of “Stars and Stripes.” I opened one volume at random and read all about the unit we all know about –the 442nd Regiment, the one in which Senator Inouye served, during World War II, and about its exploits. The contrast struck me then, and has struck me since: where are the Muslims clamoring in the United States, in Western Europe, to prove themselves? If, despite the constant efforts to recruit, the British government can only come up with 330 Muslims out of 180,000 people in the armed forces, that is, approximately 1/500th of the force, while Muslims make up 1/30th of the population, then this tells us something.
But it shouldn’t surprise us. Islam teaches that loyalty is owed only to Islam and to fellow Believers. The danger is twofold, for Infidels. One is the absence of any feeling of loyalty to the Infidel nation-state, and a belief that the land on which Muslims live by right, by Allah’s divine right, belongs in the end to them. The Infidels are merely temporarily in charge, sojourners who have no permanent right to any part of the world. The world belongs to Allah and therefore to the best of people. The refusal on the part of our leaders to take Muslim ideology seriously, the refusal to study it in depth and to accept the most transparent and flimsy of apologetic versions, whether offered by Muslims or by the non-Muslim apologists who are all about us, is doing us active harm. The Muslim apologists are full-time practitioners of every kind of evasion and lies and half-lies and half-truths, of taqiyya and tu-quoque, and we can see examples of this every day, on talk shows and in the press all over the Infidel lands. It takes a while, it takes experience and practice, to detect and then to be able to see through, and then to be able to piercingly reveal and at the same time answer, such a fog and pettifog of nonsense and semi-nonsense.
Why is there so much of it? Many reasons. Some do it out of some blend of leftist hatred of The System, of the West, of the White West, of Amerika, of Kapitalism, and find that Islam is now the vehicle of choice to express resentment. Some, like Karen Armstrong, resentful of Christianity and suffering long-term mental desarroi and of course terminal stupidity, find the fantasy of Islam — she hasn’t a clue about the reality of Islam — soothing. Many are apologists out of cupidity: so many are on the Arab take. So many academics are supported directly or indirectly by Arab money for their “centers” and their “chairs,” and so many want to ensure that they do nothing to antagonize their Muslim colleagues, who are eternally vigilant in monitoring their work, and can cause them all kinds of trouble. And others are ignorant, willfully or lazily ignorant, and do not want to think for themselves. They do not want to connect the dots of observable Muslim behavior by abandoning their false model, their Ptolemaic model of a “few extremists” for the true, Copernican theory that can not only explain all the data, in Bangladesh, Sudan, Nigeria, Thailand, and also Paris, London, Amsterdam, and Beslan, but also has predictive value. It could and did predict, for example, what would happen, necessarily, in Iraq, and what will happen, necessarily, in Iraq if the Americans withdraw (hint: it won’t be good for the Camp of Islam, and will give America that “victory” about which Bush and Cheney prate without ever understanding, or recognizing, in what such a true “victory” for the West would consist — nor do any of their critics).
Muslims and Western Armed Forces: what a paradox. What do we want? We know Muslims are taught not to offer any loyalty to the legal and political institutions of the Infidel nation-state. Don’t expect it. Don’t squander resources trying to make Muslims forget, or never know, what Islam is all about, because it will not work. They will find out. The Infidel states — England, France (Sarkozy is disastrously intent on “affirmative action” for Muslims in the organs of the state –he is not nearly well-versed enough in Islam, even if he appears, by optical illusion, to be sufficiently comprehending of the matter, and appropriately sober in his supposed “hard line” that is not nearly hard enough) — have to give up pious hopes for “integration” that rely on a shared game of Let’s Pretend: Let’s Pretend that Islam does not inculcate what Islam inculcates. Let’s Pretend that Islam is not Islam.
The numbers of Muslims in the British Armed Forces are telling. They tell us what, if we knew about Islam, would come as no surprise.
But what if the British government manages to increase the number of Muslims in the army, and the police, say five-fold or ten-fold or twenty-fold? Would that be good? Would that be considered a “success”? Not if one understood Islam. Not if one understood the reasons why people were joining up at this point — not out of a sudden loyalty (the time for that was five, four, three, two years ago) but out of something which those with long experience of the problem (J. B. Kelly, for example, to me just a week ago) have worried about: the slow and steady infiltration into the army, security services, and police, all over Europe, of Muslims intent on what, by their Total System, they should be intent on.
Worry, every which way.
By Joseph Klein
FrontPageMagazine.com | March 12, 2007
Islamic fundamentalism is the global terrorists’ driving ideology. Sadly, there are no influential Muslim voices with the will and the power to move the focus of the Muslim world toward purging itself of the barbaric tendencies that spring from the dark dogma of reactionary Islam.
We see regular paroxysms of rage directed at the West all over the Muslim world. They are in reaction to satirical cartoons, a critical speech by Pope Benedict XVI, or other perceived verbal slights that dare to call into question the peaceful nature of Islam. But where was the outrage from any influential Muslim clerics, political leaders or the Muslim masses on the streets against the Sunni suicide bombers who snuffed out the lives of 118 Shia pilgrims last week, including innocent women and children? As usual, there was none.
The few brave Muslim reformers who dare to decry what has gone wrong in the Muslim world are routinely ignored. For example, a “summit” of self-described intellectual “secular” Muslims held in Florida last week to denounce the tyranny of Muslim orthodoxy received virtually no notice in the mainstream press. The secular leftists in the West dismiss such critiques as inauthentic pandering to Westernized values. They believe in cultural diversity for its own sake and in moral equivalency, even if between a world view that uses its religion to justify suicide bombings and subordination of women and a world view that emphasizes the value of innocent life and the equal right of all individuals to live in freedom. For their part, the reactionaries who dominate the centers of power in the Muslim world have, as expected, ignored what the Muslim intellectual reformers had to say. Indeed, a fatwa justifying the killing of Muslim intellectuals as being apostates was issued three years ago and, as far as we know, remains in effect.
The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), with a membership of 57 Sunni and Shia Muslim countries and headquartered in Saudi Arabia, purports to represent the “moderate” voice of Islam to the world but in reality it is a façade for Islamic propaganda. It is the second largest inter-governmental group in the world after the United Nations, where it has official observer status on a reciprocal basis. Other than some general appeals for the end to sectarian violence in Iraq and condemnation of terrorism in the abstract, the OIC is silent on putting the blame for the slaughter of innocent Muslim pilgrims precisely where it belongs – on other Muslims. Instead, the OIC squanders most of its energy condemning the West for defaming Islam whenever terrorism is in any way linked with adherents of their religion.
At the United Nations, the Organization of Islamic Conference member states usually vote in unison, controlling about 30 percent of the total votes in the General Assembly. While as a group they pay less then 3 percent of the regular annual budget of the United Nations, they have managed to exercise an outsized amount of influence in the General Assembly and its subsidiary bodies over how the UN deals with such issues as Palestine, terrorism and human rights. Next on their agenda is a permanent Islam seat on the Security Council. Iran has already been designated as the OIC’s preferred candidate for election to the Security Council in 2008. In their eyes, the Iranian president’s threat to annihilate another member state does not disqualify Iran from representing Islam on the one UN policy-making body that is supposed to protect international peace and security.
The UN Human Rights Council, which the OIC members dominate directly or indirectly through their ideological allies, singles out Israel for a raft of trumped up human rights violations. At least six UN bodies spend considerable time on Palestinian issues, spewing forth a stream of resolutions and investigations meant to vilify Israel.
The OIC members have succeeded at the UN in redefining terrorism to exclude acts by suicide bombers who are said to be freedom fighters resisting Zionist or Western “occupation.”
With their handpicked representative from Bahrain who was elected president of the current session of the General Assembly, the OIC members also continue to press their demands for the passage of a resolution that criminalizes insults of their religion. They are on their way to reaching their goal with the adoption last year of their draft resolution on Combating Defamation of Religions by the Third Committee of the General Assembly. That resolution emphasizes that the right to freedom of expression should be exercised within limitations as prescribed by law.
In short, the Organization of Islamic Conference bloc has been able to manipulate the UN’s machinery to turn the liberal Western vocabulary of racism, oppression, genocide, tolerance and multiculturalism against the critics of reactionary Islam. Indeed, while our secular left campuses have become playgrounds for the Islamists’ propaganda, the United Nations has turned into the Islamists’ favorite stage to act out their conspiracy drama of imagined Zionist and Western crimes against them. It is a sequel to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the forged Russian tract which purported to describe a Jewish plot to achieve world domination and is still believed in many parts of the Muslim world, particularly the Middle East. Zionist Israel and its protector, the United States, are cast at the UN as the arch villains who are conspiring to take control of the world. The defenders of the Islamic faith are cast as the saviors, fighting against the Zionist conspiracy and for the right of the poor downtrodden Palestinians and other victims of Western-inspired oppression to resist their oppressors by any available means including violence.
The denouement, as scripted by the Islamists, would be the eventual triumph of Sharia over Western values in which the UN Charter and human rights treaties are reinterpreted to fit within the framework of Islamic divine law. The Islamists would victoriously raise their crescent moon and star flag over the headquarters of the United Nations, which for all intents and purposes should then be renamed UNistan.
This could well be the path on which the UN is eventually headed unless the Western democracies that make up a minority of the UN’s membership today wake up and fight back with the unambiguous support of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. One hopes that the new Secretary General will prove to be more independent than Kofi Annan, who turned into the Islamists’ marionette. The early signs are mixed. Ban Ki-moon did strongly condemn the slaughter of the Shia pilgrims. He has taken a more positive stance toward Israel than Annan did, and he made it one of his first orders of business upon assuming office to sternly rebuke Iran for its rhetoric on the Holocaust and its call for the elimination of Israel. However, the OIC is trying to exert its influence on Ban Ki-moon behind closed doors. He was scheduled to meet with OIC representatives last week in New York, but the outcome of the discussions has so far been kept under wraps. Meanwhile, the UN’s bureaucrats continue in a business-as-usual mode to cover up for the Islamists. For example, at this year’s annual meeting of the UN’s Commission on the Status of Women, the American delegation’s suggestion of a panel on the subject of “State-Sanctioned Mass Rape in Burma and Sudan” was rejected. A senior advisor to Ban Ki-moon asked the U.S. delegation to move any such panel away from the UN. The deputy director of the UN’s Division for the Advancement of Women opposed the panel idea outright because it “would be perceived as offensive to named member states.”
If the Organization of Islamic Conference members want any meaningful influence at the world body, then they should pay commensurately for the privilege rather than continue to get a free ride. If not, then their collective General Assembly vote should be recalculated to reflect their relative contribution to the UN’s regular budget. Only then can the U.S. and a handful of other democracies that are keeping the UN financially afloat be able to prevent the inmates from running the asylum. We should also support the intriguing proposal of a group known as The Free Muslims Against Terrorism to have the UN Security Council set up an international tribunal for the purpose of prosecuting clerics or other religious leaders who issue fatwas that are calculated to incite violence.
Unfortunately, the United States will have few supporters in this battle for what little is left of the United Nations’ soul. Most of our European allies are too afraid of the Islamists or too economically beholden to them to take a moral stand. Indeed, some are in danger of being done in by their own large Muslim populations who have taken advantage of their hosts’ liberal political and social welfare systems to foment trouble – the same tactic the Islamists are using at the UN.
Without real reform soon to restore a measure of sanity to Turtle Bay, we should just cut our ties altogether with UNistan and try to start all over again with a new organization of like-minded democratic states.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism)
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | March 12, 2007
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Christopher C. Horner, an attorney in
Washington D.C. specializing in environmental policy and regulation, particularly international agreements and “global warming”. He is affiliated with classical liberal think tanks in
Europe, in which capacity he has testified before U.S. Senate committees and spoken on numerous occasions in the European Parliament and before policy leaders in numerous EU capitals from
Warsaw. These activities have made him a “climate criminal” according to environmentalist groups, one of which (Greenpeace) has actually taken his weekly garbage on a regular basis. He is the author of the new book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism).
FP: Christopher C. Horner, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Horner: It’s my honor and pleasure.
FP: So what inspired you to write this book?
Horner: In January 2006 out of morbid fascination I subjected myself to Al Gore personally showing his Power Point at a weekly gathering I attend. It certainly was visually compelling, particularly, as one scientist in attendance noted, if the viewer had no understanding of the issue. But having spent a decade devoted professionally to almost nothing but the issues relevant to this subject, and despite his past record, I remained struck by the remarkable liberties Gore took to create a scientific, historical, and political mythology. Like any good climate geek I knew of the calendar of significant relevant events — from long-anticipated UN studies to political elections both home and abroad, including the telegraphed punch that is Sen. John McCain’s promise to initiate a race to the bottom in Republican presidential primaries — so it was pretty obvious where this was headed and I felt compelled to engage.
FP: Can you talk a bit about the psychology involved here? The Left really isn’t interested in global warming and the environment, it’s really just about the Left’s lust for power. Give us your angle.
Horner: To distil this to the inescapable, simply note that the demanded response is exactly the same for both the “scientific certainty” of catastrophic man-made global cooling in the 1970s and the “scientific certainty” of catastrophic man-made global warming, both of which we have been falsely assured of. The same movement and even same people drove both alarms. Yet although every single bill on Capitol Hill and even the UN’s Kyoto Protocol is demanded in the name of ‘it’s-real-it’s-bad-it’s-here-now-it’s-our-fault-we-can-impact-it-but-we-must-act-now-it’s-a-moral-issue’, not one such proposal would under any scenario, under any set of assumptions, according to any champion, actually have a detectable impact on that which it purports to address: the climate. Seems a bit odd. In fact, the reasonable conclusion is that this agenda isn’t really about the climate at all, but instead about the one thing that we all agree would result, which is the attainment of longstanding policy objectives of making energy more scarce and moving energy sovereignty to a supranational body — something called the UNFCCC (www.unfccc.int).
And those longstanding policy objectives are held by the constituent parts of the Kyoto Industry, environmentalist pressure groups who seek to radically redistribute wealth, move the decisions of governing to the least accountable levels, all in the name of dramatically reducing that which they view as pollution: any global human population above 2 billion.
And the only way to have the agenda escape scrutiny is to scare the dickens out of people and shriek both that the debate — which no one can recall having — is over and, as is ritual now on all such “greatest threats”, “we must act now!”
FP: If global warming is not actual science, how and why is the Left successful in passing it off as such?
Horner: Specifically, the catastrophism isn’t grounded in the scientific literature. The alarmists, however, are enabled by a combination of personal and professional intimidation that makes it very risky and often painful and costly for anyone to dare disagree. If you just want to do what you’ve chosen to do for a living, you know the path of least resistance, and you know what would be very, very risky. Also consider that the lifeblood of research science is, for better or worse, taxpayer dollars. And no one likes standing in line, hat-in-hand, arguing for their appropriation, having to justify their loftiness to bureaucrats and politicians, year-in and year-out. Partly as a result of this, the institution of “science” has succumbed to the lure of massive sums of money that have been guaranteed if they promise the right answer. For about three decades, that answer to just about any relevant question has been one variation or another of “the human did it!” And for about half of that time, “catastrophic man-made global warming” has been the more specific response desired. Numerous scientists have gone on record with their experiences that one would think make terrific news stories but, like so much in this debate, by their absence from the record apparently do not.
US taxpayer alone spends $5 billion-with-a-b on climate-related programs. That’s the same amount we also send to the National Cancer Institutes every year. I suggest that if “the science is settled” on climate as we are hysterically told — by people who obviously despise the scientific method of “here’s my hypothesis, challenge it” — then I want my money back or at least an end to this gravy train. And suggesting this would provide the most honest assessment of the state of the science you would ever attain: “by ‘the science is settled’ I meant you are supposed to take my work seriously enough that I don’t have to stand in line with the unwashed every year. Not that ‘the science is settled’.”
FP: Crystallize the connection for us how hyping up “global warming” is connected to the hatred of capitalism. In other words, if it wasn’t global warming, it would just be something else, just another weapon to wage war on our society. Illuminate for us how the ideological tactic works.
Horner: A belief in both the certainty of catastrophic man-made global warming and the horrors of capitalism are matters of faith, which tend to be held in tandem. No society in its right mind is going to wilfully do to itself what the environmentalist industry, at its core, desperately seeks: massive diminution of individual liberties and ceding of most decision making to the least accountable level of governance possible, in the name of creating an Edenic world, a Goldilocks world, where man’s population, growth, energy use and impact is “just right”; this, by the way, is to be judged in the eyes of people who believe there are just enough of them and way too many of everyone else. In the meantime, environmentalists insist that wealth is the root of all evil; capitalism is the root of such wealth; ergo, capitalism must go. I quote them to this effect, in my book, in their moments of candor. No evidence, no data, no observations are sufficient to disown such people of the faith, despite the unavoidable reality that wealthier is healthier, and cleaner, that only wealthy societies impose the expensive form of showing that one “cares”, that is environmental regulations; and that only healthy growing economies agree to layer on more and more. They just cartoonishly scream “big business” and the ritual, accompanying rants.
FP: In your book, you explode ten top global warming myths. Now without giving too much away, can you talk about one or two of these myths here?
Horner: The biggest-ticket item is that which underlies Al Gore’s movie and every proposal offered in the name of averting climate catastrophe: that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations drive temperatures. This is absurd. Al Gore even shows this — without focusing on it — in his movie. Just look closely at the data he shows in chart form as he rides the hydraulic lift upward to where, on the wall, he claims that temperatures will go unless we agree to the “World War II-style” commitment that for some reason he refuses to provide the details of. This data was published in Science magazine in June 2006 and quite plainly reveals that temperatures drop before CO2 concentrations drop, and that the intimated cause-effect relationship actually doesn’t exist. Which is precisely why Gore elected to not superimpose the two charts. Further, the other famous data set, with better historical resolution in the data, also shows that temperatures historically increase before CO2 concentrations increase.
If you want correlation over any period of time that might actually be meaningful — that is, more than a convenient couple of decades when things might match up — then look at the sun, and cosmic waves. They correlate over the 20th century — which is when we have the best data, that is observations and not “proxies” but also in prior centuries — and CO2 quite plainly does not correlate. After all, as emissions rose it cooled from the 1940’s thru the 1970s sufficient to start a “global cooling panic”, then as emissions and contributions continued to climb, temperatures reversed. One can only try to be clever — or ignorant — with the “it’s warmed since the 1970s and emissions have risen since the ’70s” syllogism, as one declared Republican presidential candidate confidently informed me when I was given the opportunity to brief him. Yes, and cell phone use has gone up since the 1970s, too. Correlation, however, doesn’t mean causation of temperatures in that example any more than it does with a very tiny timeframe with CO2 and temperature. Move your baseline year to 1940 and the whole argument implodes.
FP: We increasingly hear big business cited as being “responsible,” and they happen to support the
Kyoto agenda. What is behind claims that “even” this particular big bad business supports something – so therefore it must be true?
Horner: We rightly no longer expect much when it comes to industry’s willingness to take on a tough fight, particularly in the face of such a shrill attack machine. In
Europe, many big businesses can be forgiven for having decided that the fight there is, at least for now, lost and trying to make the best of a bad situation. That’s not what we face here, however, because we haven’t adopted this agenda. The big businesses pushing it — and most businesses involved are doing precisely that — do so because they have designed some scheme aimed at capitalizing off of the energy scarcity agenda. Enron was the pioneer, pushing
Kyoto before there was a
Kyoto, after acquiring the world’s largest windmill company and a half-share in the world’s largest solar panel company; these are financial black holes without massive subsidies and mandates, which is precisely what the
Kyoto agenda promises. Enron had the world’s second-largest gas pipeline network, the cost of space on which would be dearly expensive once coal was regulated out of viability. They set up a trading floor to play bookie to millions of sales of carbon dioxide “credits”. All of these elements of the agenda would cost our economy dearly by piling on inefficiencies, as it is in
Europe now, with no environmental benefit. This is the world’s second-oldest profession, “rent-seeking”, that is trying to gain millions from government favors that they could not earn in the marketplace.
GE has Enron’s windmills and some of their pipeline assets, BP has the solar panels. DuPont got out of the nylon business and for reasons peculiar to that decision would have about a half a billion dollars in CO2 equivalence “credits” to sell others who want to keep using energy in the event a Kyoto-style scheme is imposed domestically. Lo and behold, suddenly they strike a “responsible” pose of hand-wringing over Congress’ failure to impose this albatross around the economy’s neck. Certain cynical power companies have varying motivations, including a desire to be paid to replace aging coal-fired capacity with new gas plants that they have to build anyway; some nuclear providers want to be paid for not emitting CO2 but only water vapor. And the list goes on.
What each of these companies share in common is a belief that their pals in government will stop before they go too far and actually fully implement the
Kyoto agenda, but will only go just far enough to provide windfall profits of money for nothing. It is a remarkably cynical and very dangerous game.
FP: So there is a left-right spilt in the general public among those who, respectively, accept catastrophic global warming and those who reject it out of hand. Given this, how do you explain that politicians generally do not break down along those lines, but rather with exception they instead simply argue about how aggressive a governmental response ought to be?
Horner: Politicians of all stripes see tremendous worth in issues which offer them the opportunity to claim that they are here to save us. No issue provides greater such opportunity than the global warming agenda, for reasons stated. There is always more to do, more favors to grant, more money to award. It is the bottomless well of opportunities for them to draw attention to their own fabulousness, as certain of them see it.
FP: You’ve addressed the motivations of business and politicians; what’s in it for, or what motivates, the green groups?
Horner: Green groups raise money off of this issue like nothing else. It attracts devotees like nothing else and nothing else provides them the opportunity to morally preen as they so love to do; it’s the end of days! They also write roles for themselves into these agreements, and otherwise secure roles, as consultants and verifiers of emission reductions or trades or compliance programs. And they extract a lot of money from businesses gullibly believing there’s some sort of “get out of jail free” card from them, which always simply ensures a noisy mob when the tributes stop. In short, it perpetuates groups whose budgets suggest a mission largely constituted of self-perpetuation.
FP: Walk us through the media’s role in all of this.
Horner: Disaster sells in the news business. Waves calmly lapping at the shore don’t. “Man at fault!” is huge; “Many factors likely at play; science unsettled” is a loser story. When the temperature goes up, it’s man’s fault and a big story. If warming is the story line. But the media expose their own ridiculous role in the current alarmism by failing to report things, too. Did you notice that humanity’s fate shifted? From a frozen imminent grave to frying like eggs on a pan, and no one deemed that this amazing outcome is newsworthy. Instead, in Orwellian fashion — “Eastasia has always been the enemy, Winston” — they just tacked in the other direction when the weather didn’t cooperate. This cannot possibly be something they missed. Finally, when predictions that they previously reported prove false, well, that’s not news. As I quote ABC News absurdly back peddling when challenged over things that were promised not happening, or different things happen, that’s weather, not climate.
FP: So what can we do? What is the most responsible course given what we know or even just suspect?
Horner: As regards policy, we need to avoid succumbing to the hysteria and enacting absurd policies under pressure from trade competitors and anti-capitalists and the Kyoto Industry, generally.
Europe is floundering and will only step up the pressure and the rhetoric, which I hope our public will be too well-informed to fall for when it reaches sustained, fever pitch in about a year.
The two things the
US government should do are continue our leadership in scientific undertakings, pursuing knowledge of a fantastically complex climate system, but without the biases we now see against scientists who want to pursue non-fashionable research such as into the role of the sun. Second, we should continue our focus on economic growth, which pulls through technology faster and which has led US CO2 emissions to rise at a fraction of the rate of more market-socialist oriented countries such as many in
Europe. Specifically, amending the tax code to accelerate depreciation or expensing of capital equipment would turn our stock over even faster.
Individually, we can demand accountability and seriousness of our elected representatives. If a politician is serious about this issue, and very few are, they ought to put their votes where their concern is and either demand steep energy taxes — don’t hold your breath, even if that would lower your CO2 emissions by the way — or force a Senate vote on the Kyoto Protocol before further absurd promises are demanded. Let’s put an end to the apparent confusion that exists in the UN and among Europeans such that they actually state openly that once George Bush leaves office all that
Europe wants of us shall come true. We actually did sign
Kyoto, sloppy reportage notwithstanding, and it seems impossible that seemingly concerned senators don’t know this; so vote on it, or move on. But signing a new treaty as they are cocksure that a President McCain or Clinton would do, will not change what the world insists on ignoring: no Senate is going to commit us to this energy rationing agenda.
FP: Christopher C. Horner, thank you for joining us.
Horner: It’s been my pleasure.
By Tom Harper, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:24am GMT 11/03/2007
Scientists who questioned mankind’s impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.
They say the debate on global warming has been “hijacked” by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.
Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.
One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.
“Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened,” said the professor.
“I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal.”
Last week, Professor Ball appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a Channel 4 documentary in which several scientists claimed the theory of man-made global warming had become a “religion”, forcing alternative explanations to be ignored.
Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology – who also appeared on the documentary – recently claimed: “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges.
“Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science.”
Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University, agreed. He said: “The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do.”
Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: “Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system.”
As we have noted here ad infinitum, there is no firewall within Islamic communities between jihadists and peaceful Muslims. There has been no pronunciation of takfir — that is, a declaration that he is not a Muslim — against Osama bin Laden or any other Islamic jihadist. Instead, there have been vague condemnations of “terrorism,” without defining what that is, or condemnations of attacks against “innocent civilians,” without defining either “innocent” or “civilian” against jihadist denials that certain groups of non-Muslims are either one.
In reality, jihadists move freely within Muslim communities, recruiting by pointing to chapter and verse of the Qur’an and Hadith, and are largely unchallenged by peaceful Muslims as they do so.
“Terrorists Proving Harder to Profile: European Officials Say Traits of Suspected Islamic Extremists Are Constantly Shifting,” by Craig Whitlock in the Washington Post, with thanks to Elizabeth Kantor and Diana West:
ZUTPHEN, Netherlands — On the surface, the young Dutch Moroccan mother looked like an immigrant success story: She studied business in college, hung out at the pub with her friends and was known for her fashionable taste in clothes.So residents of this 900-year-old river town were thrown for a loop last year when Bouchra El-Hor, now 24, appeared in a British courtroom wearing handcuffs under an all-encompassing black veil. Prosecutors said she had covered up plans for a terrorist attack and wrote a letter offering to sacrifice herself and her infant son as martyrs.
A woman in Brussels reads news of Muriel Degauque, 38, a Catholic from the southern Belgian city of Charleroi who converted to Islam, traveled to Iraq and blew herself up in November 2005. The incident still perplexes Belgians.
“We were flabbergasted to learn that she had become a fanatic,” said Renee Haantjes, a college instructor who recalled her as “a normal Dutch girl.”
People in Zutphen may have been surprised, but terrorism suspects from atypical backgrounds are becoming increasingly common in Western Europe. With new plots surfacing every month, police across Europe are arresting significant numbers of women, teenagers, white-skinned suspects and people baptized as Christians — groups that in the past were considered among the least likely to embrace Islamic radicalism.
The demographics of those being arrested are so diverse that many European counterterrorism officials and analysts say they have given up trying to predict what sorts of people are most likely to become terrorists. Age, sex, ethnicity, education and economic status have become more and more irrelevant.
“It’s very difficult to make a profile of terrorists,” Tjibbe Joustra, the Dutch national coordinator for counterterrorism, said in an interview. “To have a profile that you can recognize, so that you can predict, ‘This guy is going to be radical, perhaps he will cross the line into terrorism’ — that, I think, is impossible.”…
The author of the study, Edwin Bakker, a researcher at the Clingendael Institute in The Hague, tried to examine almost 20 variables concerning the suspects’ social and economic backgrounds. In general, he determined that no reliable profile existed — their traits were merely an accurate reflection of the overall Muslim immigrant population in Europe. “There is no standard jihadi terrorist in Europe,” the study concluded….
“In general, he determined that no reliable profile existed — their traits were merely an accurate reflection of the overall Muslim immigrant population in Europe.” In other words, as Dinesh D’Souza has noted about the people he identifies as “traditional Muslims” and wants us to ally with, the peaceful Muslims have no theological differences with the jihadists. This story illustrates one reason why such an alliance would never in fact be possible.