Yet More Abuse Of The Innocent By The Dictator’s Best Friend, The United Nations
While the world paid the UN’s Oil-For-Food program no attention, Claudia Rosett dug for the facts and produced expose after expose. The largest financial swindle in human history was her target, and while justice was never served — Kofi Annan, glib charlatan, racist and master criminal, remains free — the truth did come out. Some people were impressed with the fact that the UN is so powerful and respected that it is literally beyond the law, and that fact alone has tremendous potential. Someday, perhaps, something like reform may be imposed….
Well, that was then, and this is today: the UN and Burma. Once again Rosett offers facts to a world too sophisticated to care.
Claudia has the respect and admiration of every investigative reporter worthy of the name. She should have received her Pulitzer long ago. Her articles describing how the UN propped up Saddam while stealing billions from the Iraqi people are classics. Her recent reportagecarries on a tradition of professionalism seldom matched in contemporary journalism.
Regarding which: the UN could hardly have chosen as its beneficiary a more disgusting dictatorship than the Burmese. How could this happen? The international organization’s programs are administered by criminals hidden in its bureaucracy, and a dearth of principle and shame in the upper echelons of the UN precludes prudential management. Quoting the PenPo’s predecessor:
What do you get when you take the scions of the arrogant upper classes of a bunch of jerkwater, incompetent, undemocratic, genuinely backward nations and toss these overprivileged, worthless, bigoted drones into a glamorous environment where they find themselves obsequiously catered to and presumed to be possessed of great wisdom?
You get the United Nations.
Which is to say, you get a mess. A mess run by people who live and breathe corruption, because that is the way things are done where they come from.
Why the USA and other decent nations tolerate this predacious evil is a vexing question.
An Essential Principle
If arrested or confronted with the possibility of arrest, never talk to the police. Here is a two-part video that explains in convincing detail why that advice is good: Part One and Part Two. View both, and you will understand why you can not help yourself by talking to the police,even if you are innocent. Talking to the police is how innocent people get sent to prison.
Don’t believe it? Look at the videos. They will make a believer out of you.
Then, parents: force your children over twelve to watch both videos.
Check This Out
You can trust the PenPo to direct you to fascinating posts on the internet. This is one such.
The War We Are In
How do you name a war? Various ways, and usually after the fact — The Six Day War, The Mexican-American War, The First World War, and so on. A very important war is called The Thirty Years War because it lasted from 1618 to 1648. Good name. Sometimes it’s spelled with an apostrophe in “Years'” and sometimes not, but the name emphasizes the horrible duration of hostilities.
The war we are fighting today can top that, and top the Hundred Years War, as well. Our war began approximately 1,381 years ago, depending on which battle involving Mohammed’s army you want to mention. The Battle of the Great Ditch is a pretty good choice as a starting point, because it was concluded with the slaughter of Jews who had surrendered to the Muslims. It was a horribly predictive event. From Kurtz, The Transcendental Temptation (ISBN 0-87975-362-5):
…Mohammed had trenches dug during the night across the marketplace of the town. In the morning, he ordered the male prisoners to be brought forth five or six at a time. Each group was forced to sit down in a row at the edge of the trench. They were then beheaded and their bodies pushed into their grave. The killing that began in the morning continued all day and into the night, lit by torchlights.
The religion of peace…. The year 627 seems a reasonable enough date to give as the start of a war that has never ended.
So let’s round 1,381 up to 1,400, and name our war. In a few centuries it can be given an updated appellation.
Question: “How’s it going?”
The answer is it’s going pretty well, relatively speaking. We have Al Qaeda on the run in Iraq, and there is a chance we can put a sort-of-kinda democratic government right in the heart of the Badlands. Zap! That will give hope to the Syrian and Iranian folks who hate the tyranny of their respective governments. We can’t say things are OK yet, because we have Iran to consider, and Afghanistan is in genuine danger of being lost to the Taliban. There are a number of brushfires in places like The Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia and India that could flare up. Finally, the Europeans and Canadians don’t seem to understand what is going on, and there are a lot of folks in the USA who are amazingly confused about the basics. So, the war is not going well, just pretty well.
Second question: “But…but…over that more that one thousand years, there has not been continuous fighting, so why do you call this thewar? It is a series of wars, with long periods of peace between them!”
Answer: nearly every war includes periods of peace. Do you recall the Sitzkrieg? When the pauses in fighting are short, we ignore them. But when they are prolonged, there is no reason to consider them conclusive and the war over. They merely punctuate the ongoing struggle. Remember: the combatants are the same (Muslims vs. infidels), the casus belli is identical (the Koran and hadith), and the original aggressor once again opens hostilities. Islam fights when it has the opportunity, and — as the historian famously said — it has bloody borders. The imperative that mandates hostilities is eternal, and Islam obeys it constantly, to the best of its ability. It makes more sense to see Islam’s battles with infidels since the seventh century as beads on a string, rather than as unrelated, discrete events. We are confronted today by a permanent quest for total control of the world that began at least 1,381 years ago.
Next question: “What about The Crusades? Christian Europe started that one, and Islam defended itself! Do you count that as part of the Fourteen Hundred Year War?”
Answer: No, and yes. No, Christian Europe did not start that war; you learned your history from a politically correct “teacher.” Europe was defending Christian territory against Muslim attack, and punished that Muslim aggression with the conquest of Muslim territory. When you attack first, you run the risk that you may be driven back and out of at least some of your holdings, which is what happened to Islam. Yes, The Crusades are part and parcel of the war.
“One final question: how much longer will this war last?”
Answer: The war will last as long as there is a significant number of people in the world who understand that the Koran is God’s commandments to mankind.
Now for some recent specifics. We begin with a report from Mosul, Iraq that is optimistic but accurate. Big turnaround there! General Petraeus gets a pat on the back, and we have all forgotten about that “willing suspension of disbelief” crack made by, by…well, memory serves, for it has deleted all traces of its witchy author. (No, that’s not a spelling error.)
Next, we have a candid discussion of the continuing combat in Iraq, a reminder that US troops are still dying. The news media are not nearly as excited about that as they should be, because by now the general perception of the public is that things are much, much better. True, they are. And if the media coverage of today’s situation were fair and unbiased and objective, the level of that coverage would have declined proportionately. But it has not. News of tragedy and loss in Iraq has almost totally dried up. Why is that?
One answer could be that reports of US casualties were never intended to be news, but propaganda. Now that the number of deaths per month has fallen dramatically, the propaganda has lost its emotional impact on the public. So there is no point in continuing the tactic.
Good reporting involves explaining what is happening as well as stating that it is happening. An example: this thoughtful article that explores, among other things, the probabilities involved in peacekeeping.
Next, we turn to Afghanistan and Pakistan, two troublesome spots that will have to receive considerable attention from the USA in the short term. The Taliban intends to take Afghanistan back, and accordingly has made moves recently to secure its position in Pakistan. And just how reliable are the Pakistanis? Very reliable, if you are in the Taliban.
Ultimately, it’s a matter of what Iran will do. The lunatic government in Tehran is convinced that the deaths of tens of millions of Iranians — most of whom do not share the mullahs’ view that Iranians are an expendable resource — would be a small price to pay for the advent of the twelfth imam. So the push for an Iranian atomic bomb, and for the rocket to deliver it, continues.
Israel will not allow Iran to become a nuclear power. That is not a prediction, not a guess, not a projection that is probably true; it is just as solid a statement of fact as “Two and two make four.”
Anyone who does not view the future with grave concern, if not fear, is not linked to reality.
That makes this article on the relationship between the USA and Israel essential reading. An excerpt:
Pentagon officials for some time now have tried to discourage Israeli leaders from escalating tensions with Iran, or from publicly speaking about the hope of a Western alliance in any future military venture. America’s leaders have acknowledged that for years resources have already been spread too thin in field operations. They have understood that their armed forces overseas, as well as their naval fleets, would be likely targets for direct Iranian retaliation or for terrorist strikes from an Iranian proxy should a war begin.
Do read it all. This situation literally threatens everyone in the world. And as you read, recall The Battle of The Great Ditch. The unevolved status of Islam makes it the most dangerous death cult in the world. It is literally a seventh century monstrosity let loose in the twenty-first century.
You see, the mullahs mean to settle what the Nazis called The Jewish Question once and for all. Their biggest objection to Hitler is that he was too timid and did not push harder to rid the world of Jews.
Now consider the response of the West to the unambiguous threat Islam poses. The survival of Western Civilization for another century can be considered likely, but not certain.
The real threat is not nuclear devices, as catastrophic as their consequences would be. Most to be feared is the Muslim ultimate weapon: demographics. In a few years, much of Western Europe will come under Islamic control. The insane immigration policies andmulticulturalist political correctness that Europeans have adopted have sealed the region’s fate. Reversing the trends now is impossible.
Everywhere in the world they can, Muslims are emigrating to previously non-Muslim regions, digging in, having babies as fast as possible, and gnawing at the local establishment. New rules go into effect to please the arriving aliens and prevent the natives from offending them. The results restrict freedom of speech and press. (A particularly egregious example of inoffensive-sounding “guidelines” for journalists is found here. Read it very, very carefully — it’s unctuous, deceptive and toxic.) Islam is winning because nobody is pushing back.
One can debate why the Western reaction to overweening Islamic claims of entitlement and censorious privilege is so insipid, of course. But one explanation is particularly cogent. It is based on the assertion that Muslim demands, however absurd, are not nearly as vacuous and silly as the political correctness that gave us radical feminism and other similar conceits.
In Number 17 of the PenPo, the shadowy similarities between the modes of thought of jihadis and “progressives” were mentioned. The comments proved prescient, for hours later the RAND think tank in California (on which, more information here) delivered itself of exactlythe sort of confused thinking the PenPo was describing. Let’s take a closer look at this inanity.
RAND believes that non-military means will prove most effective in dealing with what it calls “militant groups.” To demonstrate that point, it studied the rise and decline of a number of such organizations, and discovered that in most cases the eventual marginalization and disintegration of the group was accomplished by political and social means.
The flaws in this reasoning are obvious: RAND likens dissimilar groups, ignores the fundamental differences that make them dissimilar, and concentrates on the death throes of the militant organizations. Big mistakes, all.
Once again, the mindset of the chattering classes is on display in the RAND report. The study reveals an inability to comprehend the profound, total convictions of Muslim terrorists. Jihadis know that they are behaving according to explicit directions and commands issued by the supreme creator-deity. That degree of divine sanction is almost unique among the “militant groups” RAND studied, and in jihadi cells, the knowledge that God is one’s battle commander is overwhelming. It precludes the slightest doubt.
Western scholarship regards this Islamist strength with a blind eye. Faith is not a seminal part of the ethos of most of the folks at RAND. They don’t understand it because it plays such a small role in their lives — such as, “I have faith that when I open the tap in the kitchen, maple syrup is not going to come out.” It makes no sense to them that someone might actually know that God wants him to murder as many people as possible, and that his reward for that mayhem will be indescribable eternal delight.
It is as if the relaxed, non-specific and scarcely instructive or proscriptive religions acknowledged as theirs by most in the USA really had nothing to offer beyond congenial fellowship and vague promises of a life after death, sort of. The prevailing attitude of the political/cultural elite in the USA is that religion amounts to little more than quaint notions that serve some people as psychological props when they are troubled or dying.
Assume that you are a RAND researcher for a moment, and look at the matter from that point of view. To your narrow, tolerant but essentially uninvolved perception of religious commitment, add the notion that you don’t kill people because of their religion — after all, look at Hitler, we don’t want to be Nazis, now do we — and you quickly find yourself focusing on the end game of the “militant groups.” All else is viewed as through a glass, darkly. As regards jihadi terror cells, well, the roots of the horror are out of sight.
So you sit back and watch what can be seen. The terrorist organization, now relabeled a militant group, fails take over Nation X or the world, and fades. What happens to it as it fades? Study that, and you can easily neglect the reasons why the terrorists did not succeed.
It’s a reminder of the old joke about the guy who was looking frantically for something, and, when approached by a stranger who wanted to help, reported that he had dropped a valuable antique silver dollar. “Where did you drop it?” “Over there (pointing).” “Well, good grief…why are you looking over here, then??” “The light is better here.”
Now reconsider the uncomplicated facts. Terrorists fail, when they fail, because they have been shot, or because they have lost their nerve, or been struck by falling pianos, or have come down with disabling diseases. Some are hit by cars or choke on lamb chops. Others languish in prisons. But most terrorist organizations are hammered to death by a military or quasi-military outfit, as happened to Che Guevara and his followers (thank goodness, and see attached photo). The survivors crawl away, carry on with propaganda and the occasional operation, and find that recruits are scarce and death very likely indeed. That’s what finishes the group off. If social and/or political factors are involved in the total collapse of the terrorist gang, they can be effective only if the group has been shredded by violence. Until that day arrives, the fight can continue.
RAND does not grasp the fact that the distinction between a “militant group” like the Symbionese Liberation Army and a jihadi cell is monumental. Consider, for example, Billy Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, former Weather Underground terrorists. Today they move comfortably in the chattering class (where they get no dirty looks). A jihadi, by sharp contrast, would rather be dead than get a sinecure and an SUV.
That means that if you lump the Weather Underground bombers in with Islamofascist bombers, you are bound to make serious errors.
If RAND really understood that Muslim terror cells are genuinely unique, have a broad base of support (“moderate” Islam), and can offer the ultimate reward to their members, the study of how to deal with jihadis would never have concluded that they can be politically cajoled or socially seduced into becoming decent neighbors. Jihadis are by definition the worst neighbors anyone could have; they don’t mellow and retire to dream of past excitement. Billy and Bernadine, however, are so respectable today that it is considered bad manners to mention that they are failed revolutionaries who sold out, and today only talk a good game. That comparison sums up the naivety of the RAND study.
In fact it’s worse than that: no one at RAND will understand this critique. To the social scientists, it will seem irrelevant and superficial.
It might help if the RAND analysts studied a detailed article that articulates the problems with their conclusions somewhat differently. Or maybe not. One can hardly blame think tank employees for sticking with their misconceptions and faulty conclusions. Doing otherwise could be a bad career move.
The above facts and reasoning lead to an ignored truth. It will be disputed by those who cannot respect the foundational values of the West, but even those cynics will be affected by it. Unless the West is more united than divided, more assertive than acquiescent, more self-assured than tolerant of corrosive alien values, and more determined than fatigued, Islam will prevail.
The PenPo’s precursor remarked that every empire and civilization that has declined knew it was in decline. The West is not only aware of its plight, it is divided and weakened by its social strata and institutions (monolithic journalism, the debased academy, an alienated intelligentsia). RAND proposes a “soft” approach to the most dangerous people on earth; clerics and politicians find ways to punish their countrymen for making hostile cultural invaders “uncomfortable” with cartoons, depictions of dogs, and the exercise of free speech and press; the courts are used to strengthen a value system that yearns to destroy Western jurisprudence. Insanity replaces common sense on every hand. The Enlightenment is forgotten or rejected.
Through it all, voices of conciliation try to assure us that we are progressing toward a more open and tolerant society. Only some realize that multiculturalism and political correctness are new names for a very old condition: suicidal imbecility.