Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Pure Savagery

Mike L.

Alahu Akbar!

It is very common for many people on the mainstream western left to equate the savagery of some in the Middle East to that of either the United States or Israel (or both).

I would submit that those who do so are entirely misguided, deeply ideological, and indulging in a false moral equivalency.  Both the United States and Israel have done things that few of us would be very proud of.  But, as a matter of culture, we simply do not behave like the savage above.

There is an element within the Muslim Middle East that is purely savage, as we see in this video.

As the Elder of Ziyon writes:
A video of a Syrian rebel commander cutting the heart out of a soldier and biting into is emblematic of a civil war that has rapidly descended into sectarian hatred and revenge killings, Human Rights Watch said on Monday.  
The New York-based group said an amateur video posted on the Internet on Sunday shows Abu Sakkar, a founder of the rebel Farouq Brigade who is well known to journalists as an insurgent from Homs, cutting into the torso of a dead soldier.
We cannot support Assad and we cannot support the rebels because the rebels have a large Islamist contingent and people like the vicious moron in the video.

We should, it seems to me, do two things.

The first is that we must stay out of Syria.  There are no good options there and the United States should not be in the business of supporting hate-filled, anti-American Islamists.  Barack Obama clearly disagrees as he has given political Islam considerable support during his tenure.  This would be something akin to an American president actually supporting the Nazis.  I consider it treasonous, but I also respect the Arab world enough to take the so-called "Arab Spring," i.e., the rise of political Islam, seriously.

The second thing that we need to do is simply acknowledge the significance of that political movement and the fact that it is homophobic, misogynistic, genocidally anti-Semitic, and an enemy of the United States and the west.

I still find myself rather dumbfounded that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton supported the Muslim Brotherhood in their bid for domination within Egypt.  It's just unconscionable, yet they did it and their supporters simply turned a blind eye or justified it on the laughable grounds of "democracy."  The very last thing in this world that the Muslim Brotherhood is is democratic, as the Copts can tell you.

For those who think that my harsh criticisms of this administration are based on partisanship, what I would suggest is that they are undermining their own alleged values out of a misguided sense of political loyalty and a craven fear of the social repercussions for dissent.  As a political apostate I can tell you that how we see our political world is usually deeply influenced by the semi-unconscious desire to fit in with the group.

But, sadly, the emperor has no clothes and we need to be willing to say so.

Social repercussions be damned.


  1. I worry that I fit in here too much. I'm not supposed to fit in anywhere!


    1. There is a political realignment starting to emerge in the US.

      Jews are slowly bailing from the Democratic party and the progressive movement and what this means is that the Republicans will moderate or be replaced.

      I suspect the former.


      But in the mean time we remain orphans.

      I can live with it.

    2. And as if all this isn't enough, I do believe I'm likely going to go ahead and further complicate my life by becoming involved in Teamsters politics (in New Jersey, no less!) over the next few years. Somebody needs to save me from myself, clearly... ;)

  2. Not all that uncommon in the 'civil wars' in Equitorial West Africa. It's not cannibalism, per se but more like voodoo.

    1. Agreed.

      It's what we call in the west "sympathetic magic."

      See Mircea Eliade and James Frazer (of Golden Bough fame).

      Primitive, revolting, and savage... but nothing new.

  3. Quintessential America moment (while having a Lager in a dive bar under the El, listening to Metallica's version of Whiskey in the Jar, waiting for the bus home) - there's a tattoo shop with a Gay Pride flag, three doors down from the Albanian American Muslim Society building just across the street.

    Nobody is eating anybody's heart, and there aren't any riots or protests from either direction (and nobody is attacking us for drinking alcohol, either).

    Just struck me as instructive, considering the things we often discuss here.

    Take that, America-haters. And blow it out your rears. ;)

  4. O/T Erdogan's word is worthless gibber jabber. He's convinced the flag owner of the Mavi Marmara to take Israel to the ICC. The flag owner is the Comoros Islands but that's a legal convenience. It's Erdogan:





  5. This has been the norm for most of human history. Genghis Khan was egregious only in the unprecedented scope of his expeditions, not in doing anything new. Mass murder, rape of enemy women, hiding behind the civilians of one's own side—it's all old stuff. It's only the naifs of the more gentle part of the world that think it ever went away, or worse, that it could be made to go away by legislating it away with international treaties.

    Jewish Law on warfare has been exceptional in striking the middle between the two extremes, Genghis and Gandhi. While the Progressive anti-Zionists want the Jews and their state to adopt the Hindu way of ahimsa (which worked for Gandhi only because Britain was war-weary; earlier, or under another occupier, Gandhi would have gotten the chop) or the Christian "turn the other cheek" (not good enough for Jews living in Europe thruout history, but good enough to demand of Jews in their own state), the way true to Jewish values is one that repudiates cruelty for the sake of cruelty (the Genghis way) but does not give victory to an unscrupulous enemy on a silver platter through misplaced gentlemanliness (the Gandhi way). The Jewish Laws of warfare (expounded upon in Maimonides) state that, if the enemy keeps its women and children safely away from the combatants, it is prohibited to harm them, but if the enemy combatants are mixed with the women and children, all are to be killed in war, and the blood of the women and children is on the heads of the men who put them in harm's way.

    I was amazed when I first read up on this. That's ours, that's the Jewish nation's way. In their call to avoid descending to the level of Genghis Khan—which is not what Jewish values tell us to do—the Progressives, even the well-intentioned ones (like a certain Progressive Zionist who calls this site a "hate site" while most of his fellow Progressives think he should be excommunicated just for daring to think the state of Israel ever deserved to be born), call for Israel to take the Gandhi way, which with enemies such as we have is suicidal. We are better than them, even if our state followed our ancient laws of warfare, but under the "Turn the other cheek" way those words could make nothing but an epitaph.