Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Can the World be as Sad as it Seems?
It's 11 years after 9/11, and Islamism is on the march, again. Really it has never let up, but the swerve and bend of world events and a barbarous anniversary attack on U.S. diplomats has by commodious vicus of recirculation served to focus our attention.
All actors are returning to the stage in this theater of the absurd. Leading actors from the top of the Islamic pyramid - the high mucky-muck mullah from Uupper Buttcracki, the Krazy Kat in the big black hat, aka Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khameni himself, Twelver and no nice guy by all accounts; Khameni's Fars state news agency; Egypt's "newly democratically elected President" and Muslim-brother-in-chief Mohamed "Spare Tire" Morsi - down to the angry males thronging the Arab Street (how come Arabs are the only ones that get to have a "street"?) - all parties playing their roles as if dress rehearsing for Allah himself. No shitting around. Guest stars include the US State department, scrums of lapping yapping reporters, old fart liberal columnists, with choral backup by the self appointed, self involved, self righteous nasty nags of the leftist blogosphere. Oh yeah, our Democrat president and his Republican rival Romney, guided, of course, by their invisible stage-whispering handlers, have made cameos, too.
What are the the elements that make up our act? A tragicomedy in which we are subjected to a fatuous domestic display of mealy mouth obeisance: apologizing, excusing, bowing and scraping in hopes of expiation of the collective guilt assigned and accepted for a heretofore obscure snippet from an unfinished film which purportedly says not nice things about the historical figure known as "the Prophet Mohammed". Which film clip has elicited wrath among Mohammedans as automatically as a post-sneeze Gesundheit, and as seemingly mindlessly as an electrically induced spasm in a pithed frog. The Prophet's teachings, as written in The Koran, and codified into Shariah law, have been used by Mohammedans to keep their fascist institutions of oppression in place across hundreds of years for hundreds of millions of unlucky souls. Why would anyone say not nice things about him?
Here at home, the trumped up, holier-than-thou, tut-tutting indignation over the perceived disrespect, and the calls for the punishment of the film clip's creators (and even some not responsible for it, but deemed guilty due to past imprecations) are emblematic of a society that has evidently discarded its core values and picked up a virus which turns its victims into irrational purveyors of PC mush. Under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution it is not your fucking business what movies people watch or what movies they make. "Blasphemy" is not, has never been, and never will be a crime in the US, unless the liberal left somehow classifies it as "hate speech" and such statutes were upheld by the SCOTUS.
Comb the 'net for five minutes and one can find enough direct attacks on Islam to fill a library. Why do you think that is? In the West, we express outrage through words, not murderous "demonstrations" of demented, frenzied mobs. The First Amendment was put in place to protect unpopular speech - words or ideas that are not locally renowned. The notion that foreign enemies would demand apologies and even arrests for commentaries perceived abroad as offensive would not have occurred to our forebears.
It would also not occur to me to engage in rioting if, say, I stumbled upon a video originating in say Assbaki, Pakistan which portrayed, say, Moses as a bloodthirsty homo. Nor would anyone with any common sense, but that doesn't seem to stop leftists from imputing hate-mongering Islamophobia upon any critic of Islam, and then pointing at them the finger of blame for the violence perpetrated by those who cite hurt religious feelings as the motivation for their rage, and as the reason for their inability to constrain their behaviors to within civilized norms.
If there is any hate-mongering going on, it is result of the structure of the Muslim faith. Muslim laws that keep women oppressed; Muslim laws that hang gay people from cranes; that deign to control every aspect of life; that prescribe death for "apostates" - those unfortunate enough to have Muslim parents and wish to have a mind of their own. No Mrs. Clinton, Islam is not "a great religion". It is a scourge.
When a person or persons engage in flag-burning, mobbing a diplomatic mission, or similar aggression far short of actual murder, exponentially more disrespect is being shown for those who they target than merely producing a critical or even a scathingly blistering commentary, book, movie etc. The only unacceptable "intolerance" here is the Islamic nasty habit for hypersensitive ridiculously excessive responses and bogus claims of injury to any (but not all - the presentation must make the so-called malicious material seem out of the ordinary) art or media depictions deemed disagreeable. There is a direct line between the death Fatwa issued by Islam's big dogs against Salmon Rushdie in 1989 (and just this week the bounty was raised to $2.3million); to the savage murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh for his own cinematic censure of fundamentalist Islam, Submission; to the idiotic "cartoon riots" that resulted in deaths in 2005. It is difficult to wrap one's head around the concept of people going on a killing rampage OVER SOME LINE DRAWINGS! Another sad episode that falls into the you-can't-make-this-stuff-up category is the "Sudanese teddy bear blasphemy case."
Here's an idea fellows: put on yer big boy britches and get used to taking a modicum of shit, or stay off the internet. Apparently your mothers did not relay the lesson that "sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me". Grow a pair, grow some skin, grow up - the world is saying "pretty please".
Does it not occur to these lunatics that mass protests with their wildly inappropriate hyper-sensitive over-reactions and silly demands for repression of free speech or "respect" for the peculiar idolotries of their world-view only serve to highlight their insanity, popularize the media they endeavor to suppress, and lend credence to the content of that they wish to excise?
These violent behaviors bring to mind psychopathies similar to self-hypnotic inducement of aggressive seizures of the central nervous system or the sudden allergy-like sensitivity reactions seen in fulminating rabies. These guys don't need Friday prayers, they need a trip to the ER for a haldol shot followed up by 90 days observation.
Unless, that is, it is all an act. Given the stupidity of these uneducated rioting jerks, I don't rule out that it is not, but one must be a bit credulous to believe that the world is full of semi-retarded religious fanatics with hair-trigger tempers who so easily cede free will to appear as herky-jerky puppets, stylized, like ballet dancers from hell. This can't be the optimum way to obtain the dignity they claim to cherish.
So, perhaps this was a plot coordinated by national enemies in a way that is calculated to keep us off balance. Taking advantage of the current charged politics, the foreign actors may reason that each side will blame the other. With good reason. The left has let loose a barrage of commentary in effect bolstering the Islamic narrative: decrying the violence, but attributing it to callously or even deliberately provocative right- wing "Islamophobic" Christian or Jewish extremists, who are at best demeaned as irresponsible kooky cranks who should be ignored, or, more likely, painted as out-and-out hate criminals who should be prosecuted and sent to the clink. For their part, some on the right have acted as if the misbehaving mobs get their marching orders straight from Obama "The Muslim-in-Chief" or, slightly more rationally, with the complicity of the O administration or, the cynical default, that perhaps our gov't is disorganized and incompetent, or even maybe just doesn't give a shit.
United we are not.
Certainly the Libya assault was planned. Our ambassador was lured to the Benghazi consulate and intentionally set up for an assassination organized and directed by a Jihadist group (it is said) as retaliation for the killing of a top al-Quaeda dog Abu Yayah al-Libi , and carried out on intentionally on September 11 by a trained military force using heavy weapons. The phony film was a pretext, a decoy, a sleight of hand. Allegedly, the ambassador was finished off with a brutal rape and suffocation. The left would have us believe that these boys were only letting off steam after enduring a humiliating internet insult.
Just like the 9/11 twin towers attack the assault on the Benghazi consulate is a follow-up to a failed first attempt back in June.
It is reported that the Marines had guns but no bullets. Were they expected to pistol whip any aggressors?
Given the negative reviews (based on descriptions, and for some careful reporters, actual viewings of the 14 minute youtube trailer) handed down for "Innocence of Muslims" by such top film critics as Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, The New York Times, a faceless tweeting bureaucrat at the State Dept, and even President Obama, the movie-going public might want to look elsewhere for a good flick about Islam. Old school fans may want to check out the epics Lawrence of Arabia and Khartoum (which showcased the charming Arab custom called head-on-a-stick). Modern anti-Islamic documentaries include the two Dutch entries Submission, for which effort the filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was brutally killed, and especially Geert Wilder's Fitna. Wilders is the brave Dutch politician whose efforts to push back against the Islamization of Europe have resulted in his being dragged before a Dutch court for a hate crimes trial (charged with "insulting religious and ethnic groups") and, naturally, a fatwa demanding his assassination.
Much has been made in recent days over the exact ethnicity of the rascal who financed or created the now infamous trailer for "Innocence of Muslims". Egyptian Copt or Israeli Jew? Home grown hater or transplanted troublemaker? Many man-hours and journalistic shoe-leather have gone into this intrepid inquiry, but sorry, no one cares. Unfortunately, to the the aggressive "leaders" of the Islamic world and the uneducated trash that follows them, such fine distinctions (Egyptian Coptic Christian vs. American-Israeli Jew) are meaningless. The only classification they recognize is crude: Muslim or non-Muslim.