THIS WORLD

The Left's love affair with Islam

I was at High school when the Iranian revolution happened.
I do remember the look on the faces of the leftists as they were led away to their deaths, the look of shock & surprise.
Once the ayotollahs had power the left was finished, they had served their purpose.

What was it that Stalin was reported to have said " I love to look at the faces of people who thought they could trust me, when they were led away to their execution, the look of surprise" or something like that.

All the lefties I have known are also anti American/British & western in general. Some of them regard islam as an ally against capitalism, they think that once the west is defeated it will usher in some kind of utopia.
Alot of them are genuinly in thrall to islam, they may even take the view that its victory is inevitable so maybe they should side with it now.

Either way they have a very unpleasant surprise coming to them.
As cruel as it may seem, we need in the west, acid thrown in the faces of women, stoning to death, crucifiction,more honour killings, gays being killed, we need sharia for moslems only. Then when the left see's the horror that will come in the event of a full islamist takeover, they may change their views.

The worst has to come before the tide will turn. islam is it's own worst enemy.

The Left's love affair with Islam

The Left’s love affair with Islam
By Chuck Hustmyre

The union between the American Left and fundamentalist Islam seems like a marriage made in hell.

The Left hates religion, particularly Christianity, and has succeeded in ripping nearly all vestiges of it from American public life. Through the legal machinations of its lapdog, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Left has banned Christmas from public schools, nativity scenes from City Hall, and the Ten Commandments from courthouses.

In liberal newspeak, "Happy holidays" has replaced "Merry Christmas." Holiday trees have replaced Christmas trees, and Christmas break has become "fall break."

Yet a few years ago, seventh-grade students in California were required to participate in a religious studies program during which they were told to wear Muslim clothing, memorize passages from the Quran, and choose an Islamic name for themselves.

Interestingly enough, the ACLU did not file a lawsuit.

The American Left champions causes such as gay rights (including gay marriage), equality for women (suffrage, the right to work, etc.), and religious freedom (usually in the form of freedom from religion). Yet, fundamentalist Islam opposes nearly everything the American Left stands for.

In many Islamic countries, homosexuality is punishable by death. In Iran, a top government official recently said that torture followed by death is the appropriate punishment for being gay.

In Saudi Arabia, women can’t vote, run for public office, or drive cars. Women are routinely jailed and beaten for merely being in the presence of a man not related to them. The Saudi version of Dr. Phil provides televised lessons to men on how to properly beat their wives.

In many Islamic countries, women are forced into arranged marriages and held as property by their husbands, something not exactly in line with progressive Western thinking. In some Muslim countries, women aren’t even allowed to decide what clothes to wear. To reveal even the smallest patch of skin is a crime.

Religious freedom is often nonexistent under Islamic rule. In countries like Afghanistan and Iran, people who convert from Islam to another religion face public execution.

So why does the American Left hate Christianity yet love Islam?

In this country, a shadow army of apologists works tirelessly to provide alternative explanations for faith-based Islamic violence--shootings, bombings, stabbings, and beheadings. These shadow soldiers work in government, media, and on college campuses. Most are members of the American Left. The rest are bureaucrats who have been cowed by the omnipresent specter of political correctness. You hear these apologists every time a Muslim goes berserk and murders people in the name of Islam.

That’s an important distinction I’d like to be clear about. Every week someone goes nuts in this country and commits a sensational crime that captures the attention of the media for a few days. Last weekend, a convicted felon from Arkansas murdered four Seattle-area cops at a coffee shop. Before that, some nut shot up an Orlando office building.

Truly impulsive and insane acts of violence are unpredictable. But when horrific violence is based on a theology that preaches hatred, intolerance, and global conquest, there are usually plenty of warning signs. According to the FBI, imams preach jihad in at least 10 percent of the United States’ 2,000 mosques.

Certainly Army Major Nidal Hasan signaled his intent when he told fellow Army doctors that infidels (those who don’t accept Allah as the one true God) should have their heads cut off and have burning oil poured down their throats. After telling everyone around him that non-Muslims should be killed and that the U.S. Army was engaged in a war against Islam, Hasan murdered 13 people at Ft. Hood, Texas.

Practically before the sounds of the last gunshots had faded, professional apologists in government and the media were saying Hasan was not a terrorist and that the shootings had nothing to do with his belief in Islam. Of course, the exact opposite is true. Nidal Hasan is a jihadist and he committed mass murder because of his belief in Islam.

Nearly a month after the shootings, the American Left is blaming the Ft. Hood murders on everything but Islam. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley took the opportunity of announcing the expansion of the city’s Arabic language program in public schools to blame the killings on America’s love affair with guns.

Other apologists blame the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, claiming Hasan, a psychiatrist, suffered from "secondary trauma" after hearing of the horrors of war from the soldiers he was counseling. Still others invented a new psychological malady, pre-traumatic stress disorder, meaning the mere thought of going into a combat zone so traumatized Hasan that he snapped.

The proof that all of these excuses are just so much hot air is that Hasan himself told us why he shot more than 40 people before he did it.

Major Hasan’s business card identified him as a "Soldier of Allah." He was in email contact with a militant Muslim imam who fled the United States and now operates in Yemen. He tried several times to contact al Qaeda.

To anyone but an American Left apologist, Hasan’s motive for murdering 13 fellow soldiers and wounding another 30 is quite clear: He did it because he was fighting for Islam. As Hasan repeatedly told fellow Army doctors, he is a Muslim first, an American second.

In unambiguous terms, fundamentalist Islam has announced again and again that it despises the values, culture, and traditions of America. The American Left does too.

Consistent with the Arabic proverb that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the American Left has formed an alliance with fundamentalist Islam to transform this country into something far removed from its Judeo-Christian origins and ideals.

The mistake the Left is making is that its so-called progressive goals have nothing in common with the medieval tenants of fundamentalist Islam. Militant Muslims have no respect for American progressives, any more than they respect the very existence of Israel.

Fundamentalist Islam is using the American Left to advance its own agenda. Militant Muslims want Islam and sharia law to dominate the West. Their goal is to subvert the U.S. Constitution and our way of life to the will of Allah. The word Islam means submission.

What members of the American Left seem blind to is the fact that in countries where Islam dominates, their progressive ideas would be crushed and many of them would be thrown in jail simply because of their lifestyle choices.

Yet, the American Left continues to serve as apologist-in-chief for fundamentalist Islam.

Why?

Because deep down American Leftists are terrified of Islamic fundamentalists.

Last year, publishing giant Random House canceled the publication of Sherry Jones’s novel The Jewel of Medina because it might be offensive to some Muslims. According to its own press release, the publisher feared Muslim violence against its offices and employees. Apparently, Random House’s fears were well founded.

In September 2008, three Muslim terrorists firebombed the home and office of the British publisher who bought the rights to the novel.

In 2006, the Apple computer company drew howls of rage from Muslims who claimed the glass cube the company built outside its midtown Manhattan store was modeled on the Kaaba, the Muslim shrine in the Saudi city of Mecca, and was meant as an insult to Islam.

The American Left’s affair with fundamentalist Islam is essentially a love-fear relationship. The Left loves Islam’s hatred of America and its desire to radically change this country, but the Left also fears what militant Muslims are capable of, especially if they turn their murderous rage on their so-called friends.

So the Left, like Neville Chamberlain with the Nazis, walks a tightrope, appeasing Muslims at every turn, offering excuses for Islamic violence, and hoping Muslim fundamentalists won’t bite the hand that feeds them their excuses.

***

Chuck Hustmyre is an award-winning journalist and a retired federal agent. He is the author of three books and hundreds of magazine and newspaper articles. For more information visit www.chuckhustmyre.com.

The war, the world-wide war

The war, the world-wide war, is primarily one of ideologies. The hold of Islam on the minds of its adherents is extaordinary. Usually that hold is obvious, is visible. But Islam also teaches, and Muslims are well-versed in, the craft and art of deception. "War is deception" Muhammad famouslly said. They can smile, and indeed the Qur'an and Hadith teach them to smile, when necessary, even when there is murder in their hearts. And the hold of Islam, at times intermittently seemingly relaxed, can suddenly or gradually take hold again of the minds of those who might, temporarily, appear to have become relaxed or unobservant or lapsed Muslims. It has happened so many times, to so many people mentioned at JihadWatch, that one wonders how any non-Muslim security services, or armies, or police forces, dare any longer to believe that they can trust, in any real sense, any of those who are Muslims. From the imam who supposedly was a useful police informant, but who tipped off Najibullah Zazi, to the many Muslims who took part in rally-round-the-American-flag or Interfaith-Healing rallies after the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, and then were discovered to have said before, and also after, bloodcurdling things about America and about non-Muslims, leading not a few to suddenly flee abroad (for example, one of the prime movers of the Boston Mosque), all of this should be carefully written up, with example after example, and distributed to the military, to the police, to the security services. A good knowledge not only of the texts and tenets of Islam, but perhaps even more importantly, of the attitudes, and the atmospherics, of Islam -- that affect even the most worldlly, even those who seem so much, outwardly, like us -- see Ambassador haqqani, for example, now attacked by others in Pakistan for being too "pro-American" by cleverly having extracted another 7.5 billion in American aid, will now be thought by some in Washington (perhaps by Senator Kerry, who no doubt has entertained, or been entertained, by Husain Haqqani and his winsome Ispahani wife, such a useful helpmeet in times like this). Haqqani is a deep defender of Islam, and a clever mis-representer, in his own charming and smooth self, of Islam to the naive. Being naive is one thing. Being naive because one is almost wilfully ignorant of Islam, and the varieties of deception that Muslims are capable of, and even the varieties of self-deceptiion (how many of those "liberals" -- from Ayman Nour in Egypt, to Pinky Bhutto in Pakistan -- exhibit surprising attitudes explicable only by reference to the deep unshakeable effect of Islam?) that Muslims practice. When even a self-declared non-believer as Kanan Makiya bristles when the matter of Islam is raised, or writes about the Arab massacre of Kurds and puzzles over the silence of Arab "intellectuals" on these massacres, failing to recognize the nature of Islam, and the Arab supremacism of which Islam has always been, and always will be the vehicle, one realizes just how remarkable is the hold of Islam, the residual hold, even on many of those who, outwardly, now seem to be our sort, people wh think and act like Westerners. Don't be fooled, even when they fool themselves.

The Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only Muslim may still relapse, or may still, in choosing to call himself a Muslim, be open to such relapse. And in any case, the existence of such people, especially the practiced cheats and charmers among them, such as Husain Haqqani, helps to deceive unwary Infidels about the nature of Islam. Why, attacks on such people, by other Muslims still more extreme, sets up the mental equivalent of those optical illusions, where a box that is smaller than another can actually appear to be larger, depending on the surrounding visual context.

The unwillingness of a Muslim to declare himself, even to himself, an apostate, one who comes to recognize that "reform" is not possible (as the truth-telling Magdi Allam finally realized) in Islam, and to recognize its effects on minds (taught not to question, but to acquire the habit of mental submission), and hearts (taught to hate all non-Muslims, and to see the world as divided between Muslims and non-Muslims, and a state of permanent war -- though not necessarily of open warfare -- to exist between the two camps)means that he must always be considered as, potentially, someone who will turn. Given the fashion, in policy-making circles, to have at least one Muslim on the staff to advise -- Vali Nasr for Holbrooke, Daria Mogahed for Obama, and who knows who is on staff for Hillary Clinton -- or the dangerous reliance on venal and sinister apologists for Islam. Think of John Esposito, think of Raymond Close, think of Eugene Bird and Mrs. Bird, think of James Akins, think of all those outwardly-respectable former diplomats to Arab countries, who now, well-ensconced in sinecures at those foreign policy groups that ostentatiously wrap themselves in the mantle of "American national interest" (as opposed, you see, to those "pro-Israel groups" that cannot possibly be promoting the "American national interest") and who are supported, directly or indirectly, by Arab money who for years have misrepresented Arab and Muslim attitudes and intentions, and have essentially been, and remain, shills for the Arabs not only in the obvious case, that of sweetly promoting the "Palestinians" -- that is, the shock troops of the still-unreocgnized Jihad against Israel, but also in such matters as energy policy, where without a recognition of the use, by the Saudis and others, of the Money Weapon, in funding the world-wide Jihad, there is unlikely to be the kind of support for taxes on oil and gasoline that, for other reasons, are needed).

Deception may be obvious in the case of this policeman in Afghanistan, or in the many other such examples of Afghan or Iraqi police and army who turned on their Infidel trainers and supposed comrades-in-arms, or for that matter, the examples of Muslims in the American military who killed fellow, but non-Muslim, soldiers, or deserted to the other side, or offered to provide intelligence so that attacks could be made on their units or their ships.

But Deception, Muslim deception, about the nature of Islam, and therefore about the permanent and immutable threat of Muslim populations to the non-Muslims among whom they have been allowed, so naively and so dangerously, to settle -- that is not yet recognized, that is not yet obvious to more than a few. But it will be.

"Barack Obama is the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar."

The chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, Rocco Landesman, provoked ridicule when he said last week that "Barack Obama is the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar."

 

 

 

Give Obama his due. He wrote two books, about himself. They show someone fascinating by his own "improbable" history. They do not show someone whose mind is a well-stocked library, who is deeply familiar with history, that is with men and events in the past, a familiarity that was the hallmark of the memoirs of political figures who wrote in the past. When Clemenceau, or Lord Grey of Falloden, or Viscount Morley, wrote about their lives and times, they also showed a keen awareness of, a knowledge of, other places, other times, and those who particpated in the events of the past, and those who wrote about them.

In Obama's works, we see -- Barack Obama. He is the hero, at times winningly self-deprecating, but still the hero, of his tale. I doubt if he mentions Herodotus or Thucydides, or Pericles or Plato, or Aristotle or Aristophanes, or Cicero or Livy, or Caesar or Caesar Augustus. That's okay. But he also fails to mention all those who, beyond classical antiquity, have been read and understood by, Lord Grey,,and Viscount Morley, and other writers of celebrated memorials. Not Hobbes or Locke or Hume, not Montesquieu, not Bentham or Mill, not Bagehot or Oakeshott, nothing to indicate that he is more than an ordinarly-educated American kid who came out of the colleges and law schools of the last two to three decades, after the collapse, that is, in so many places, of the teaching of both history and literature. He's just a little too self-made for my taste. Would that he had studied history, would that his two memoirs, so lacking in depth, gave some sense that he was not born yesterday, did not believe that his three years as a kid in a most unrepresentive (Muslim) school in a most unrepresentative (Muslim) city at a most unrepresentative (Muslim) time in a most unrepresentative (Muslim) country made him knowledgeable about Islam, would that his acceptance of the Idols of the Age (his books reek with rhetorical incense to those Idols) were not subject, at this point, to deep re-examination, so that they might no longer be objects of accepted worship or burnt offerings or genuflection but, rather, determinedly overturned.

British immigration policies an attempt "to make the UK truly multicultural'"

The man suffering from Adult-Onset Islam above missed my point, missed all kinds of points, in his animated reply. He speaks of "colonialism" and "imperialism," those old standbys, but in doing so, he fails to recognize that Islam itself, or rather the Arab supremacism of which Islam is a vehicle, has been the most successful imperialism, for the Arabs, in history, above all, and most damaging for those who were first islamized and then arabized (some peoples managed to resist the second -- see Iran, for example), led to a forgetting, by the conquered countries, of their own pre-Islamic past. Christian missionaries translated the Bible into many local languages, and in many cases, that preserved those languages for they had never been written down before. But the Arabs were different. They had no interest in the preservation of local languages; indeed, as recently as a few years ago the Arabs in Algeria were still attempting to stamp out, by forbidding the use outside the home of, Tamazight, the Berber language. Christianity has a universal message, but it is not one that turns everyone into a little Englishman or Frenchman or Italian. But with Islam it is different. Ideally one should take an Arab name, read the Qur'an only in Arabic, turn Meccawards five times a day, and sedulously ape the morals and manners of seventh-century Arabs living in the Hijaz. The late Anwar Sheik, who left Islam, wrote a number of piercing studies, and one was entitled "Islam: The Arab National Religion." 80% of the world's Muslims are non-Arabs. They do not possess the easy oil wealth of the rich Arabs of the Gulf. They may, as they learn more about Islam as a vehicle of Arab supremacism (and why has the C.I.A. not had Anwar Sheikh's book translated into three dozen languages, and subsidized its publication and distribution in those languages, the way it once did for certain books in Russian, and so successfully?). Imperialism? Colonialism? The most successful of all imperialisms, of all colonialisms, is that of the Arabs, and it is going strong.

As for the "violent confrontational paths" -- my point was that the less we have to do with Muslim peoples, the less troops we send to them, in the vain hope of changing their ways without somehow changing their belief in Islam (which we pretend is just fine, means nothing, when it is the very thing that looms largest in the lives, and explains the behavior and attitudes, of Muslims), is nonsense. The less aid they send them -- none should be sent, for it makes no sense to support those who are not only your mortal civilisational enemmies, but who should be forced to confront, by enduring, the consequences of Islam that result in economic backwardness that is only temporarily hidden by the vast unmerited oil (and natural gas) wealth, a wealth that through taxation by the oil-consuming countries, and great, necessary, changes in energy policy, can and will be diminished.

My entire strategy, the one I have harped on for the last five years, is to do everything not to increase but to limit contacts with Muslims. Do not give them access to Western education and Western technology, with which to hasrm us. Do not allow them into our countries. Do not make our countries Islam-friendly but, either through private initiative, or through government action, make sure that no comprommises are made, no yieldings, no surrenders, to Muslim demands for changes in anything. Do not allow Muslims to dictate, and even to rewrite, our textbooks and our history. Do not allow Muslims to silence discussion of Islam, especially by apostates from Islam, such as Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Nonie Darwish, Wafa Sultan, Magdi Allam. Do not allow, at any level, silencing of intelligent discussion of the contents of Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira. Do not allow foreign governments and individuals to transfer vast sums to support such groups as CAIR, to buy up influence at colleges and universities, to pay for a small army of Western hirelings -- academics, journalists, businessmen, former diplomats and intelligence agents -- as has been allowed, in the capitals of the West, for too long.

There is much more. But Islam, the threat of Islam, the instruements of Jihad -- the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa, demographic conquest -- can be recognized, anlayzed, and checked or checkmated. This does not require what the Adult-Onset Muslim poster calls "violent confrontation." Remove troops from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and more importantly, end all aid. Then watch the spectacle in those countries, and in Somalia, and in Yemen, and everywhere -- and as the Arabs begin to realize, with a panic, that they will no longer be bailed out, in a thousand ways, by the West, that panic will lead to still more divisions, ethnic and sectarian and economic, and more demoralization, and more strife.

And we can watch, and so can the world's Muslims, as we show them not only that we now, in sufficient numbers, grasp the nature of Islam and its effects on the minds of men, but that we understand, and what's more can explain, just how the political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures of Muslim states, societies, even families or individuals, suffused with Islam, are explained by Islam itself, its teachings, and the attitudes and atmospherics that naturally arise from those teachings. It will be fun. It will be bracing. And it will minimize the need for military or "violent" confrontation.

I am amazed at how long it has taken, by dint of constant repetition, to win over readers to this site. And I am amazed at how long it will take, apparently, to convince those who are slip-sliding on banana peels still along the corridors of power where, for example, all the wrong reasons, or vague reasons, or no coherent reasons at all, were given for the folly in Iraq, and are now being given for the Af-Pak folly, when there are much cheaper, easier, and not at all less ruthless ways, of dealing with the world-wide threat that the adherents of the ideology of Islam pose to the well-being of the West, and indeed to the well-being of All the Rest.

Hugh Fitzgerald's classic essay Douce France,

Imagine that you are a cosseted member of the French elite. One child is doing the khâgne, aiming for rue d'Ulm. Another is now a politechnicien. You are very comfortable, working for the state. You and your spouse are journalists, or writers, or one of that vast tribe of people conducting "recherches" and life is comfortable, good, the way it should be. Yes, you do notice more and more Muslims about you as you walk, no longer in the banlieues, but in the center of Paris, or Toulouse, or Lyon. And you remember how uneasy you felt, four years ago, when you happened to be walking on the Cannebière in Marseille. You decided, then and there, that you would not return.

And you have friends who live in the south. And they tell you that the beurs - some call them maghrébins -- make life hell for everyone. They attack French children on the way to school. They vandalize cars. They threaten, and do more than threaten, anyone who is still foolish enough to walk out wearing a kippah or a cross. Whole areas of cities in the south, as in the north, and east, and west, have become off-limits to non-Muslims. In the schools, the teachers have lost authority. They cannot even cover the subjects of World War II, the Resistance, and the murders of the Jews as the state prescribes; they fear, with reason, the violent reaction of the Muslim students.

And as the schools become more and more dangerous for non-Muslim students and teachers, with more time and resources devoted to discipline rather than to learning, French parents and would-be parents are now silently factoring into their childbearing plans the present value of the future cost of what, they see, will now have to be added: private school tuition. And that means, of course, that those French people will plan on smaller families. And they will also be factoring in the growing cost, paid by them, those French taxpayers, for the whole expanding edifice of security, the guards in the schools, the guards at the train stations and métro stations and airports and at government buildings everywhere, the costs of keeping the gravestones from being vandalized, the costs of protecting the synagogues and the churches, the costs for all those tapped phones and agents in mosques, and subsidies to lawyers and judges to hear charges and try cases against Muslims, and the costs of monitoring da'wa in the prisons (more than 50% Muslim).

But the Muslims are indifferent to expenses incurred by the French state. France is part of the world; the world belongs to Allah, and to his Believers. That doctrine has remained immutable for 1400 years. Imam Bouziane, the one they keep trying to deport, had 16 children by two wives, all living on the French state: a representative Muslim man. Over time, the difference between average family size of Muslims and non-Muslims steadily increases. And, over time, the education system continues to disintegrate. Right now, perhaps, you cannot see it. Your children go to the best schools, followed by the best lycées. You vacation in Normandy, or Brittany, or the Ile de Ré. And you do not take the metro often enough, or walk in the right districts, or work in the right factories or offices, to understand what tens of millions of your fellow Frenchmen now have to endure. You, for the moment, are still immune, still willfully unaware. You have spent the last few decades learning about the Muslim world from Eric Rouleau, and his epigones (after they silenced Peroncel-Hugoz, the one journalist who reported the truth) in Le Monde. You are deeply-versed in the constantly reported-upon, endlessly dilated-upon, perfidy of the mighty empire of Israel. You know what we have all had dinned into us: that the Arab Muslims are reasonable people, with clearly-justified grievances, grievances so reasonable and so limited in scope, that justice demands they be satisfied. Everyone agrees on the "solution." It is called a "two-state solution" and of course it is a "solution" for otherwise, of course, it would not have been called a "solution."

And everything looks the way it always has looked: the linden trees, the river, the bridges, the réverbères, the étalage in the neighborhood boulangerie. Douce France, cher pays de mon enfance. At the end of the school day, chic mothers still congregate in little towns, or small cities, outside the school - this or that Ecole Jules Ferry -- waiting to pick up their children. Here come the littlest ones, from Maternelle, running up now -- just look at how small they are. And here are the CE1 group, with those huge cartables on their tiny backs. Run, run, run, to Mommy. Oop-la. And then the years of study, study, study marked by ever-larger cahiers -- "cahier" and "cartable" are the words that identify French DNA better than Piaf or gauloises, isn't that true? And now we will read the books, and study the subjects, set down so completely and precisely by the Ministry of Education. And now we are up to the final year, preparing for the Bac, with copies of blue-backed BALISES, guides to Les Châtiments and La Peau de Chagrin. And just look at the results listed in the newspaper: Claire-Alix has a mention très bien. Fantastic. Everything is fine, everything will always stay the same, whole countries cannot change. It's not possible.

But it is changing, coming apart, quietly, slowly -- let's not look too closely, we mustn't pay too much attention -- the streets, the schools, the hospitals, the ability to speak the truth about things, about life as it is lived, la vita vissuta as they like to say in a neighboring country. Dominique de Villepin always knew there was nothing to worry about; he was born, after all, in Salé, next to Rabat, even spent a few years of his infancy there; of course he knows his Arabs, his Muslims. And surely Eric Rouleau, who for decades in Le Monde was the resident expert on the Middle East (he was so knowledgeable that he never had to so much as mention the teachings of the Qur'an and Sunna), surely he knew everything, didn't he? And those French translations of Edward Said that denounced with such passion the Islamophobia, and those vicious cliches with which the blind and rotting West has always caricatured the Arab Muslim world. Oh, we have been so terrible to the Arabs, we colonialists, we French, we Westerners. And then there is the never-ending outrage of Israel, that running colonial sore. Of course, they have every right, those Muslims, to come here to France. We went to their countries once, now they come to ours. And they have every right to hate us, don't they?

So now we have decided not to understand, and to cut all ties of sympathy to, Israel -- and how did we ever have any sympathy for it in the first place, the way some of our parents did back in 1948 or 1956 or 1967? How could they not have seen what the "Palestinian people" had to endure? Hanan, Yasser, Said, Saeb, Aziz, Walid, Rashid, Mohammed -- you have won our hearts and minds. Take us, do with us what you will.

No one will mention what is happening or what kinds of things we must begin to think about doing to save ourselves. No one of any decency. And whatever Le Pen and Megret say, we must say the opposite (except, of course, when they show their hostility to "the Jews"). Do not say those things, do not think them. Free thought is all very well in theory, but really -- consider the consequences. Don't dare to think outside that box brimming with idées reçues. Défense de penser au dehors du box.

No, everything will be all right as you stroll down the Avenue Paule-Anne. Those Muslims will never be a match for us. Why, just look at those legionnaires marching à pas lent down the Champs-Elysées, think of that string of desert victories. Inside our heads, it is 1930 and over here is the Exposition coloniale. You remember, tu t'en souviens, that painting by le Douanier Rousseau, don't you, with the burnoosed Arab standing next to the black Senegalese? I have it right, don't I? France will always be France. Nothing will ever change.

At a certain point, and despite everything that causes you not to see what is staring you in the face, you realize that something has gone irreparably wrong with your country, and you, and your children, are in danger of losing that country, down to every village and house, qui m'est une province et beaucoup davantage. And you do not know what to do, or how to explain this feeling to others, or in whom to confide your secret fears, or what can be done. It is so confusing, and so upsetting. You cannot vote for Le Pen. You cannot endorse "cowboy" Bush or those ridiculous Americans. You have no place to go.

And then you learn what Jacques Chirac -- who now has a Muslim grandchild himself -- and Dominique de Villepin, do not wish you to learn. For if you did, you might be very angry. You discover that 1 out of every 3 babies born in France today is a Muslim baby. And that means, in 20 years, one of every three 20-year-olds in France will be a Muslim twenty-year-old. And that means, twenty years after that, at present rates of reproduction, France will have a majority Muslim population. Where shall we hide the statues from Marly-le-roi? And the Venus de Milo? And what about all those paintings of animated life -- all those portraits in the Louvre, and the Grand Palais, and the Musée Guimet down there in linden-lined Aix, and everywhere else in art-filled artful France, mère des arts, des armes, et des loix -- that are absolutely forbidden according to the immutable strictures of the Qur'an. Should they be sent for safekeeping to those Americans across the seas? By then most of the Jews in France will have left, gone across the oceans for their own safekeeping, to Israel or to English-speaking Canada (they were worried about the Muslim population of Quebec, you see, which had been allowed to grow under the Province of Quebec's policy of encouraging francophone immigrants, preferring North Africans to potential immigrants from Italy, Greece, Spain), and above all, to America. What luck those Americans have had. No more bequests to France by the likes of the Rothschilds, or Nissim Camondo. No more Donations from another Pierre Lévy. Enjoy the Kufic calligraphy; some find it endlessly fascinating.

For the moment, you allow yourself to believe that something will come up. Most likely, all those Muslims will simply convert. I mean, they do that, don't they, quite easily I'm told. Of course, why didn't I think of it, that is exactly what will happen. The situation is always saved in time. Just like during the war. Nothing to worry about. Nothing.

Obama Nobel Peace Prize winner?

The formidable Paris-based writer Nidra Poller explains why the President is a perfect recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize -- notably for his betrayal of Israel and aid to the global jihad:

Surprised? Shocked? Outraged? Not me. I'm delighted to see that the Nobel-Peace-Prize has been awarded to the person who most richly deserves it. Not only has he made gigantic efforts to promote Nobel-Peace in his nine short months in office but as president of the residually powerful United States of America he has the superforce to impose Nobel-style peace.

President and Nobel Prince of Peace Obama is not naïve, inept, inexperienced, or wet behind the ears. He is practicing what he preached. He has already fulfilled more promises than most voters ever suspected were being made. And the way things are going, only a miracle will keep him from delivering on the rest.

Bat Ye'or teaches us the meaning of peace in our times, the peace of dhimmitude, the peace that Nobel Norwegians have dutifully honored. It is the peace of convert or die...or hang in by the skin of your teeth. When the heads have been severed from the stiff necks that refuse Islam, when the converted have been folded into the prostrate masses of the ummah, the dhimmis hand over the keys to their granges, their wives and children, their hearts and minds, their lands and dwellings in exchange for a fragile peace requiring endless sacrifice and constant restraint.

This is the peace of dhimmitude, this is the peace Nobelly rewarded in...uhhh...Oslo, right? And B Hussein O is the most deserving laureate. On the very day the prize was announced, forty people were killed in a jihad attack in Peshawar Pakistan. Do you remember, way back when, during the campaign, he narrowed his eyes and said Iraq's a distraction, let me get my hands on the trigger and I'll take care of Pakistan. There you have it. A promise keeper of the first order. Iraq was also a distraction from Afghanistan. So mister Taliban tally your bananas, we've got other fish to fry, do your jihad thing and we'll lower our eyes, peace be upon you.

President Obama's Cairo speech alone earned him enough points to get this prize hands down. His bow to the king of Saudi Arabia. His consistent snubbing of European leaders. His betrayal of Poland and the Czech Republic. His outstretched hand that reaches all the way to Iran's nuclear sites and protects them from rain, hail, and Israel. His betrayal of Persians yearning for democracy. His reluctance to look into McChrystal's ball and find some kind of half way plausible strategy for the overseas contingency whatchamegig in Afghanistan.

Am I being coy? Why haven't I mentioned his master plan for the nuclear disarmament of...

Israel!

Leaving the best for last. Even if he had not done all of the above, dayenu, he would be worthy of being hoisted on high in the Nobel firmament because he has declared war on Jewish construction in choice neighborhoods of al Quds and wannabe Palestine. Donche know, if you want peace be prepared to make war. And if you want the peace of jihad, make war on the Jews. Point your finger at them like a smoking gun. Sock it to 'em like a latter day koranic saint. Grab them by the scruff of the neck and scold them for all the world to see. Sic 'em with Goldstone, saddle them with Abbas, and send them to bed without dinner and ammunition. They wanted planes to fight to win? Stop the program, cancel the contracts, and if they holler strangle them with peace. Play footsy with Hamas, set up a mahjong date with Ahmadinejad, make cuddly eyes at Assad, and secretly decorate the private quarters of the White House with shahid posters, who would dare to protest?

Did you hear the latest? Anonymous sources have leaked to the press a flood of indignation from the peaceful Obama to you know who in the holy land. Aha! You thought he was fed up because his moderate ally Abu Mazen has reverted to PLO same o same o? Stirring up trouble on the Temple Mount because a bunch of French tourists got in the way of some irate Palestinian rocks? Which naturally led the Palestinians to go on a rampage in the narrow lanes of the Old City. How can President Obama call for the creation of a Palestinian state the day after tomorrow when his protégés are rousing a billion and a half Muslims to protect al Aqsa...from French tourists?

No. That's not why the Nobelly anointed young man is indignant. He is pissed off because Israelis are badmouthing him. Big shots and little guys in the street and on the beach, officials and cab drivers and housewives and left wing columnists are criticizing him.

Watch out. Even a Nobel-Peace-Prizer can lose his temper and explode. But then, who would blame him? What's more dangerous for world peace, a flock of Taliban or a gaggle of chuzpadike Israelis?

Hail to the Chief for reaching out to the Taliban and forgiving them for he knows not what they do, reaching out to the Muslim Brotherhood in all its forms and machinations, reaching out to the democratically elected Ahmadinejad and drawing a veil over the rape of the innocents, reaching out to Putin over the half dead body of Georgia...and trying to close Gitmo if only the jack-in-the-box would sit down and shut up.

And if he manages to push his health care revolution bill down US throats, they'll give him the Nobel Prize for Medicine next year. On the other hand, if he can maintain double digit unemployment and bring the dollar down to parity with the yuan he could outdistance Mugabe for the Nobel Prize for Economics.

A Nobel Prize to the wise is sufficient: when you hear the word "peace" praise the lord and pass the ammunition.

Al-Arabiya network hopes Israel will fall within five years

now known about the costs in blood and treasure that the U.S.-Israeli relationship has imposed on the U.S."

The "costs in blood and treasure" of paying directly for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan , in order to "win [unwinnable Muslim] hearts and minds," by all sorts of reconstruction, and to keep these countries together despite their ever-present internecine hostilities, and to pay for all sorts of Muslim regimes in order that their populations might be protected from the Lords of Misrule, and the economic and political and social failures of their societies [directly attributable to Islam itself], to such countries as Egypt and Jordan and even to the "Palestinian" "Authority" that would not exist for one minute without foreign, Infidel aid that keeps pouring in, and if on top of that one adds the twelve trillion dollars that has gone to the Muslim members of OPEC (11 of the 12 members, if one counts Muslim-dominated Nigeria, where the oil revenues never reaches the Christian south), amounts that had the Saudi lobby not throttled all attempts at taxes on oil and gasoline and other measures that could long ago have diminished OPEC oil revenues, had we in our calculations noted the tens of billions of dollars we now spend (and our allies in NATO hundreds of billions) to monitor, for obvious security reasons, the Muslims in our midst, and had we compared all that cost of dealing with, most ineffectively, the Jihad (the struggle by Muslims to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam)? Now compare those trillions spent, in the case of the aid and the military interventions quite unnecessarily, and ineffectively, because we are no better off with those expenditures, have won no hearts and no minds (and never could), and now compare what we get for giving Israel a few pitiful billion a year, and what we receive for that.

Israel is, with or without aid, a firm ally of the West, because it is part of the West, and will always be on the side of the West, will always work to fight the Jihad because Israel itself is the victim of a permanent Jihad. Stop for one minute American aid to the Sunnis of Anbar, or to Iraq itself, or to Pakistan, and see how the former recipients of such aid, who always whined for more, turn on us. See how even with the receipt of such aid, the recipients of it in Egypt, Jordan, and the "Palestinian" "Authority" are full of anti-American venom and ingratitude -- for the aid is to them merely Jizyah. It is their right, it is their due. See how that "staunch ally" Saudi Arabia, has worked to use its wealth to undercut the Infidels everywhere, in West Africa and East Africa (where the money goes farthest, and apparently unknown to the State Department but not to the terrified black African Christians, Islam is on the march -- see Togo, see Nigeria, see Niger), in Asia and Europe and North America, paying for mosques and madrasas, campaigns of Da'wa, and Islamic propaganda, some of it aided by Western hirelings in universities, the press, business, and of course the centers of political power.

Think of what Israel has done for the military security of the Western world, merely by working for its own security. What country destroyed the ambitions of that wretched Soviet ally Nasser, and upended him forever, caused his disappearance and with him, Nasserism? What country -- despite the predictable and predicted condemnation (not least from the administration of George Bush and James Baker) destroyed Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor, and in so doing, derailed for 21 years his nuclear ambitions, which is to say until he himself was removed, so that those ambitions were never realized? What country recently destroyed the nuclear installation in Syria that Iran and the North Koreans had built? whose pressure now is really the cause of whatever measures at this point the so-far dilatory and delaying Americans and others may take against Iran? And what country, do you suppose will in the end deal most effectively with the chiliastic madmen of the Islamic Republic of Iran? What country today supplies all kinds of technological advances that are then taken advantage of by the United States? [See drones] What country is best able to penetrate, and to make sense of, intelligence derived from the Muslim Arab states and from Iran?

And there is one more thing. Given all that has happened, the Western world could not survive, or rather Western morale -- among all those who think and feel -- could not survive a second destruction of Israel. Israel represents the Jews and the Jewish contribution to Western civilisation. Its survival is part of what makes the West able to survive, and its disappearanc, or its pitiful existence as a rump state dependent on the Muslim Arabs being willing not to come in to deliver a final death blow, would otself deal a blow to the West, to the idea of the West, from which that West would not recover. And the demoralization of the West from such a dimidiated Israel, unable to fend for itself, constantly under threat of easy annihilation, or in fact so annihilated, would at the same time feed Muslim triumphalism and lead to more and more Muslim demands, and aggression, all over the Western -- all over the entire -- world. That few, as yet, understand this, because most, as yet, remain so remarkably ignorant, does not mean that what has been written here is not completely, perfectly, terribly true.