Enter your keyword

Friday, November 30, 2007

Friday Afternoon Roundup - The Teddy Bears of Annapolis

By On November 30, 2007

The mobs are marching in Sudan demanding Death for a Teddy Bear, but then again is there anything they don't demand death for? In Annapolis Israel is negotiating its own destruction under the watchful eyes of the world. The press is intensifying its assault on Giuliani, employing Village Voice propagandist Wayne Barret to do their dirty work and you know when you're relying on the Voice for your hit pieces and books, you're really going into the gutter.

Meanwhile from Yousef Ibrahim at the New York Sun, Bedouin Darkness Spreads with Oil Money
Do American institutions want to snuggle up with Saudi Arabia and its Dark Age values? They had better think this one through as a tidal wave of money from Saudi Arabia — as well as Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait — is crashing into these shores and buying up American assets.

Via LGF, the Jerusalem Post's Caroline Glick has another good column on Annapolis,

The mood is dark in the IDF's General Staff ahead of next week's "peace" conference in Annapolis. As one senior officer directly involved in the negotiations with the Palestinians and the Americans said, "As bad as it might look from the outside, the truth is 10 times worse. This is a nightmare. The Americans have never been so hostile."

On Thursday a draft of the joint statement that Israeli and Palestinian negotiators are discussing ahead of the conference was leaked to the media. A reading of the document bears out the IDF's concerns.

The draft document shows that the Palestinians and the Israelis differ not only on every issue, but differ on the purpose of the document. It also shows that the US firmly backs the Palestinians against Israel.

As the draft document makes clear, Israel is trying to avoid committing itself to anything at Annapolis. For their part, the Palestinians are trying to force Israel's hand by tying it to diplomatic formulas that presuppose an Israeli withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines and an Israeli acceptance of the so-called "right of return" or free immigration of foreign Arabs to Israel.

The Palestinians are also trying to take away Israel's right to determine for itself whether to trust the Palestinians and continue making diplomatic and security concessions or not by making it the responsibility of outside parties to decide the pace of the concessions and whether or not the Palestinians should be trusted.

Israel Matzav has been doing a great job covering the Annapolis disaster with a series of Must Read Posts

Olmert can't fool all of the people all of the time

How many more Jews will be murdered?

Differences? What differences?

Annapolis payoff: Police recommend closing Leumi case against Olmert

At IsraPundit, Zionism is Beautiful
The Talmud says, “When good will exists amongst brethren, both can dwell together even on the razor thin edge of a sword, but when good will does not exist amongst them, even the full expanse of the earth lacks sufficient space to contain them.”

Israel”, “Jew” and “Zionism” are beautiful words. Yet repetitive racial slurs concerning these words make them sound ugly and pejorative.

Zionism means scorched desert wastelands transformed into magnificent gardens and green farm lands. Zionism means oppressed downtrodden Jews becoming uplifted and able to affirm their continuity from Biblical times. Zionism means Jews living proudly once again in their ancient homeland. Zionism means the collective creativity of Jews of every ethnicity coming together to build a free civilization.

Zionism means the opportunity to enact an ancient dream that will not die. Zionism means establishing a modern civilization that shares a messianic vision of making earth a little more like Heaven. Zionism means sharing Israeli’s blessings with the world.
Lemon Lime Moon writes a post on Who Supports Ron Paul

At Yourish.com, Russia: dead men winning
The news item about the death of Former KGB chief Vladimir Kryuchkov - one of the instigators and leaders of the failed putsch against Gorbachev in 1991 - didn’t occupy a central place in the media. However, there is some symbolism in this death. Kryuchkov has joined the ghosts, but the ghosts seem to be more and more active in the gray fog that is surrounding the internal Russian politics.

Finally at Boker Tov Boulder, Olmert's New Twist
"The Jewish organizations, which were our power base in America, will be the first to come out against us," Olmert said, "because they will say they cannot support a state that does not support democracy and equal voting rights for all its residents."
So first Olmert claims that American Jews have no say in dividing Yerushalayim and now it's American Jews forcing him into diving Yerushalayim. What a hypocrite.

Thursday, November 29, 2007

Mohammed the Stuffed Pig: Plush Be Upon Him

By On November 29, 2007

Following the news that in the highly progressive tyrannical genocidal regime of Sudan, a British teacher has been charged with blasphemy for allowing kids in her class to name a teddy bear Mohammed, it's pretty clear that Sudan is not happy with the idea of a Teddy Bear named Mohammed. That makes sense since there are no bears in the Quran, there are pigs though and so I generously give the people of Sudan their prophet in plush pig form.

That's right, it's Mohammed the Stuffed Pig PBUH (Plush Be Upon Him), a respectful tribute to Islam's greatest homicidal fake prophet. In many ways Prophet Mohammed Stuffed Pig Edition is a major improvement on the real thing.

While he is made out of plush and will be adored by children, he won't respond by trying to marry your 6 year old daughters because "Allah Told Him To". This makes him child-friendly, unlike the real Mohammed, who was the whole other kind of "Child Friendly" that you don't want around your kids.

Mohammed the Stuffed Pig may cost an arm and a leg but he won't try to chop off your arms and legs because you're all filthy infidels, unlike the real Mohammed. Also he won't raid and rob you, steal your goats or any of the other fun activities the real Mohammed was noted for.

It seems as if Muslims get so obsessively outraged over every imagined slight to their crazy made up religion because they haven't had enough people offending them on a regular basis. Being regularly offended requires either going murderously insane or developing a thick skin. Muslims have been making a good go at the former but aren't anywhere near the latter.

Perhaps offending them more on a regular basis will push them one way or another, either into a state of weary tolerance where the imagined sight of their diety's name in the swirls of a fast food's chain ice cream or a cartoon of their bearded prophet no longer sends them scrambling madly for their swords and detonators or into outright insanity in which Muslims wander the streets like zombie mobs roaring at everyone and trying to eat them alive. Either one would be a vast improvement over today.

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Managerial Leadership: Why the Civilized World is Throwing the War against Terrorism

By On November 27, 2007
Part of understanding why the civilized world is throwing the war against terrorism is to realize that we have a shortage of leaders and a surplus of managers. We have allowed our countries to become overgrown by bureaucracies and business interests. Bureaucracies and corporations naturally require managers.

The real constituents of a Western politician have become his business allies and his tools the government bureaucracy. Where leaders looked to the great men of history, today's politicians look to the camera. They learn to say nothing extreme, to moderate their appearance and their rhetoric, to focus on management over leadership, to listen to everyone and promise everyone everything while selectively delivering on their promises.

We have become a civilization of consumers led by managers whose goals are to dole out government services to us while maintaining our approval rating. Government social program giveaways have become our "sales" and the country our Wal-Mart into which we constantly keep paying more and more of our income. We lack for leaders, but we have no shortage of managers ready to put their latest government program special on Social Security, Health Care or Environmentalism on "Sale".

As Western nations expanded into government as a service, the nanny state rose inflated by the endless government programs and the manager became the default form of politician.

What is the difference between a manager and a leader?

First let's define what a leader is. A leader examines a problem, defines a solution and fights to implement it leading from the front. Most world leaders however are only managers, national CEO's looking to keep the lid on the pot and everything from boiling over. They advocate old policies in the guise of the new.

When confronted with a problem, managers will keep pushing "company policy" or formulating consensus solutions, diverting criticism and looking for someone else to blame for the whole mess. Managers may sometimes posture as leaders, but like Olmert, Blair or Bush they often prove inadequate to the task.

Leaders are primary concerned with results and are often unpopular, managers are concerned with the popularity of the people they manage. It's the difference between Winston Churchill and Tony Blair or Theodore Roosevelt and George W. Bush. And much as many people would love to compare these men, they are fundamentally different.

Managers are acceptable enough in every day life, however in a crisis that requires daring steps and unpopular moves, managers are usually dead weight, restraining any "extreme moves" and advocating moderate steps taken in consensus with everyone else. And moderation in response to a crisis is often the next worst thing to doing nothing at all.

Managers and Leaders in the War on Terror

The nature of a leader is the ability to define public sentiment rather than bowing to it. This makes leaders dangerous because they can be undemocratic. A leader is not elected to fulfill a moderate agenda but to rescue a nation from a crisis and to define the way forward.

By contrast a manager looks to appease everyone and smooth out the rough edges. A manager's response to the War on Terror is to make a few piecemeal efforts at fighting terrorism while trying to somehow 'manage' the countries producing terrorism, offering incentives to some, threats to others and hoping to turn the whole thing around with a few conferences about the trouble spots in the region. Where a leader sees an enemy, a manager sees a management problem. But you can't 'manage' evil, you can only defeat it.

In Israel, managers like Barak, Netanyahu and Olmert have been trying for halfway solutions to the problem of the campaign for Israel's destruction. Nowhere is the futility of the manager's approach clearer than when seeing the IDF target a few terrorists and then go back home, leaving the remaining terrorists behind and then heading off for another peace conference.

Managers may sometimes talk like leaders, but they are psychologically incapable of taking the steps necessary to insure victory no matter how big they talk. In the American Civil War, General McClellan was a brilliant manager and utterly incapable of decisively destroying the enemy. His failure only dragged out the war, but as a manager he was psychologically incapable of doing what Grant and Sherman would go on to do, brutally and decisively take the war to the enemy.

The Breakdown

Managers seek consensus. Leaders take decisive steps.

Managers seek to avoid risk employing half-measures and safe solutions. Leaders embrace risk taking daring measures to achieve seemingly impossible outcomes.

Leaders reject compromise where that compromise taints or destroys what they are given to protect and defend. Managers prefer a compromise that serves as an incremental step toward stability.

Leaders know that security is an illusion and that the future is built on unilaterally expanding power and security. Managers seek to hold on to the temporary security above all else and see the future in consensus rather than in unilateral action.

Leaders want a decisive victory. Managers prefer a workable compromise. As long as we are led by managers the civilized world will continue throwing the war against terrorism. We need fewer managers and more leaders, more Roosevelts and less Blairs and McClellans. We don't just need rhetoric, but men whose lives and records show that they live that rhetoric and put their money where their mouth is.

The Moloch of Peace

By On November 27, 2007
"Human history has known many idols, in modern history their place has been taken by Isms, Communism, Socialism, Humanism; which have been increasingly abandoned by their apologists. The new modern idol is the idea of Peace. This perverse peace has become a bloodthirsty Moloch demanding constantly new human sacrifices.

The government of Israel which has refused to walk in the one true path, the path of the Creator, has become a criminal government. Olmert has not yet had enough human sacrifices brought on the altar of peace. Against everything he has gone to a meeting in Annapolis threatening to turn all of Israel into a sacrifice to the Moloch of peace."

Rabbi Dov Lior of Hevron

Nachman Zoldan, the father of Pre-Annapolis terror victim Ido Zoldan, completed his seven days of mourning by visiting Rabbi Ovadya Yosef to ask him to withdraw from the government. While thousands of people went to Homesh to commemorate his son at the ruins of a home built by Ido Zoldan, Nachman Zoldan went straight from sitting Shiva to try and persuade Rabbi Ovadya Yosef to withdraw from Olmert's coalition and preserve Yerushalayim and Israel.

Nachman Zoldan's meeting with Rabbi Ovadya Yosef was arranged by Rabbi Havlan of Shas' Council of Torah Sages who has been strongly pushing for Shas to leave the Olmert coalition. Will even that move Rabbi Ovadya Yosef's heart or will the clarion call of the shekels Shas is due to receive in the budget drown out a father's grief?

In the aftermath Rabbi Ovadya Yosef has responded to yet another delegation of Rabbis by promising to leave the coalition if a decision is made to split Yerushalayim. By which point of course it will be too late and Israel will have committed itself to an agreement that the US and Europe will do its best to hold us to. And when that comes, Shas will no doubt have another excuses.

When exactly would Shas quit? According to a source in Shas, the formulation looks something like this.

"True, Shas is a right-wing party," the source said, "and there's no question that our street doesn't like discussing Jerusalem, but to quit? Certainly not. Even if Olmert were to raise the topic of Jerusalem at the summit, Shas wouldn't resign from the coalition. We'd vote against it in the cabinet and the Knesset, but we'd stay, and I say that after many conversations I've had with Rabbi Ovadia (Yosef, the Shas movement's spiritual leader)," the source said.

"We would quit over substance, not declarations. Who can tell us when to resign? Lieberman? Who is he to determine things for us? We'd wait for the negotiations and if, toward their culmination, we see that Jerusalem is to be divided, then I assume we'd quit. But a paper read at a conference, when everybody knows it is unlikely to be carried out, is no reason to leave, and we have no intention of leaving," he said.

"The battle over allocations in the 2008 budget is no less important to us than the core issues," he says. "To this day, Shas has had no significant social victories. Labor can claim the minimum wage, the Pensioners Party has the old-age allowances, but what does Shas have to show to its supporters? We'll fix that in the next budget."
The burned out hulk of Yerushalayim apparently, on top of the hundreds murdered after Oslo. A monument of Shekels heaped to the sky on the graves of the crippled and the dead. Surely a victory for the voters of Shas.

To get a measure of the arrogance, there is the response of Shlomo Benziri.
"People come up to me and ask me what Shas is still doing in the coalition," said Benizri. "I manage to shut them up pretty quickly, though." Benizri explains to his retractors that Shas is led by Sephardi Jewry's eminent halachic authority, who has decided that, for the time being, there is no reason to leave the government."

But then it is a question of what one worships, God or the Moloch of Peace? In the name of the Moloch of Peace, the liberal and even conservative parties of Europe, America and Israel have shed their own nation's blood and seek to shed Israel's blood.

Some go to worship the Moloch of Peace in exchange for perceived profit, others because they have lost all faith in anything but surrender and bargaining at the table to cut off an arm instead of an arm and a leg.

The ceremonies of the Moloch of Peace are the conferences, the slit throat is the handshake but the blood that flows is no metaphor at all.

Monday, November 26, 2007

Liberal Judaism and Christianity: The Left Wing Takeover of Religious Institutions

By On November 26, 2007

For those who want to understand how and why American Jews remain so liberal, the answer begins with the takeover of Liberal Jewish and Liberal Christian institutions by the far left. Formerly liberal and patriotic, the radicalization of Liberal Jewish and Christian institutions has been a marked triumph for the far left. Today Reform, Presbyterian and Unitarian institutions serve as propaganda outlets for Islamic terrorism in line with the agenda for the far left.

Hijacking Churches and Synagogues

The mission of the left has been to take over American culture by taking over American academic, media and religious institutions. The assault on religion has involved removing religion from Reform Synagogues and Churches and recreating them as political institutions.

The particular means of transforming Jewish religion among liberal clergy and Reform and Conservative Synagogues into outlets for left wing ideas has been to associate the left wing agenda with a kind of warped and denuded "Jewish Spirituality" based not on Jewish law, but on "Prophetic Vision" or "Prophetic Values." This is basically a Jewish version of the Liberal Christian idea of transforming religion into a "What Would Jesus Do" checklist that begins and ends with social welfare and Gandhian non-violence. Substitute the "The Prophets" for Jesus and you have Prophetic Vision marketed toward Jews.

Of course once folks like Michael Lerner get hold of them, the Prophets begin to sound a whole lot like the platform of the Democratic party. The irony is that the very people so vehement about the separation of Church and State are creating a Convergence of Church and State by making the politics of the State identical with their religion. Rather than allowing religion to guide their politics, they allow their politics to guide their religion.

Michael Lerner Unmasked

A good snapshot of the takeover of Liberal Jewish culture and religion by the far left begins with Michael Lerner. Michael Lerner has worn many masks going from a dedicated Marxist and the leader of violent riots in Seattle to Hillary Clinton's personal guru to the editor of Tikkun Magazine, a figure in the current left wing anti-war movement and a supposed commentator on Jewish "spirituality." As part of this persona, Michael Lerner commonly refers to himself as Rabbi Michael Lerner, even though no Rabbi or institute has been found to take credit for giving him any Rabbinical ordination.

Michael Lerner began his career by writing "The New Socialist Revolution", a Marxist work describing the strategy and tactics for creating a Marxist revolution in America. The book in turn inspired many other radicals and helped Michael Lerner create the New American Movement. The New American Movement itself was Communist inspired. Michael Lerner was a founder of the Seattle Liberation Front and one of the Seattle Seven arrested for leading a Seattle riot that saw paint bombs and rocks thrown at police officers.

Today Michael Lerner postures as a "moderate" critic of America and Israel, but the reality is that Lerner was and remains a member of the far left. His Tikkun Magazine is a Gramscian front, part of the Left's "Long March Through the Institutions", in this case Jewish institutions, transforming Judaism into Left Wing Radicalism.

The Long March Through the Religious Institutions

The battle between religion and political radicalism has been a long one. Left wing politics has long viewed religion as an obstacle because religion is inherently traditional and therefore often conservative. Left wing politics is premised on the idea that there is no solution except immediate reform, radical reform. Religion believes that this world is only a staging ground for the world to come. Most of all religious is a source of morality that is in competition with the political morality of left wing ideology.

Liberal Judaism and Christian represent the political takeover of religion, political radicalism hollowing it out and transforming it into a mirror of itself. "Prophetic Vision" has become the central point of Reform Judaism, a social welfare agenda magically transformed into religion. The worship of a welfare state devoid of a G-d.

Religion Without Religion

The result is Religion Without Religion in which religious is reduced to the level of culture and politics becomes the new religion. There was another word for that, it was called Marxism.

The greatest victory of the left has been its takeover of sectors of American religion, a process that began in the earliest days of Marxism. Today in the liberal camp, religion has now become impossible to separate from liberal politics.

A final note on Rabbi Michael Lerner, the American equivalent of the Red Archbishop of Canterbury, comes from a former student of his.

"On the day that Patty Hearst announced that she was now a supporter of the SLA criminals who kidnapped her, he told his class "this is a very good day for the people."

Sunday, November 25, 2007

A Thanksgiving Conversation on America and Israel

By On November 25, 2007

It can't be considered Thanksgiving without a good meal and what is a meal, but meat. The meat supply in the fridge was low and the local Kosher butcher charges $7.50 a pound for beef stew. So what can an Orthodox Jew do?

"Yesh Shever BeMitzrayim," I proclaimed, "Kumu, Redu Shama VeShivru Lanu Mishama Me'at Ochel." (Paraphrasing Genesis 42:2 Behold, I have heard that there is corn in Egypt. Get you down thither, and buy for us from thence)

Mitzrayim was in Brooklyn, specifically Boro Park, somewhere along 18th Avenue. I took the train over and under the city.

"Myrtle, she gets exotic animals all the time. One time it's some rare South American parrot and another time some monkey. Then she gets tired of them and gives them away to zoos or has them euthanized," an elderly man in a peaked cap and embroidered scarf was telling his companion. "Finally she wanted a bigger house, but it cost too much money to demolish. So she had it burned down. The whole town came to watch."

A black man in a black leather jacket with an amplifier strung around his shoulders and beads in his hair came through from the next subway car toting a guitar. Without saying a word he launched into an impromptu version of a classic rock song. Then he passed around his upside down hat.

Finally the train came to its stop and I was in Mitzrayim. I went and did my shopping and loaded up full of meat. The old bearded Jew at the counter was no Pharaoh and no Yosef, he rang up my purchases and charged me exactly what the cost was, but neither did he have me locked up or demand proof I was no spy.

The sky was growing dark and so it was time for the Maariv prayer. I asked the first man I saw where the nearest Minyan might be found. He told me that there was a Shul (Synagogue) a block over. A block over I went. I got there in time for the Shiur and discovered that I had found what must be the only Modern Orthodox Shul in Boro Park and on 18th Avenue too.

I sat down during the Shiur on one of the polished wooden pews to wait for Maariv. A sheet on the wall mentioned Thanksgiving and featured a picture of a Pilgrim family. An ad above it advertised regular classes in Navi (Prophets) with each chapter emphasizing practical lessons that were meant to be applied to your life. More men came in. The crowd was mostly modern older men in gray fedoras and up front the Rabbi was speaking about milk and wine. Since this was Boro Park and 18th Avenue, a sprinkling of Chassidim and other fellows joined them as well.

"You know how many nations they invited to Annapolis," a Sefardi said angrily. He was wearing a black hat and jacket and bent over a pew to speak to the man in Chassidic clothes in the back. "Forty-Nine. Forty-Nine nations. Mem Tet Shaarei Tumah. (Forty-Nine Levels of Defilement)"

"They're out of their minds to give up Yerushalayim," the Chassid said. "Out of their minds, I tell you."

"I thought the Democrats were bad but the Republicans are just as bad," the Sefardi said. "Look what Bush is doing. He's destroying everything."

"What about all the liberal Jews?" the Chassid demanded.

The Sefardi dismissively waved his hand and went to his seat.

"Annapolis, they're going to destroy the country. They gave up Gaza and now there are rockets falling on them from there. Every time they give up it gets worse," the Chassid said turning to me.

"Hopefully Hashem (G-d) will help," I said.

"The Israelis are stupid," he said, "they're giving up the country. How can they still trust those murderers."

"They don't, but the government has people like Olmert in it. He just does whatever gets him ahead and the Knesset won't remove him because they want to protect their own positions," I said. "Olmert's sons are in Paris and Los Angeles. He doesn't care about any of it. He'll have a plane waiting for him if things get bad."

"With suitcases of money," the Chassid said.

"Just like the Polish government in exile," I added.

"My own children live there. I visit every year," the Chassid said. "In today's Frank J. Gaffney column, he basically says how stupid America and Israel are being and it's true. You know America is the greatest country in the world but it's also the craziest. For thanksgiving I have an eighteen pound turkey for Chai, life and I hang the big American flag in the window. I'm a patriot."

Without a break he turns to the man up front.

"We need to get Giuliani elected President. He'll get the job done. You know after the planes hit, I saw his face. He was crying but he was also determined. They messed with my country and they're gonna pay, was what was on his face."

"Well hopefully he will be President," I said.

"You know when he came here on the streetcorner, I told him he should be the first Christian Prime Minister of Israel. You need someone who can get the job done. If Israel made up its mind, it could sweep them all out in days. And Iran, let them come and try to bomb us. I'll be waiting for them with the biggest rocket launcher in the world," the Chassid said.

And then it was time for the Maariv prayer and then time to go. The rain came down as I rushed to the subway. On the way home the moon kept coming out and receding into the clouds, a bright white light into dark blue drifts of cloud in the sky.

Saturday, November 24, 2007

Parshas Vayishlach - Of Galut and War

By On November 24, 2007
Parshas Vayislach begins with Yaakov's encounter with Esav. Yaakov makes multiple preparations for this, but the bulk of it seems to involve appeasing Esav. Yaakov sends train after train of cattle to Esav. And he even calls this tribute, "Mincha Le'Esav", a term commonly used for Korbanot, Sacrifices to G-d. And worse when he meets Esav, he proclaims that seeing him is like seeing the face of G-d.

Satisfied that the blessings that Yitzchak gave to Yaakov, that he would dominate and rule over him, have come to nought, Esav hugs him and goes on his way. Yet what is the price that Yaakov pays for this tribute, for this Mincha Le'Esav?

The end of the Parsha lists in detail Esav's genealogy. Tribe after tribe, chieftain after chieftain. Why do we need to know all this information? We need to know it because it serves as a consequence. There in that moment stood Esav and from him would descend Amalek and Edom and Rome and Germany. In that moment so much evil might have been ended. Instead Yaakov paid him tribute. The Bracha of the firstborn that Yaakov had worked so hard for, was יַעַבְדוּךָ עַמִּים, וישתחו לְךָ לְאֻמִּים--הֱוֵה גְבִיר לְאַחֶיךָ, וְיִשְׁתַּחֲווּ לְךָ בְּנֵי אִמֶּךָ "You will be master over your brothers and the sons of your mother will bow to you." Yet Yaakov had no confidence in that bracha or in Hashem's promise of protection at Beth El and so instead it was Yaakov who deferred to Esav.

From there Yaakov's family approaches a city only to have Dinah kidnapped and molested by Shechem, the son of the ruler of the city. Hamor, the ruler of the city comes with his son in tow, to ask for Yaakov's permission to legalize the rape by marrying his daughter. And Yaakov remains silent. After all what can he do, on the one hand the obvious answer, certainly the conventional 'frum' one is to do a Mincha Le'Esav, to flatter Hamor and tell him what a great Lord he is, to defer to him and offer him presents and money in exchange for his own daughter. But in the aftermath of what was done to his daughter, this is too bitter a pill to swallow and so he says nothing and sits there and does not know what to do.

And then Bnei Yaakov Bau Min Hasadeh, the Sons of Yaakov Came Back From the Field. But of course Pasuk Heih already told us that Yaakov's sons were in the field. Why tell us a second time? Let's look back at Yitzchak's blessing to Yaakov. He prefaces it by saying, "The Smell of My Son is As The Smell of a Field Which the Lord Has Blessed." Yitzchak had sent Esav out not to go into the barn and kill a sheep, but had told him וְצֵא הַשָּׂדֶה Tzeh Hasadeh, "Go Out Into the Field" and hunt food. Why the field in particular? Why hunt food? Because going out and hunting represents the conquest of the physical world.

When Yaakov's sons, particularly Leah's sons returned from the field, they had come back from wrestling with the physical world. And they did not remain silent. Instead they decided there would be no more Mincha Le'Esav. Not only would they not pay to get their sister back or to enter into any arrangement, instead they would recover their sister, slay those responsible and take their property as loot instead.

From the perspective of the Galut Yid this is an insane idea. Go out and fight? Kill? Are you crazy? Okay, so something terrible happened here. But what can we do about it? Nothing, we sit there and remain silent. Then maybe we make a deal with Hamor or with someone over his head, we write a letter, make up a petition and then we'll lock up our women even more closely, maybe shave their heads and pray it doesn't happen again. And indeed that's exactly what Yaakov furiously tells his sons, Look how the Caananites are going to think of me. There's a lot of them and a few of us. They'll gang up on us and kill us all.

And what do the sons of Yaakov who have wiped out an entire city reply? Hakezonah Yaaseh Et Achoteinu? Should our sister be made as a harlot? And the Parsha gives them the last word.

The name of Dinah derives from Din or Justice and Law. Dinah can be read as Din Hashem or G-d's Law. When Shechem took and assaulted Dinah, he was also assaulting G-d's law which prohibited such things. The Torah is considered the Sister as well. When the Sons of Yaakov proclaim, Hakezonah Yaaseh Et Achoteinu, they are also saying, Shall the Torah Be Made into a Prostitute? Shall G-d's law be allowed to be perverted?

What happens when those who are responsible for upholding the Torah offer a Mincha Le'Esav, they shake hands with evil, they literally prostitute the Torah because they show that G-d's law is for sale. And that is why only after Levi and Shimon carry out Din Hashem on the city, does G-d call out to Yaakov and tell him to come to Beit El and make an altar. Before that Hashem does not call him, as if to say "You offered Esav a Mincha and now you want to offer me one too. You compared his face to the Face of G-d and now you want to see my face." Only when Din Hashem was carried out, was Yaakov summoned to serve G-d again. And indeed it is the sons of Levi who carried out the killing who become the servants of G-d and sacrifice at his altars. It is Moshe from Shevet Levi who leads the Jews out of Galut. Because of the willingness of Levi to fight for G-d, they deserve most of all to serve him and be close to him.

And how G-d commands Yaakov is significant too, he mentions "The G-d Who Appeared to You When You Fled From Your Brother Esav." This serves as a form of reproof of Yaakov who fled from Esav, despite having a Bracha and who sent a Mincha Le'Esav a second time, even though he had two reassurances from G-d.

Now when Yaakov travels to Beit El we are told וַיְהִי חִתַּת אֱלֹהִים, עַל-הֶעָרִים אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבוֹתֵיהֶם, וְלֹא רָדְפוּ, אַחֲרֵי בְּנֵי יַעֲקֹב And the Fear of G-d Was On the Surrounding Cities And They Did Not Pursue the Sons of Yaakov. Why now was there fear on the cities and not before when Shechem had kidnapped Dinah? The answer that was they had known before that Yaakov had the blessing to be master of the land and inherit it, yet they also knew that he had humbled himself before Esav. Clearly the blessings did not amount to anything and so they felt free to do as they liked. Now when they saw that a few boys had executed justice on a city, they saw Din Hashem and so they were afraid of G-d now.

There are two ways that people feel the Fear of G-d. One is that G-d carries out miracles and wonders as he did over Egypt. The second is that those who serve G-d enforce justice in the land. Yaakov like Avraham bought land in Eretz Yisrael, yet this meant nothing as far as taking possession of it went. How does one take possession of the land? When Din Hashem is enforced on the land. When there is Justice and Law in the land, then the land has a Master.

Of the three Avot, two of them, Avraham and Yaakov had two wives. Both of these Avot were partly in Galut outside Eretz Yisrael. Only Yitzchak who never left Eretz Yisrael only had one wife. Of the two pairs of two wives, one represented the Wife of the Galut and one the Wife of Eretz Yisrael. By Avraham Avinu, it was clearly Sarah who was the Wife of Eretz and Hagar who was the Wife of Galut. By Yaakov Avinu, Leah was the Wife of Eretz Yisrael and Rachel was the Wife of the Galut.

How do we know this? Leah was the wife who was buried with Yaakov in Eretz Yisrael while Rachel was buried outside the land. It is Rachel who prays for her children going into Galut. It is Leah who gives birth to the majority of the Jewish people, including to the tribes of Yehuda and Levi, both of whom returned from the first Galut and endure until today. By contrast the larger Galut of the Ten Shevatim was marked as the Galut of Yosef and indeed Rehovam who split Yisrael from Yosef was from Ephraim.

While Leah represents the struggle for Eretz Yisrael, Rachel represents the comfort of Galut. For the first seven years, Yaakov worked for Leah, without even knowing it. He remained for the next seven years for Rachel. Rachel was beautiful to his eyes, as Galut is beautifully seductive to those Jews who remain in it. Like the "Pot of Meat" of Egypt or the rich comfort of Goshen to which Yosef would eventually bring the other Shevatim, she was appealing to the eyes. Yet Rachel was also Yaakov's tie to the Galut and the idols in her tent testified to that attachment.

Yaakov remained closest to his Wife of the Galut, even after her death and indeed he lived much of his life in Galut and descended down and died in Galut Mitzrayim. By contrast the sons of Leah were not of that character. They fought for their rights and resented the Sons of the Galut and drove Yosef out. The culmination of the struggle forced them to accept the Galut and Yosef's rule in Egypt, yet when the Jews are led out it is not by a Ben Rachel, but by the Bnei Leah. The Sons of Levi lead the Jews out. In Eretz Yisrael a Ben Rachel, Shaul is given a chance to rule, but like Yaakov he spares Edom and lets the King of Amalek and his cattle live. And so David of Yehuda replaces him instead. When the final Geulah comes, Moshiach ben Yosef dies and gives way to Moshiach ben David to end the Galut for good.

What perpetuates the Galut? The Mincha Le'Esav. Every time a Mincha is given to Esav, we worship Esav instead of Hashem. After Yaakov gave a Mincha to Esav, the Bnei Yisrael who approached Edom were told not to go out to war with Edom and to only buy food and water from them. It was as if G-d was saying, "You gave tribute to Esav, now give him some more." When we give a Mincha to Esav, HaKezonah Yaaseh et Achoteinu, we turn the Torah which is our sister into a prostitute. We demonstrate that Torah law and values are for sale and can be compromised. When we rise like the sons of Yaakov, but stripped of the anger which Yaakov cursed, but in the name of Din Hashem which has been defiled, we shorten the Galut by serving G-d.

Friday, November 23, 2007

Friday Afternoon Roundup - From Mars to the Middle East

By On November 23, 2007

"What's the deal with peace processes? There's no peace, just a process."

It's been a long week and then a long weekend. Meanwhile in the world and all around it, Annapolis is coming and to those who want to do a little to help, it's possible to make three free phone calls to officials at this site Via (Bookworm Room)

Front Page Magazine has an interesting view with the President of the Mars Society on breaking the grip of terror on our economy through oil prices.
You know there is an old aphorism, "there are three things necessary to wage war: money, money, and yet more money." Well, the same is true of jihad. So consider the following. In 1972, the USA paid out $4 billion for oil imports, an amount equal to 1.2% of our defense budget at that time. Last year, we paid $260 billion - which was half of what we paid for national defense! Over the same period, Saudi oil revenues have grown in direct parallel from $2.7 billion in 1972 to $200 billion in 2006, and this year are likely to exceed $300 billion. And if something isn't done to break the oil cartel, the situation is likely to get much worse, because with China and India industrializing, world demand for fuel is going up, and OPEC is in position to exploit this to effect further radical price hikes -- in fact they've raised prices 50% this year alone. We are financing a war against ourselves, and the way things are going, we will soon be paying the enemy more than we are paying our own military.

Reuters has a rather disturbing look at the culture of homosexuality and pedophilia in the Muslim world that takes root in the absence of women, also a subtopic in my previous post.

Detective Bill Warner has a look at a part of the Muslim terrorist crime syndicate's operations in the United States, that I wrote about here

TAMPA EVERY MONTH. The merchandise is picked up by a
local truck driver and then delivered to a variety of Muslim
convenience stores in the greater Tampa area where it is
retailed at full price resulting in huge profits, Sami al-Arian
had set up this network. In February 2007 alone, over 150
shipments of the counterfeit merchandise (microsoft vista
programs) were received at the Port of Tampa resulting in
over $1,000,000 in sales.

You can not show this much profit in the convenience
stores, way off the register, you can not put this money in a
bank and you can not wire transfer such large amounts
without calling attention to yourself from the FBI, so what
do you do ? You buy cars ! You have multiple associates
in the used car business in the Tampa area purchase
vehicles from the auto auctions with your $700,000.00,
deliver the vehicles to a central warehouse storage lot near
the port of Tampa and ship the vehicles to Dubai UAE in
containers for resale. Why Dubai, Dubai is the largest used
car connection in the world and has a whole industry
dedicated to changing the identities of cars, those vehicles
you purchased at the auto Auction with the $700,000.00 can
be resold at up to 4 times the retail value in Dubai

Via Little Green Footballs, Aviation Week has more information on Israel's attack on Syria.

The first event in the raid involved Israel’s strike aircraft flying into Syria without alerting Syrian air defenses. The ultimate target was a suspected nuclear reactor being developed at Dayr az-Zawr. But the main attack was preceded by an engagement with a single Syrian radar site at Tall al-Abuad near the Turkish border.

The radar site was struck with a combination of electronic attack and precision bombs to allow the Israeli force to enter and exit Syrian airspace unobserved. Subsequently all of Syria’s air-defense radar system went off the air for a period of time that encompassed the raid, U.S. intelligence analysts told Aviation Week.

Atlas Shrugs warns that we may be losing Lebanon

Carl in Jerusalem at Israel Matzav talks about Israel's real 'demographic problem'

The vast majority of religious Israeli Jews said they were politically right-wing, with 71% defining themselves as such compared to just 7% who said they were left-wing. Among secular Israelis too, more defined themselves as right-wing (43%) than left-wing (27%). Some 21% of religious Israelis, 29% of traditional Israelis and 30% of secular Israelis defined themselves as centrists.
The Anti-Racist Blog has more on Norman Finkelstein's further degeneration

A recent e-mail from Norman Finkelstein, which was forwarded to Dean Elana Kagan of the Harvard Law School, indicates that Finkelstein’s name-calling has now turned sexist. Using his mother’s voice, Finkelstein describes Dean Kagan as “a whore” and says that if his mother were still around she would come up to Cambridge and call her that demeaning, sexist term “to her face and then throttle her.”

And in more leftists behaving badly news, The Midnight Sun blog has more on Rudd's threat to "knock over" Prime Minister Howard.

For the kind of braggadocio going on in the Left ranks, go no further than Kevin Rudd, Opposition leader, who stood up and announced that he could ‘knock John (Howard) over in a bar fight’.
No doubt he could, so long as Rudd could still run away from any Muslims or get on his knees and beg them for mercy.

At Up Pompei is a disgusting story about disabled war veterans being expelled from a swimming pool because their appearance "disgusted" other swimmers

Gateway Pundit has a roundup of news on the latest Clinton scandal which has them sinking to a new depth, telemarketing.

Boker Tov Boulder writes that the World Prefers Its Jews Dead

It's hard to be American Indian in America, but I think being a Jew is similar - in that the world likes dead Jews better than us living ones. We have different PR problems: People think Indians enjoy a pipeline to Mother Earth, yet refuse to believe the Jewish connection to the land of the Israel. Go figure.
Finally Pillage Idiot has a chat between Ron Paul and his Cocker Spaniel

"Dr. Paul": They're trying to paint me as some kind of anti-semite.

Cocker Spaniel:

"Dr. Paul": Which is ridiculous. I mean, we even have "Jews for Ron Paul."

Cocker Spaniel:

"Dr. Paul": It doesn't matter to me that the "Jews" for Ron Paul tend to be Unitarian Universalists.

Thursday, November 22, 2007

Islam's War on the Family and a World Without Women

By On November 22, 2007
"That was very true, he thought. There was a direct
intimate connexion between chastity and political orthodoxy.
For how could the fear, the hatred, and the lunatic credulity
which the Party needed in its members be kept at the right
pitch, except by bottling down some powerful instinct and using
it as a driving force?

All this marching up and down and cheering and waving flags is
simply sex gone sour. What was more important was that sexual
privation induced hysteria, which was desirable because it
could be transformed into war-fever and leader-worship."

George Orwell, 1984

"Up to 70% of files exchanged between Saudi teenagers' mobile phones
contain pornography, according to a study in the ultra-conservative
Muslim kingdom."The flash memory of mobile phones taken from teenagers showed 69.7% of 1,470 files saved in them were pornographic and 8.6% were related to violence," said report author Professor Abdullah al-Rasheed.

BBC, April 25, 2007

It is all too common even among conservatives to treat Islamic laws against women as mad or prejudiced or primitive without thinking of their purpose. But culture and law is not random and Islamic law, for all its occasional whimsical diversions into breast feeding adult men and drinking camel urine, is an engine. An engine geared to produce and shape the next generation of Muslim young men and women.

Islamic laws aimed at women and their relationships with men are not random or accidental, they exist with a purpose in mind, in the same way that our laws against littering or loitering have the purpose of shaping social attitudes and behavior. Islamic law may be primitive and the work of primitives, but primitive isn't stupid. Making that particular mistake has gotten the West into more trouble than anything else. Primitive people are not stupid, they have goals and agendas to fulfill.

Islamic laws aimed at women are meant to shape the way Muslim men and women grow up and their emotional and mental state. Their goal is to first of all create sexual and emotional isolation.

Islamic authority seeks to isolate those under their control from all other influences. That includes Western culture, but it also includes girlfriends and wives and even the home. Constantly degrading the status of Muslim women is meant to insure that their views and influence will have little effect on the Muslim male leaving the Imams and Mullahs with a clear field. Constantly raising the requirements of religiosity teaches the Muslim male to disrespect his parents as insufficiently religious so that Imams and Mullahs become his standard and his key influence.

A legal system that effectively permits the rape and murder of women who venture outside without a male guardian or who have male friends is meant to keep Muslim women terrified and dependent and Muslim men frustrated and filled with pent up aggression and hostility unleavened by interaction with the opposite sex. This helps insure marriages where women will be submissive and a large supply of angry and frustrated young Muslim men eager to kill and die.

The goal of Islamic law is to diminish the influence of women on society and on Muslim males in particular, to isolate Muslim males and drive them toward violence and fanaticism. To Islamic clerics, women represent the pagan, from their bodies to their hair to their ideas, the feminine represents a threat to the Muslim religious ideal.

The natural priority of women is the home while Islamofascism transforms the home into a battlefield, a place where wives are afraid of their husbands and where their children are combatants for the next terrorist attack and young men are taught to show contempt for women while lusting for virgin demons in paradise. Islam's war has been most keenly directed at women because the goal is to transform the family from a private institution into a means of reproducing Islam across the globe.

"The little girl lives her life under a communal death threat--the honor killing." Dr. Nancy Kobrin

"The womb of the Arab woman is my strongest weapon." Yasir Arafat

This is the ideal of the new Islamic family, one in which the role of the woman is to be a breeding sow for the next generation of terrorists, churning out babies and helping to raise them ready and willing to die and to finally blow herself up when her time is done. Islamofascism doesn't need women's minds, only their bodies and that is why Islamic law is so obsessed with covering up women's bodies and restricting their mobility. For Muslim women, Islamic law is nothing more than the barn door.

Honor killings and the high standard for rape convictions insure that women know that they have no independent rights and that the world outside the home is a dangerous one, a world that only their husbands and male relatives can protect them against. The tolerance for honor killings and the difficulty for a Muslim woman to prove a rape while making it easy for the rapists to charge her with adultery or lewdness is the barbed wire around the fence meant to keep the Muslim woman inside.

When the Saudi court responded to a gang rape case by sentencing the woman to 200 lashes for being in a car with a man, it knew exactly what it was doing. It was repeating that same message to Muslim women meant to keep them at home and afraid and dependent and playing their roles producing babies for the next wave of the Jihad.

By no coincidence the two Muslim countries which most aggressively limit the interaction of men and women, Saudi Arabia and Iran, also generate the bulk of the Middle East's terrorists. The goal of these restrictions is to leave Muslim males emotionally and sexually isolated and diverted from any relationship that is not controlled and sanctioned by the State and by the Religious Institutions of Islam. The isolation is meant to prevent Muslim men and women from interacting and beginning the process of creating a family and a relationship on their own terms. By controlling every aspect of male and female interactions, Islamic religious cultures are free to recreate the family as a tool of the Jihad.

"It is a strange society. Homosexuality is forbidden but if you're the penetrator, not the penetrated, it's okay." Walid Shoebat

Of course diminishing and degrading the role of women inevitably generates homosexuality and pedophilia. This is something that Islamic religious culture seemingly forbids, but in practice counts on. Islam prefers male-male bonds to male-female bonds. As the Spartans or quite a few prison gangs know, this can produce better warriors who are interdependent.

Ahmadinejad may claim that there is no such thing as homosexuality in Iran, but that is only because it is too inconvenient to acknowledge. In a world without women, which is the world Islam has wrought, homosexuality is inevitable and is also a tool of the state. With women removed from the picture and kept in the home, Muslim male society can become free to divide itself into men and men playing the female role turning societies that repress women into the very image of the prisons that they are. Men who engage in homosexual relationships are easily blackmailed or alternately patronized.

The goal of Islamic law has been to remove the feminine from the picture, that is why it is the men who play the role of women that are punished, not those men who engage in homosexual behavior as a whole. The western understanding of homosexuality is absent from the Muslim world, because it does not recognize it.

In the Muslim mindset, having sex with another man is not a crime, only functioning in a feminine role is. And so the brutalization of Muslim women by Muslim men, gives way to the brutalization of other Muslim men and children. But all of it serves a common purpose, the disruption of any genuine emotional and sexual bonds between men and women in order to transform the Muslim family into nothing more than a breeding ground for the next wave of the Jihad.

That is why women are not valued except for their bodies, not sexually but reproductively. That is why male and female relationships are controlled at every stage and why women are degraded and devalued. Within the Islamofascist ideal, women are only a means of making more men and men are only a means for the Imams and Mullahs to take power and impose the social conditions that will perpetuate this same cycle forever.

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever." George Orwell, 1984

Islamic law is meant to transform those living under it into a social system that is a weapon aimed at the Dar Al Harb, the free world that Muslims are meant to conquer and a whip over the Dar Al-Islam, the world already enslaved under Islam.

Islamic law is not the product of silly hollow prejudice, it is a tool meant to produce the same end as that of Oceania in 1984. An eternal tyranny under Mohammed and Allah. A boot stamping on a human face forever. A world of angry men and frightened women, warped families and a gallows on every corner.

The subjugation of women is meant to control and transform the family, the cornerstone of human society, into a weapon aimed at the very fundamental core of humanity. By breaking the bonds between men and women, mothers and children and husbands and wives, Islamic law seeks to create more than terrorism but an endless state of terror akin to the worst days of Stalinist terror and Nazi rule.

Like the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, Islamofascism has co-opted the family. The Burka, the Honor Killing, the Rape Jihad, the sex segregation and the frustrated homosexuality and violence are only the symptoms of something much darker about the Islamic social engineering of male-female relationships. Even the terrorists flooding out of the Madrassas and mosques, into Iraq and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Gaza are themselves only the deadly and gruesome products of this work of social engineering.

It is important to understand that just as with Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, the horrors of Islamofascism that we can actually see, are just symptoms of the underlying ideas, goals and methods of the great motor of Islamic law and culture underneath.

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Annapolis: The Conference from Hell

By On November 21, 2007
The list of invitations to what is being billed as the Annapolis Peace Conference reads like the attendance at a lynching. From Saudi Arabia to Syria, from the Arab League to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, from Javier Solana to Kadaffi's Libyan representative, every faction and country that wants Israel wiped off the face of the earth already has an invitation to the conference at which the Palestinians are expected to mumble something vague about their commitment to peace while Israel carves itself up and hands out pieces of itself to the enemy like some ghastly banquet treat.

In the upside down universe of international diplomacy, the only way to thwart Hamas and Ahmadinejad is not on the battlefield, but by "empowering the moderates" by making endless territorial concessions to them. It's as if this was 1942 and the United States decided the best way to end the war was by "discrediting" the extremist Nazis in Germany by forcing England to attend a peace conference with the "moderate" fascists in Italy and Spain and turn over Wales and parts of England proper to them.

In preparation for the conference, Olmert has begun handing out terrorist party favors releasing Fatah terrorists and allowing Russia to supply them with 25 armored cars and a 1000 rifles and 2 million rounds of ammunition. The first death of that bloody harvest came with the shooting of
Ido Zoldan as terrorists celebrated the upcoming peace conference in the the traditional way by murdering Israelis. Of course since Ido Zoldan was an opponent of Olmert's corrupt government, that could only have been a cause for celebration in the Prime Minister's Office.

If the first half of Olmert's reign was notorious for his brutality, incompetence and corruption; his second half is now a sham in which Peres in the President's office wields more actual power than the Prime Minister, setting the agenda for the state. Every insane policy from the Rabin \ Peres era has been dusted off, from releasing terrorists to arming them, to holding peace conferences with Fatah which has broken every promise of peace it has ever made. Olmert may be going to Annapolis, but it is Peres who is now setting the agenda as Olmert trudges behind him hoping to salvage a way to stay in office.

Meanwhile Condoleeza Rice continues to lever pressure on Israel, as America and Europe remain delusionally convinced that Abbas is an American ally, that Fatah is friendly and that the only way to salvage his failing government is to force Israel to make massive concessions to him. This is supposed to win him the confidence of Palestinian Arabs and the Middle East, but why in the world would any Arab have confidence in a failed leader who has to be coddled and armed by America and Israel? That's the problem with puppet regimes, they never have much credibility.

In the aftermath of Arafat's death, Fatah has been exposed for what it is, a bunch of cowardly armed gangs with no ability to run anything except their protection and payoff rackets. Hamas has been exposed as a bunch of fanatical Islamic thugs looking to create their own Taliban state. Given that America and Israel have repeatedly shown that they will not remove Hamas and since Hamas has shown that it can and will win any confrontation with Fatah, why in the world would anyone besides foreign diplomats back Fatah?

Condoleeza Rice can squeeze as many giveaways out of Israel as she likes, but leaders don't get credibility at the negotiating table, but from their ability to control their own territory. It's why the Afghani government has credibility and the Iraqi government does not. Right now Abbas has to be wearing diapers because he knows that the likeliest time for a coup is when the leader is out of the country. When Israel accepted Oslo, it turned over Gaza and the West Bank to a coalition of armed gangs represented by a handful of men in suits with foreign educations who could plausibly mimic a government well enough to fool the diplomats. The gangs are going their own way, leaving only the men in their expensive suits to accept Israel's surrender on behalf of a phony nation whose representatives are busy stockpiling aid money in its foreign bank accounts for when the hammer comes down.

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Tony Soprano and the Terrorist: Terrorist Groups as Criminal Enterprises

By On November 20, 2007

"As it turns out, those of us who watched The Sopranos may have better insight into al-Qaeda in Iraq than we knew," writes Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters. "Al Queda Iraq had racketeering operations all over Mosul, involving a Pepsi plant, cement manufacturers, and cellphone companies. All of these play a vital role in re-establishing Iraqi commerce, and AQI taxed them to the tune of $200,000 per month."

This is nothing new. Not only Al Queda in Iraq, but Al Queda in general and most Muslim terrorist groups run various rackets ranging from drug dealing and car theft rings to racketeering schemes, protection money and cigarette smuggling in the States.

Terrorism obviously requires income and if you have a small army of thugs who enjoy killing people, you also have a "work force" that can blackmail, kidnap, kill and engage in criminal operations to generate income.

Many terrorist groups in practice are actually indistinguishable from the mob, except that they have a political ideology. The word 'Mafia' even derives from the Arabic 'Mahyas' or 'Bravo' giving the Mafia a quasi Muslim origin. In many cases the political ideology of terrorists is itself a means to an end for its leaders giving them power and control and letting them create their own crime rings.

Al Queda in Iraq got so big so fast by drawing its recruits from the lowest ranks of society, where Al Queda in general tends to go for the middle class. Al Queda in Iraq were mostly members of bandit gangs and it's why Al Queda in Iraq quickly spun out of control and began repulsing even its supporters.

Unlike Al Queda, the average Arab or Muslim terrorist organization though works on family lines, much like the Mafia. It runs locally, it recruits along the branches of an extended family for its core leadership and soldiers. (These people never actually blow themselves up, those who do tend to be fall guys and pasties.)

The largest portion of the group is dedicated to income generation and the smallest to terrorism. This is why gullible Westerners often describe Fatah or Hamas in terms of the militant wing and the moderate political wing. In fact the "moderate political wing" is just the section that handles the crime and the payoffs. The military wing handles the killings. It's like describing the Mafia boss as the "moderate political wing" and his goons as the "extremist militant wing". It's all one organization with different function.

The core of most local terrorist groups is political on the surface and economic under the surface.

1. For terrorist groups who have some control or freedom of operation, shakedowns and protection money paid by local merchants is a key source of income. Like the mob, these groups often claim to be "protecting" the stores against criminal elements and of course executing them as collaborators, if they don't pay.

2. For terrorist groups who live under a hostile authority particularly in the West, they adapt to the existing criminal operations already in the area and take them over, from drug smuggling to stolen car rings to cigarette smuggling and various other smuggling operations. International smuggling in particular is ideal for them because it employs the overseas contacts that all Muslim terrorist groups have and enables them to make money in the West and in their home country and also bring in weapons if they need to.

3. For terrorist groups operating in an area that is in between 1. and 2., using Sharia as monopoly on vice is commonplace. For example Sadr's assaults on liquor dealers masked a takeover of the liquor sales operation by his own men. The Muslim attacks on liquor stores in Detroit are probably a prelude to something similar or just an outright shakedown for protection money. Either way Muslim groups in areas where their influence is rising will go after what they consider "vice" businesses, liquor, prostitution and theaters on the self-righteous grounds of Islamic law while really being out to either take them over or force them to pay protection money.

Like most mobs, Islamic terrorist groups adapt to the terrain and paying too much attention to their ideology masks their underlying criminal activities. For example Al Queda's attacks on Iraqis and Iraqi businesses engaging in the reconstruction of Iraq was taken at face value as an assault on "collaborators", the reality though was that these assaults masked bids to force those businesses to pay protection money to avoid future attacks. The terrorism masked the racketeering and while Americans paid attention to the Islamic ideology, they overlooked the underlying criminal motives.

Al Queda Iraq had racketeering operations all over Mosul, involving a Pepsi plant, cement manufacturers, and cellphone companies. All of these play a vital role in re-establishing Iraqi commerce, and AQI taxed them to the tune of $200,000 per month

That is exactly how the game is played. The attacks setup the shakedown. Islamic attacks, whether on businesses or entire countries, are shakedowns. When liberals or Ron Paul talk about rethinking our foreign policy after 9/11, they're announcing their intention to give in to the shakedown. And once you give in, the racket really begins.

The thing to remember about Muslim terrorists is that they're not just murderers, they're also hypocrites. Anyone who forgets that need only remember the devout 9/11 hijackers hanging out at a strip club and drinking before they went off to kill. Much like Tony Soprano.

Monday, November 19, 2007

Islam's Cult of Shame and Death

By On November 19, 2007

In many of the debates that touch on the threat of Islam, the discussion turns to the legitimacy of Islam and whether Islam is ever compatible with Western Civilization or other cultures. Quotes from the Koran are tossed back and forth.

But the Koran is mostly irrelevant. The problem with Islam isn't its theology but its practice. Oh there's no doubt that the Koran is filled with hate and justifications for massacring the infidels. There's no doubt that Islam began with a warlord ripping off earlier religions and using is to conduct bandit raids and campaigns of conquest. But none of that would matter if Muslims didn't continue acting on it today.

Scripture is socially and political relevant only in practice. In other words your scripture doesn't matter except in how you practice it. If your scripture calls for helping the poor but you don't, then your scripture has no social relevance. If your scripture doesn't call for it but you do it anyway, then it's your practice that has social relevance.

The fundamental problem with Muslims doesn't come from the Koran, but from a widespread refusal to live in peace with non-Muslims. The Koran is just the propaganda used to justify that. It's why reforming Islam won't work until Muslims choose to set that aside.

Focusing on the Koran and Islam creates a misunderstanding among many counter-jihadis that the real problem is Islam. The real problem though is that millions of Muslims in the west choose to embrace this vision of Islam. Saudi money no doubt helps and the import of radical clerics, but in the end people believe what they choose to believe. Time and time again Muslim students enjoy everything the West has to offer and then turn over to becoming Islamic religious fanatics committed to a war on the West. Islam itself is too simple an explanation for that.

Embracing Islamofascism as an identity is driven less by the Koran than by a need for Islamic supremacy. Islamofascism really isn't about the Koran, it's about the need of people with an inferiority complex to become superior and to lash out at the cultures and nations they're so viciously jealous of.

Islamic terrorism is rooted in the sense of humiliation felt by so many in the Middle East and Pakistan in the face of the technological, cultural and economic superiority of the West. A humiliation felt most keenly by the wealthy Saudis who are at the peak of their own region and by Muslim immigrants in the West, who together form the bulk of the active terrorist infrastructure. It's no surprise that most terrorists actually come from the Middle Class or that the most violent Islamic outbursts come in response to a perceived humiliation of their identity whether it's the Mohammed cartoons or the Koran in the toilet or ham sandwiches in the break room.

Islamofascism like German Nazism is not the triumphant clenched fist of a rising civilization, but the furious moan of a failed civilization trying to lash out and gain some measure of victory by embracing a fanatical identity to compensate for its own sense of inferiority. Muslims who have embraced the symbols of Islam, from the Burka to Mohammed to the Koran are obsessed with maintaining their status and driven mad by any sign of humiliation or shame shown to it. Because it's their only bulwark against their own shame and humiliation.

Islamofascism is not really about religion or Allah or anything sacred or divine, it's about a cultural attempt by Muslim men to preserve some shard of the honor so central to their culture by lashing out viciously at superior cultures and shaming them. Whether it was Al Queda flying planes into the World Trade Center or dragging the dismembered corpses of American GI's around in Somalia or the rape Jihad in Europe, Islamofascism is less about a strategic war than it is about a frenzied howl as the humiliated upper class of the Muslim world tries to cope with a universe in which they remain socially inferior.

That doesn't mean that it isn't dangerous or that it should be appeased. Europe reacted to the rise of Nazism by viewing it as German outrage in response to the treatment of Germany after WW1 and did their best to coddle and appease Germany. The result was very nearly the conquest and destruction of Europe. The mistake of Chamberlain and others was to accept the German narrative that laid blame at the feet of England and France, much as liberals today accept the Muslim narrative of their victimization. The problems of a culture arise within that culture.

Islam like Arab Socialism is in the end only a tool by a failed culture to try and salvage its honor. Having been failed by Marxism, Islam is being revived as a fanatical cult of death aimed at the West. Suicide is the fundamental practice of the shamed in many cultures to atone for their shame. It is no coincidence that suicide is the fundamental tool of modern Islamic terrorism, the same terrorism that reacts most angrily to being shamed, whether it is at Abu Ghaib, with the Mohammed cartoons or the Koran in the toilet or the so-called plight of the defeated Palestinian Arabs.

If Islam truly were a religion, it would be government by morality, but instead Muslims continue to exist in an Honor / Shame culture that allows them to create their own truths and imagine themselves as perpetual victims. Yet their own refusal to take responsibility is what creates their victimization and that victimization justifies their violence... in their minds and in the minds of their apologists in the West.

Saturday, November 17, 2007

Why I Oppose Ron Paul as an American

By On November 17, 2007

I'm a Jew and a Zionist and I have seen a bunch of messages from people claiming to be Jews and Zionists and stating that as their reason for supporting Ron Paul. As I've demonstrated in the past week, the Jews for Ron Paul group was a fraud. The Zionists for Ron Paul group is run by a splinter group in Israel which advocates some sort of anti-globalization platform.

I don't oppose Ron Paul as a Jew and a Zionist. I oppose him as an American. I oppose him as someone who feels that we need to make America stronger rather than weaker, that we need an America more capable of fighting terrorism than less capable of fighting it. I have opposed foreign aid to Israel for some time. I feel it does more harm than good. My opposition to Ron Paul has nothing to do with foreign aid, it has to do with opposing the greatest threat of our time, radical Islam.

Ron Paul's candidacy is right up there with Charles Lindbergh urging Americans that we don't need to worry about Nazi Germany or Japan, so long as we embraced isolationism or the USSR's Fellow Travelers proclaiming that the only reason there is conflict in Europe is because of our interference there. Those who cite American foreign policy as the just reason the enemy hates us are knowingly or unknowingly parroting the propaganda of our foes.

What benefits America the most and also benefits England, Israel, India and the rest of the civilized world, is a President willing to confront and combat the enemy. Foreign aid isn't the issue, a united front is. And if Bush has not done nearly enough in that regard, it is still far far better than the alternative, which is a President who retreats from the field entirely, surrenders and even accepts the enemy's justifications.

Ron Paul is not a candidate for President. Ron Paul is a spoiler candidate meant to play Ross Perot a second time. He is not a real Republican, he's a trojan horse with a backing that comes from the far right and the far left and considering his embrace by the media, from one or more of the Democratic candidates.

Whether he knows it or not, Ron Paul is in this race for one reason, to subvert the field of GOP candidates and eventually probably as a third party candidate to split the conservative vote. Ron Paul might as well register as Hillary or Obama's V.P. because that is what he's really for.

If you can take the damage that the eight years of the Clinton Administration did and multiply it by a hundred, that's what Hillary or Obama in power will do. It's not a risk any sane person who cares about America can or should take.

Even discounting the fact that he is a spoiler candidate, Ron Paul's platform on the War on Terror is a joke. He blames America for 9/11 and swallows the Chomskyite arguments, instead of recognizing the inherent threat of Islamic expansionism. He has no plan for dealing with the nuclear threat of Iran and its numerous ties to terrorist groups which hate the West. He has no plan for fighting terrorism, beyond what amounts to a higher reward for Bin Laden.

His plans for the Federal government are a joke. His big appeal as President is a plan to dump all the problems and responsibilities onto State Governors along with the ballooning taxes and turn the Federal government into a hollow shell, because his supporters in a few states think that will somehow give them freedom. All it will give them is the same high taxes, same restrictions and same laws on the State Level, while America loses the ability to defend itself or act coherently against the enemy.

His followers think he can destroy the Federal government. The only thing he can destroy is the chances of a Republican to win the Presidency. There's one way to spell Ron Paul's candidacy, President Hillary Clinton.

Brussels Journal, LGF, Paleocons and the Jews: Redux

By On November 17, 2007
I really wasn't going to write about this topic again, but apparently the Anti-Jewish and Anti-Israel article Brussels Journal linked to, which originally inspired my post was taken down by Paul Belien and then put up again

Paul Belien gave the following explanation,

Submitted by Paul Belien on Sat, 2007-11-17 12:28.

I deleted this page from TBJ because American friends asked me to do so. Friends are under attack from Little Green Footballs (LGF) because TBJ quoted the above sentences from Paul Gottfried. Today, however, I notice that the great Charles Johnson (PBUH) himself links to the above article. Hence, the question: If Charles Johnson (PBUH) is allowed to link to this, why am I not allowed to post an interesting quote from it? Because I am a European, hence tainted with “racism,” “anti-Semitism,” “neo-Nazism,”... while Charles Johnson (PBUH) is an American hedonist?? Or because, as the fans of the great Charles Johnson (PBUH) say, this website is in the habit of posting “pieces of trash”?

The difference obviously is that I and Charles Johnson posted the link in a negative and critical way, Brussels Journal appears to be endorsing the article or at least recommending it. When calling for everyone to ignore LGF's criticism, the Pro-Brussels Journal argument was that we needed to maintain a united front against the threat of the Caliphate. Apparently that united front doesn't include Israel or the Jews, as far as Brussels Journal is concerned... and that was my point. Brussels Journal wants to be in the big tent and they want the far right to be in the tent and above criticism, but Israel and the Jews are another matter.

Posting the article itself was pointless. It really doesn't concern Islam or Europe. It simply takes a long time around to saying that Israel sorta has the right to defend itself, but along the way takes the time to assail Israel and Jews and the Holocaust. There was no real reason to do it and the comments below it cover the range from clueless to ugly.
captainchaos: So here we have it from the horse's mouth as we say here in America. In order to save the Jews from a second holocaust Jewish activists have been working for "half a century" to water down the influence of white Americans in the country that we (whites) have built so we will no longer have the power to go nuts and kill them all.
After the fighting with LGF first commenced, the BJ comments section had comments about the "neo-cons" and the need for BJ to ally with their real friends, the Paleocons. And certainly Taki finances a chunk of the folks commonly referred to as Paleocons.

The problem is that the people who most prominently call themselves that today are not really classic conservatives, as they would like to pretend. They really have very little in common with a Goldwater or a Bill Buckley. Mostly they're bigots with a special obsession involving Jews. These days from Pat Buchanan to Scott McConnell to Taki himself many of them have been embraced for their involvement in the Anti-War movement. At the end of the day they seem to feel that the biggest threat involves the Jews and seem as if they wouldn't mind America being overrun by Islam so long as it takes Israel and the Jews with it.

Not exactly the ideal allies for a united front against Islam, but then in the end Brussels Journal doesn't seem to be interested in that united front really, so much as in some sort of narrow liberation program for parts of Brussels. They can get on board with fighting Islam, so long as fighting Jewish influence and whatever other ethnicities and races they're fighting in Belgium are included, not to mention pardons for their own "patriots" who collaborated with the Nazis.

I respect honest conservatives who want to preserve their identity and culture, as long as they see what they mean up front and don't play games. What I don't like are the sly potshots. If someone hates me, I like to know where they stand up front. Since I wrote the post dropping my defense of Brussels Journal, I've had comments which defended Nazi collaboration and accused me of emotionalism. The following was my final response.

I don't have a problem with people wanting to preserve their own country. It's why I defended Brussels Journal in the first place. I do have a problem with how they go about it and with what their ideology is.

I have pointed you to the question of Degrelle which you have not addressed. I find that to be dishonest.

Factor out the Jews and Nazi Germany was profoundly evil and Nazism was profoundly evil, for everyone it touched. The murder of the mentally ill and the sick. Breeding for racial superiority. The conquest and subjugation of peoples all across Europe in favor of a master race.

Aligning with that was about real evil. The kind of real evil, liberals don't believe exists but conservatives are supposed to. Your failure to address that is symptomatic of the whitewashing of the subject that has bothered me about Brussels Journal.

Friday, November 16, 2007

Kings and Traitors, Crowns and Caliphs

By On November 16, 2007

The newspapers report that Prince Charles, best known to Americans as a slack jawed Eton accented yokel, is coming to America to defend Islam against America's intolerance. It's not clear what intolerance Charles is set to defend Islam against as every US official from President Bush down has repeated over and over again ad nauseum that Islam is a religion of peace, that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam and that only a tiny minority of extremists who are probably Bhuddists anyway, engage in terrorism.

Prince Charles will be here to rebuke us for our 'confrontational approach to Muslim countries' and 'our failure to appreciate the strengths of Islam', presumably those not involving suicide bombing, truck bombing, subway bombing or any bombing whatsoever.

It wasn't long ago that a report came to light about another potential King of England who harbored Nazi sympathies, the Duke of Windsor, whom Hitler planned to appoint to the throne when he had defeated England and who was the only man, Hitler wished to discuss an armistice with England with. In 1937 the Duke and Duchess visisted Hitler as his personal guests. The Duchess the FBI stated in its own report met repeatedly with the German foreign minister and leaked secrets to him.

"Hitler well knows that Edward at present cannot work in a matter that would appear to be against his country, and he does not urge it. But when the proper moment arrives he will be the only person capable of directing the destiny of England," the report stated.

Charles has his own sympathies with the modern day Islamofascists. (though calling homicidal hordes whose goal is to drag the world back to the 9th century 'modern day' would be dubious.) Charles is vastly more popular abroad in the Muslim world than he is at home and travels frequently to Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia and a number of major Islamic figures had stated that Charles has converted to Islam.

Charles regularly and repeatedly whitewashes Islam praising its 'feminism', 'justice' and 'mercy;' in addition to his fanatical environmentalist views, Charles has attacked the War on Terror, criticised America and held up Islam as a paragon of all that is good and pure.
"Islam can teach us today a way of understanding and living in the world which Christianity itself is poorer for having lost. At the heart of Islam is its preservation of an integral view of the Universe...the West gradually lost this integrated vision of the world with Copernicus and Descartes and the coming of the scientific revolution...there are things for us to learn in this system of belief (Islam) which I suggest we ignore at our peril."
Like many on the left Charles is prepared to embrace Islam as the antidote to the Western society, to progress and to technology; a view that is identical to Al Queda's. The only difference is that the so-called extremist Muslims want to bring about that world in which Islam triumphs over the technocracy of the West by force while so-called moderate Muslims prefer a triumph by immigration and cultural colonization.

Charles has set up a secret council of 12 to advise him on Islam and now Charles is coming to America, in the way of Saddam's man in Scotland, George Galloway. And what is Charles' message for America?
"In the West, in turn, we need to be taught by Islamic teachers how to learn with our hearts, as well as our heads."
It seems that Charles has learned that particular lesson from his Islamic teachers all too well.

Implosion at Jews for Ron Paul

By On November 16, 2007
In the aftermath of my expose of Jim Christian Perry aka Yaakov Perry, his name has been taken off the Jews for Ron Paul staff page. Also gone are the JFRP's Treasurer and several advisors, including Ilana Mercer. The old line LewRockwell guys though remain.

Jim C. Perry self-proclaimed Orthodox Jew, who gave JTA intern Beth Young an interview as the Chairman and Executive Director of Jews for Ron Paul proclaiming himself to be a "kipah-wearing, fringes-hanging Orthodox Jew."

As it turned out however, Jim C. Perry is a Gay Unitarian and apparently a Pagan Minister. He was the GLBT Outreach Director for the George Phillies campaign. He is most certainly not an Orthodox Jew, something he falsely pretended to be. The JTA has yet to correct their intern's story, but it's about time for them to get on it.

Jim C. Perry also had some issues with his former Libertarian party complaining that he pocketed campaign contributions and skipped out owing people money. He was accused of deceptive behavior when he attempted to run as a Democrat and wound up skipping out on the election.

Despite these cosmetic changes at the Jews for Ron Paul site however, the web site itself continues to be registered to Jim C. Perry. As Yaakov Perry, he continues to moderate the Jews for Ron Paul Yahoo Group and go through the charade of being an Orthodox Jew.

According to the Bylaws of Jews for Ron Paul; Article 4, Section 2: Executive Director

The Executive Director shall have full and exclusive authority to manage the affairs of the organization, but may delegate specified limited authority to others. For statutory and regulatory purposes, the Executive Director shall be the only officer of the corporation, unless further officers are required by law
So it would appear that Jews for Ron Paul was designed to function under the control of Jim C. Perry. It's not clear that this control has been ceded yet or that J4RP has disassociated itself from him. Since J4RP was itself Perry's creation to allow him to function as a liaison for Ron Paul to the Jewish community as he has functioned to the LGBT community in the past, it may be a question of whether the Ron Paul campaign via the J4RP Lew Rockwell board of advisors is willing to push him out or continue using a discredited figure in a hopeless attempt to redirect the very real and serious questions about Ron Paul's ties to the far right.

Thursday, November 15, 2007

Ron Paul's Lone Jewish Staffer Speaks Out

By On November 15, 2007

Via a comment on Shadow Democracy

Ron Paul, my former boss, is not an explicit Anti-Semite, but he is most certainly anti-Israel and one could make a strong case - outright anti-Jewish.

During my 6-year stint with him, I served as his only Jewish staffer. He regularly touted me as proof against allegations that he wasn’t an Anti-Semite, even one time ordering me to wear Jewish clothing and attend a press conference of his Democrat opponent who was exposing his links to Anti-Semitic groups. I felt used.

(For the record, Ron did not know I was Jewish until I had already been hired.)

Ron and I finally departed ways, partly because I was ashamed to work for such an explicitly anti-Israel advocate.

If you still doubt his anti-Jewish/anti-Israel views, ask yourself this question:

Why is it that when Ron Paul talks about the evils of taxpayer dollars going overseas for foreign aid, he only singles out Israel as a recipient? Why does he never mention the billions we send each year to Egypt for foreign aide? Turkey, the Palestinians, other Nations? Never a peep out of Paul about those dollars. It’s just always the “Jews.”

Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)

Dondero also reveals that the infamous 95 percent of black men are criminals quote was actually authored by Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul's congressional chief of staff.

In fairness, the comments about Blacks being “fleet-footed” were written for Ron, though published under his name in his Ron Paul Newsletter, by his Top behind the scenes aide Lew Rockwell.

But the other comments about Israel being the most powerful lobby, were definitely Ron Paul’s words. In fact, I’ve heard him say similar comments on numerous occasions, some far more explicit, to private quasi-Anti-Semitic groups.

Taking into account my previous post, I have to wonder if a certain gay pagan quaker minister named Jim Christian Perry with a possible Jewish grandparent wasn't bullied into putting on "Jewish clothing" and going out to represent the Ron Paul campaign to defend Ron Paul against accusations of bigotry.

Eric commented further on this post describing the news conference

Thanks for asking about the press conference. It was quite an amusing incident actually. It was not only Ron who urged me to do it, but practically the whole campaign staff at the time, including Ron's longtime Campaign Manager and staunch Christian Right Conservative Mark Elam.

I went down to Victoria for the conference. Lefty Morris was waving some papers in the air accusing Ron Paul of being a closet NeoNazi. (This followed, btw, a huge protest weeks ealier in front of the Victoria Holiday Inn of activists waving signs, "Ron Paul is a Nazi...").

Well, I showed up with a yalmurka on my head, and carrying some Jewish insignias. It threw Morris off-kilter. He was watching me the whole time. Towards the end, the Victoria media turned to me and did an interview. It all hit the papers and the local TV station the next day.

Looking back it was quite brillant political theatre for a campaign. It worked.

But now I just feel like I was used.

It's funny that the Austin and Houston media were so viciously against "extremist far-out fringe Anti-Semite" Ron Paul in that 1996 Campaign. Now they are virtually supporting him, or at least completely silent on their former criticisms of him.

Now that Paul has switched to being a liberal, opposing the War, and bashing Bush, he's their best friend.

But back in 1996, they were 100% behind Lefty Morris.

*See more from Eric in the comments section to this post. Eric himself blogs at Libertarian Republican*


Blog Archive