The 15 Brits Captured by Iran

After a recent post about the need for more manly virtue in our society, I was at a loss to know what to think about the 15 Brits captured by Iran. I don't wish to understate my ignorance relative to this topic, but I have come to some tentative conclusions.

Should I condemn these Brits for caving in too easily to the Iranian government? For instance, Ralph Peters goes so far as to call for their court martial. These detractors compare the mild treatment of the Brits compared to what James Stockdale and John McCain endured in Vietnam. The Brits should be more tough. They also complain that the Brit soldiers should not have surrendered when surrounded by overwhelming Iranian force. These same people think Britain suffered a national humiliation for this soldiers being captured and ransomed.

I have some sympathy for that point of view. I was quite uncomfortable about seeing the Brits smile while in captivity. What ever happened to stiff upper lip? But should one restrain one happiness before cameras on seeing your comrades undamaged? We've never had cameras in such situations before.

Playing into my interpretation of these soldiers is that I've always admired the figure of the trickster, starting with a childhood fascination with the trickster pagan gods, Hermes and Loki. Yes, it may be less than manly in that the trickster uses brain not brawn to get out of a situation. Is that really so bad? Why shouldn't one lie and write meaningless statements to get out of evil clutches?

No, I don't think the problem for the West is the behavior of the Brit soldiers. The Iranians only got some PR of dubious value at best.

The problem is much more the moral myth that it is always evil to kill--the myth that stops us from killing more of the muslims. When we fought World War II, we killed Germans. We bombed German cities causing widespread civilian death. Consider our firebombing of Dresden. We didn't stop to analyze how much a particular German supported the Nazi regime. At most, forty percent of the Germans were Nazi enthusiasts--at least judging from the last vote of the Weimer Republic. We cannot afford to treat muslims any differently. We can't be squeamish and girlish over the slaughter of muslims, but we can forgive a few soldiers who did their best to save their lives.

In the big picture, our actions in World War II were just. Even the Germans who hated Nazism were still instrumental in keeping Nazi Germany going. The same is true for the secretly atheist or Christian, liberal person in muslim lands. They enable the muslim evil to continue and are legitimate targets, as much as we may lament that fact. In war, there is not time for subtle judgments about the enemy.

Dafur and NASCAR

It has been argued that the murder and mayhem in Dafur is a bad thing, but most people making such arguments want to have it both ways. They also want to condemn cultural imperialism, but it's surely cultural imperialism to stop muslims from their number one favorite hobby.

I suggest channeling all that political energy about Dafur into a better cause. We should attempt to outlaw NASCAR for environmental reasons. How much greenhouse gases are produced in one race? While we could be accused of cultural imperialism towards Southern Baptists, NASCAR is not encouraged by the Bible. Murder and mayhem is encouraged by the Koran. Read the ninth chapter. So, let's stop being busy bodies in the Sudan. Let the muslims be muslims--at least when they aren't killing us.

some hope

I've been worried not so much about Iran trying to get nuclear weapons, but the rest of the world doing nothing to stop them. The idea that a nuclear armed Iran won't use it nuclear weapons goes against the entire history of the Islamic world. (Yes, I know Pakistan has nukes, but Musharraf is reasonable guy. What about Pakistan's next government? Would you want to relocate to New Delhi?)
Well, it seems that at least some common women here in America get what we are up against. A groups of mother's of soldiers, the Moms of Fury, visited Paul Hodes(D-NH) congressional office and talked about the Iraq occupation. For the most part, the talk is about the Iraq war. I'm not in complete agreement. They think we can pacify Iraq. I disagree since genocide is to Islam what vomiting is to a bulimic. But what is more important the Moms of Fury seem to understand the big geopolitical picture. We either fight over there or the muslims will bring the fighting here.

How I Started Loving the Apocalypse

I'm not sure everyone is aware of how bad the problem is, so let's review. Iran, controlled by a theocracy bent on apocalypse, is building nuclear weapons. The huge mass of the global population wants peace through appeasement and fantasizes that it is the United States resistance to Islamofascism that is the cause of our problems. Iran also directs Hezbollah a terrorist group with branches on every continent. Eventually, Iran will combine its nuclear threat with Hezbollah terrorism to subjugate other countries. Consider how the cartoon jihad against Denmark would have progressed, if Iran had had nukes. Terrorists would have done assorted evils in Denmark and then Iran would have demanded any suspected terrorists be released or else they would nuke. After all, the Hezbollah terrorists are employees of the Iran government. Notice that my only assumption here is that Iran continues to act like Iran. It's exactly the same assumption that underlies putting serial killers in prison or executing them.

The success of Iran's dual strategy of nukes and terrorists will prompt imitation. I hope that is that there is still enough passion in the West that we fight back, but if we have grown too multicultural and spineless to resist Iranian tyranny, Sunni muslim tyrannies will fight back against Iran. Given that whoever resists Iran at this point is going to be willing to risk it all, the conflict will go pass the brink. Nuclear bombs will fall like rain.

The future appears grim. I blame the peace movement more than the muslims themselves. A healthy sense of self-preservation would cure most of our problems, but basic self-preservation isn't going to get mass support anytime soon. It's enough to make one languish in despair.

And then I realized I'm an environmentalist who would like to see a massive reduction in human population. I had envisioned something like a global one-child policy. When civilization gets around to fighting back against the muslim barbarians, the rain of nuclear bombs will reduce human population to numbers more appropriate for the planet. Even better, we learned after Chernobyl that plants and animals can thrive in the shadows of nuclear disaster. Maybe I should just stop fighting Jihad and advocate an eco-terrorism dedicated to helping this process along. Of course, after the bombs have fallen, I do hope that we will have learned a lesson: that religions that hold a tenet of world domination can not be permitted. Any followers of such a religion should be given the choice of conversion or death.

Well, I suppose the idea in the last paragraph is a plan B. There is still hope that we don't go down that route. The hope is basically boils down to letting the muslims commit a few more atrocities. Perhaps, enough people will wake up. Plan A is still that if I had five million dollars lying around, I'd donate it to al-Queda. Let muslims be muslims.

If there is a lesson for the future here, it is that people who cry peace when there is no peace are not simply false prophets, but the greatest danger. While I abhor barbarianism, I will make one exception. When the war comes that the peace activist have done everything possible to make as horrible as possible, I suggest torturing peace activists to death--a mild torture, like say feeding them unseasoned grits for their last meals. It would be well deserved. In contrast, for the muslims I suggest giving them a honorable death with the meal of their choice, though too many may want goat eyes for their last supper. We'll have to ration them, and perhaps sneak in a few pig eyes.

Why does something as evil and dysfunctional as the "peace movement" even exist? I think it's just yet another example of how we can go wrong. I recently read the relevant parts of Nietzsche's work on this subject. Sadly, Nietzsche's ideas seem to echo the anti-Semites he hated. He blamed the wealthy for not wanting war to interfere with their profits. But to give Nietzsche credit, US immigration policy seems to be accurately described by his model: the wealthy get a few extra bucks and everyone else gets screwed.

A light-hearted coda that in the end fails to be light-hearted: I just got my junk mail for the day. It's from the Citizens for Global Solutions, the ultimate leftist appeasement organization, and the Sierra Club's Blue Green alliance. Are direct marketers usually this far off? Do the Iranian Ayotallohs get sent many tracts on the ideas of Cyrus the Great of Persia? I suppose the mailman would be executed for delivering them. (It's probably worth noting that King Cyrus, who articulated the first human rights laws, would have been utterly ruthless to peace activists. Ancient societies couldn't afford to permit much self-destructiveness. Our condition may less far different than ancient societies than we would like to admit.)

What Muslims Say in the West

In conversations, we should listen to what other people say and try to interpret in the best light possible. What we should never do is interpret people's ideas like congressmen's vote are interpretted in attack ads in the United States. The worst possible interpretation of a vote is given--even when common sense dictates that the intent of the congressman's vote was something entirely different. It's hard for me to understand any person stupid enough to fall for these ads. For instance, when any person in their right mind is told that their far right congressmen voted to help the Chinese military, they should have doubts about the fairness of what is being said. Since this sort of ad exist, we must assume that many people are falling for them. I suppose I am being elitist here, but I'm not sure what other response is appropriate.

In conversations, we should also be careful about claiming people are lying. Before I would claim anyone is lying, I think it is important to claim that the liar has malicious intent in making a statement that he knows is contrary fact. This definition would, for example, exclude Bill Clinton during the sexual inquisition since even if he did perjure himself, he did not lie under this definition since he didn't have malicious intent. (Another important issue about lying is that the word "liar" should almost never be used, except as I used it before in this paragraph. Hollering "liar" at others impedes serious conversation and is uncouth.)

I bring all this up, because I have been watching Muslims on YouTube such as Ahmed Bedier and Imran Siddiqui. They make statements about civil liberties that they do not believe in the least. They know that they don't believe it, because what they say blatantly contradicts their religion. I should probably include the sources here, but if you read JihadWatch or LittleGreenFootballs, you should easily be able to find examples of Western muslims saying contradictory things in English and Arabic. Further more, the muslims say their counterfactual statements with the malicious knowledge that if they have the chance they they will make members of other religions second class citizens or worse. In short, even a fair minded person must admit that muslim spokesmen lie continually.

Good Logic

I just read the most amazing op-ed in the today's Boston Herald by Jules Crittenden. One paragraph in particular asks just the right questions:

But enough about me.Some questions for you: Do you actually think our own president is a greater menace to world peace and stability than our opponents would be with nuclear weapons?Are we to accept the word of tyrants that they were well-intentioned and not engaged in weapons programs when all the evidence has convinced our leaders and intelligence agencies that they are? Has history given us any indication that sanctions without a credible threat will have an effect? Even among our own allies, we’ve found nations that tout humanitarian action and seek to avert war, while cynically pursuing corrupt financial arrangements with the same tyrants. Do you believe it is acceptable to have nations of demonstrated murderous intent in a position to control large portions of the world’s strategic resources? Tinpot dictators busy killing their own people can become brass-hat dictators and start killing other people. If we were to walk away from all of this, do you believe they would leave us alone?

It's question like these that have helped me win over half way to moonbathood people to a more realistic view of the war with Islam.

Thoughts on 9/11

Warning: The start of this post contains material that some people on the political right will find objectionable. I suggest people on the political right read the whole post, because they will find my change of heart most gratifying.

In the Islam War blog industry, one is required to make some comments about September 11 five years ago. In honesty, I didn’t really realize the problem five years ago. The stock market was doing so well that I thought everyone would be rich. Paradoxically given my love of capitalism, I was hanging out with leftist kids who cheered the fall of the WTC. I loved these kids rejection of normalcy, but still the leftist kids shocked even me by saying they didn’t care if businessmen died at the WTC. When they went into the woods to burn flags that night, I warned them not to let anyone see them. In one of their few outbreaks of good sense, they said they would be discrete. When they started stealing flags in the patriotic aftermath, I urged them to sell them. It was the time of the flag shortage, but they didn’t want to violate their socialist purity. I even offered to sell them and give them a 50-50 cut, but they realized that I am Capitalism's demon, even when fencing stolen goods.

A couple of weeks after 9/11, I invited the leftist kids for dinner. My dishes rivaled the art in many museums of modern art: World Trade Center Flambé and Ground Zero Tabouli. In retrospect, it was probably a mistake to use chicken, instead of pork for the flambé. I used red tomato, red pepper, and red onion in the tabouli. My leftist retard friends still laugh at those dishes, and I suppose I do too, but I no longer seek to trivialize September 11. I have learned about Islam since then and it scares me what we are up against.

We confront a murder cult that has been trying to kill off our Western Judeo-Christian/Secular society for the last 1400 years. We cannot sit around pretending everything is alright or indulge in fantasies that Bush is the cause of all evil. On the other hand, I do wonder if any person in a position of power who says Islam is a Religion of Peace should be tried for treason and executed. Do I, too, have Bush Derangement Syndrome?

Thinking back on human history, it was ok for us to ignore the threat of Islam before September 11 in the United States. It really wasn’t affecting us enough, though we should we should been picking up hints since the events in Iran in 1979. After 9/11, there is no excuse for how we have ignored Islam. We have had ample time to honestly evaluate Islam’s goals and aims and react accordingly. Since Islam has declared war on us, we should begin to fight back. President Bush has wished to escape this logic with his hopes to secularize the Islamic countries, while ironically pushing theocracy here in America. While many bad things can be said about Bush’s approach, let us concentrate on the good. Bush’s intentions are honorable. I don’t think that last sentence can be repeated too often given the amount of outrageous lies flung against Bush. Bush is a decent guy who hopes to avoid the War the Muslims have declared, but Bush is naïve to believe that people brainwashed into a murder cult are going behave civilized because he gives them the opportunity to have a democracy. I suppose we had to try Bush’s nice guy approach first. Perhaps, we were even morally obligated to do so, before we go in and do what we need to do: slaughter them all. It's just that we need to explain much better how the War in Iraq represents an effort to be a loving, gentle people. I haven't even seen many conservatives many conservatives make this point, which is the best defence of what Bush has done. Ironically, I'm probably better positioned to see the necessity of making this defence of what is happening in Iraq than the conservatives, because I'm a political moderate who hates Bush. (There is no contradiction between hating a political figure and saying the political figure as a person is a decent man. We forget this all too often.)

In this anniversary of 9/11, we should honestly consider the probability that Muslims will act like anything besides murderous savages. Let’s consider at the behavior of fundamentalist Christians. For instance, would Pat Robertson ever admit that Creationism is nonsense? Though evolution is a proven fact by any reasonable criteria and Creationism is not essential to Christianity, we can be pretty certain that Christian fundamentalists aren’t going to renounce their Intelligent Design nonsense. How can we then possibly expect the Muslims to give up one of the key teachings of their religion, the obligation to kill or enslave everyone else in the name of Allah? It’s not like you prove them wrong by any objective criteria like Creationism/Intelligent Design can be shown wrong.

(I suppose I should come clean with a weak spot in my argument above. I believe that fundamentalist Christians will over the long run accept gay marriage, since there is so little discussion of homosexuality in the Bible and fundamentalist mothers of gay sons will demand gay marriage in their churches. On the other hand, jihad is a central tenet o the Koran and no powerful group internal to Islam with an organic interest to oppose it.)

If we harbor hatred towards any politicians, hatred towards Bush should be kept at rational level. If we feel a need for demonification, our demons should be the European political elite who gave away Europe to the Arabs. While I oppose torture for virtually every other human being, I would support torturing in barbaric ways Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, Jacques Chirac, the entire leadership of the all European socialist parties, and similar traitors in other parties for how they enabled Arab immigration into Europe. Of course, Bush’s response to immigration is not in the any better than d'Estaing’s. Luckily, we have a civilized country to our south. I may strongly oppose the flood of Mexican immigrants, but permitting them in isn’t the suicide of our civilization.

Unrelated thoughts about Ahmad Shah Massoud illustrating why this is not a hate blog
I read up recently on Ahmad Shah Massoud who Al-Qaeda deliberately killed before the 9/11 attack. He seemed rather reasonable for a muslim, despite the whining by human rights groups. I would like to see a human rights activist ninny be appointed head of a political faction in a muslim country (and many other countries). He would get to decide whether he wants to die maintaining his human rights purity or live. As I continue to argue, we have to judge people in context and not simply according to abstract rules. This does not deny the importance of the abstract rules when making moral judgments. It is just to judge in a way suitable for living on Earth, instead of the ethereal, geometric kingdom.

Massoud has such perfect teeth, like he had braces. Where in his Afghan childhood, could one get braces? Anyway, in some of his younger photos, he’s really quite sexy. Sadly, there are no shirtless photos of him on the web. For that matter, why not mujahidin porn? It may not be Islamic, but it sure would be Afghan culture. Oh well, here I’m calling for the genocide of all who believe like the attractive Massoud, but I fear it is necessity in the era of cheap WMD. And there will always be other attractive men.

The Scurrilous Argument Challenge

One popular illogical argument in political forums like LitteGreenFootballs and DailyKos goes like this:

An allegedly evil figure, X, supports political candidate, Y
Therefore, Y is evil.

I challenge anyone to come up with an argument of this form to discredit the moderate Senator Olympia Snowe(R-ME), because I donated a small sum to her campaign. To make it easier, you should know that Olympia Snowe is Greek and has been hostile to the Turkish government as I think we should be.

ambigious feelings about far right political activity

As a gay Jew who loves the West, I'm delighted that white racist extremists in UK are waking up to a real threat, instead of traipsing along in their usual paranoia. They are releasing video threats against Islam immigrants. It's about time some group takes at least a feeble step to make the muslims feel unsafe. The muslims have made me have reasonably fears about my safety as a gay Jew. Jews in the Western Europe now must fear for their personal safety at levels unknown since Hitler. Why is it that the Muslims get a free pass to terrorize everyone else and no one gets to fight back?

It's also great they are actually doing something that may discourage a few immigrants. A majority of Western people have views on immigration more similar to the white extremists than with the West's political elite. I wish there were some way to beat the political elite at the ballot box, but its hard to defeat an idea shared by George W Bush and John McCain as well as by Jacques Chirac and Ted Kennedy. There is no political avenue open on this issue. In the absence of political avenues, I worry about these right wing extremists getting too popular by finding ways to air a popular opinion that will be even more popular when the muslims succeed in their next mass murder. It is not in my interest as a gay Jew for these extremist groups to get too powerful. I was partly motivated to start this blog out of fear that if the far right is the only group to defend the West, then the support for the far right will become uncomfortably strong. More moderates should join me in defending the West. Look, I'm not asking here for them to agree with me that genocide of Muslims is necessary. I'm just asking my fellow political moderates to state that our culture and its people are worth preserving. I realize that even saying that will earn you the label of racists from the PC police, but can't you stand yourself a little?

I also worry that the main stream media will use the white extremist groups' activities to discredit doing anything about the tidal wave of immigration. There is a strong need for people who these white extremists group respect to tell them to do everything they do with propaganda impact in mind. They should supplement other political efforts rather detract from them. Now is a good time for reasonable people on the far right to converse with the white extremists. Of course, I realize that there is as much hope for sane political activity from extremists as there is for sane poltical discussion in the mainstream media.

At least, we know we are completely safe from the mainstream media using jihadi videos to discredit muslim groups.

math nerd post script: I wonder how much the political inability to combat massive immigration is due to a lack of understanding of exponential growth. Could we be doomed by our fear of math?

Why We Should Listen

Old fashioned genocidists were impatient men of action, but a post-modern effete gay jew proponent of genocide, like me, advocates careful and respectful listening to other people. And who isn't looking for the sensitive side of our genocidal friends? Not only does listening to others show our desire for love and peace when they are an option, but also helps us avoid pointless arguments. In rhetoric and hermeneutics, careful and respectful listening is formalized by the Principle of Charity. Following this simple formulation of Principle of Charity will improve your life and make sure your arguments are interesting and relevant.

I bring up the Principle of Charity for three reasons. First, too often political arguments caused by people being determined to see the worst in others rather than the best. For instance, on Friday, August 25, 2006, Jeff Goldstein in his Protein Wisdom blog attacks Greg Mitchell’s editorial attacking right-wing bloggers for exposing fake war photographs by muslim reporters in Lebanon. Jeff and his readers attempt to turn an unimportant story about a nineteen year old Greg Mitchell slacking off on the job into some cosmic statement about how the MSM is biased. A careful and respectful reading of Mitchell’s 2003 account is that Mitchell is struggling with how to combat media bias even on unimportant issues. If Jeff had only used the Principle of Charity in reading Greg Mitchell, he could have used the time devoted to his post on Mitchell to something more convincing. Why is it bad if people make bad arguments? The more bad and pointless arguments people have to read through, the less time they will have to ponder the good arguments.

The second reason I bring up the Principle of Charity is that it is a formula for paranoia free political discussion. Let me suggest to the Political Left and the Political Right places where they exhibit paranoia. The Left pervasively views George W’s foreign policy through the lens that it must be evil. For instance, we are told the wars in the Middle East are wars for oil—which is as patently absurd as it is popular. If we just wanted oil from Iraq, it would have been much cheaper to just end the Oil for Food program. Of course, the Right was equally insane about President Clinton when he was president. I don’t how many people remember the lunacy about the President (or Hilary) actually murdering Vince Foster. I kept thinking then that if the Republican would just channel their anti-Clinton hate into explaining why minimum wage laws are bad ideas—just taught basic economic common sense—we could have gotten rid of those evil laws ten years ago. Instead, Clinton was impeached, which advanced no rational right-wing interest. If the Left and the Right were to apply the Priniple of Charity we wouldn't have to listen to these paranoid attacks on these two presidents. This would free up our time for more rational political discussion.

The third reason I bring up the Principle of Charity is because if you apply the Principle of Charity and what you are intrepretting still seems to be up to evil, then you are probably onto something. Let's remember here that active, open listening does not guarantee that agreement will be reached. The parties to disagreement may have interest that too far to reach agreement. Consider Hamas and Hezbollah versus Israel. Haman and Hezbollah want the utter destruction of Israel, while Israel, for some reason, opposes that.
In this regard, I do wish to assure the reader that I try to follow the Principle of Charity in everything I do including the study of Islam. As far as I am able to determine, my understanding of Islam is the same as 95% or more of muslim religious leaders. It is quite likely that my understanding of Islam is similar to the understanding of the leaders of your local mosque. I suggest looking at random muslim websites to get an understanding of what Islam is all about. There are a few websites by organizations created by Saudi oil money that pretend Islam is a warm and fuzzy little puppy, but these websites are pretty obviously intended not for muslim consumption but for non-muslim consumption. Look for website by muslims for muslims. I won't suggest any because you could say I'm giving a biased sample. If you look for Islamic websites yourself, you can't blame my biases for the viciousness you find. Let muslims make the case for their genocide by speaking in their own fascist, barbaric words, and doing their typical evil acts like stoning, slavery, and honor killing. It ultimately lies not with me, but with them, to make the case for why we must slaughter them. And, as always, keep in mind their words and actions exist in a world in which weapons of mass destruction are become more easily available.

I will suggest a few good websites that explain Islam for what it is:
Islamic Evil

Jihad Watch

Hot Air (not always about Islam)

LittleGreenFootBalls(not always about Islam & some of the contributers have rather unreflective understandings of the world)

Infidel Bloggers Alliance(my favorite, but some contributers have greater intellectual subtlety than others)