Terrorism is not race based

The British Government recently exposed and stopped a group of mostly Pakistani youth who had plotted to blow up as many as ten planes headed for America.  They would have killed thousands of innocent people had they succeeded.  Immediately the Council on American Islamic Relations and similar groups began complaining about racism.  They understand how this propaganda technique works.  Some Americans may well believe that any form of profiling of Muslims on planes equates to those things that happened in America from 1805 to 1954.  Sadly, many members of the party of slavery and segregation in America, the Democrats, have played along with this gambit.

No one asks, much less answers the question, “What race is a Terrorist?” or “What race is a Muslim?”  If profiling young Muslims, who have done most of the terrorist acts over the last thirty-five years, involves racism, they must all belong to a single race that separates them from the rest of the races, must they not?  This fits the template of guilt espoused by the Left in America.

No, in fact, Muslims and the fanatics among them, the Jihadis, the Wahhabis, and the Imamists, are not a race or any kind of ethno-linguistic group.  The main philosophy behind Jihadi terrorism, that of Mohamed ibn-Abdul Wahhab involves ideology, not race.  By singling out people of any one race, we would not catch terrorists; by looking at people with the name Mohamed on their passport, like Mr. Wahhab himself, we would improve our chances of success.

We can find great numbers of Muslims in almost every ethno-linguistic group or race.  It may amaze most Americans, but Caucasians constitute the largest group, as much as one half of the total world wide.  Pakistanis, Bengalis, and most Muslims in India belong to the Indo European ethno-linguistic group.  They are Aryans.  So are the Iranian Persians, Iran being a form of the word Aryan.  So are the Kurds and other West and Central Asian Muslims.  Albanians, Bosnians and other Yugoslavian Muslims, and other Eastern European Muslims, are also Caucasians.

East Asians in Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, China, and other countries constitute the second largest group of Muslims.  Semites, including Arabs, but also Berbers, Copts, Hausa and others, come in third at best.  Turks and Africans of different ethno-linguistic groups make up most of the rest.  Muslims do not belong to any single race, and the plurality race is white, or Caucasian, or Aryan or Indo-European, however you wish to designate it.  Racism has nothing to do with profiling Jihadi terrorists.

Words have everything to do with profiling terrorists.  The name on the passport gives the first clue.  Young men with a Muslim sounding name should get very careful scrutiny from the screeners.

When members of the party of Segregation and Slavery bring up racism in the matter of the War on Jihadism, or any other context, they do it in order to deflect us from remembering their own sordid past.  At the same time, they do this country a great disservice in our hour of peril.  Whenever someone criticizes our efforts in this difficult struggle, they must consider the net effect of their words.  If one makes a correct or cogent complaint about how we have acted since 9/11 to stop our enemies, he must still demonstrate that this complaint helps the effort.  Most of the time this constant carping does not help us win, but is either neutral or hurtful.  If the complaint is not accurate, the activity becomes clearly seditious.

Any attempt to criticize the monitoring of people with certain names, who espouse Jihadi related doctrines, or who attend certain institutions from which terrorists have come in the past, rises to the level of sedition.  We must protect our citizens and our allies from those who fight in this cowardly manner.  We have an absolute duty to monitor closely those most likely to espouse the doctrines that lead to terror.
Other seditious criticisms include the constant claim that there were no weapons of mass destruction.  We have found stores of chemical weapons, which Saddam had used against the Kurds and the Iranians.  Google Iraq and Uranium, and you will find on the first page that we have found five hundred TONS of weapons grade Uranium in Iraq, including 1.7 metric TONS of enriched Uranium.  When the Iranians produce a vial of enriched Uranium they have their stooges dancing in the streets and the UN goes into a tizzy.  Interested parties can also Google Iraq and Sarin or Ricin or Mustard Gas and get similar results.

Another frequent and seditious criticism of the war on terror involves the claim that we only voted for the war because of WMDs and did not expect that there was any other purpose behind it.  The name the administration gave to the initiative was “Operation Iraqi Freedom” not “Operation Iraqi WMDs.”  When the dictator fell and the process towards having elections began, the Mission WAS accomplished.

Also on the sedition list is the criticism that we are in a quagmire.  The Leftists in the Media, Academia, and the fringe of the Democrat Party constantly try to relive the faded glory of their youth.  Back in the middle seventies they convinced many Americans that Viet Nam was a quagmire.  In so doing, they condemned the people of South East Asia to decades of regress.  They apparently think that it does not matter as long as a bunch of aging Radicals can feel good about themselves.  Now they want to do the same in West and Central Asia.  This may finally kill the Democrat Party, moribund since 1972.

In truth, we have a few thuggish groups in and around Baghdad fighting a gang war.  This means no more than the gang wars in and around Los Angeles.  If the Democrat mayors of LA, DC, Detroit and Oakland can end the gang wars in their cities, the Democrat Party spokesweasels might be justified in criticizing our troops in their attempt to control the gang wars between the Tikriti Crips and the Bani Sadr Bloods in Iraq.  Until then, their whining is sedition and nothing else.  Three fourths of Iraq is safer from gang wars than is half of Oakland.

Jihad and You

Barbara Lee voted against stopping the Taliban and al Qaeda
in AFGHANISTAN, not Iraq.

Why Leftists like Lee believe in 19th century Materialism and oppose
the principles of the American Revolution.

The three main schools of thought in present day Islam: MODERNISM, the SUFI WAY, and reactionary WAHHABI JIHADISM.  Why leftists favor the latter.

On September 15, 2001, Barbara Lee voted against taking out al Qaeda and the Taliban in AFGHANISTAN.  She began the long slide into sedition on the part of the American Left by this lone dissent against the 420 House members and 98 Senators who voted yes.  She did not take a stand that day on the wisdom of doing something in IRAQ or anywhere else.  Although many of us knew already four days after the towers fell that we had to eliminate at least one terror sponsoring government in addition to the Taliban, she opposed doing anything at all about JIHADISM and its history of heinous and cowardly acts.  Although sedition has become common amongst politicians of the Left, few Democrats on the Hill would join her today in her stand in favor of Osama bin Laden and the reactionary government in Afghanistan.

However, many Leftist politicians and bureaucrats have recently led the Democrat party towards a very dangerous foreign policy.  By default, the party of FDR and JFK has disappeared.  The time has come for traditional Democrats to reject the Leftism of Barbara Lee and those like her by voting independently for a change, by voting for John den Dulk.

We must understand the difference between the Liberals, who used to dominate the Democrat party, and the Leftists who now control the foreign policy agenda.  Unfortunately, those who hark back to the day when someone like Hubert Humphrey could fight for Civil Rights and still support America as a force for good in the world have little voice in the party.  The Liberals have disappeared and only the Leftists remain.  If the Barbara Lees of the American Left continue to dominate, the future looks bleak for the two party system.

All Leftists follow to some degree the nineteenth century Materialist philosophy of writers like Marx, Freud, and Darwin.  This reactionary ideal rejected the previous 400 years of true progress that began with the likes of Gutenberg, Columbus, and Luther.  It reached its finest flowering in the American Revolution of 1776.  Common people learned to read and gained skills that brought them out of the servitude of slavery or serfdom.  They gained political power as the proportion of skilled workers increased, and the number of subsistence farmers declined in certain countries in Western Europe and North America.  In the process, the power of Kings, Nobles, and Bureaucrats also declined.  Classical Liberals participated in this process of reformation.

At the time of the American Revolution, serfs and slaves made up 80% of the World population, hereditary tyrants ruled most countries, and their warriors fought wars of imperial conquest for them.  Today, less than one half of the world’s people live by subsistence farming, most nations outside the Islamic world have rejected slavery, few hereditary tyrants exist outside of Dar-al-Islam, and all European colonial empires have disintegrated.  Only Persia and China remain today as classical imperial entities, although Osama and Saddam both entertained imperialist ambitions during their time of strength.

The Socio-Materialists of the late 19th century reacted against these developments.  They provided philosophical cover for the reassertion of the power of the few over the many.  Marx called this the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, just a more recent update of Plato’s rule by the Philosopher-Kings.  Both ideas provide high-sounding masks for rule of the people by bureaucrats.  American Leftists like Barbara Lee believe in their inherent personal superiority and their own right to rule.  When they carried water for Stalin or Mao we could perhaps allow ourselves to let them fool us into thinking that they were “progressives,” as the preachings of the 19th century Materialists once seemed new and up to date.  Now that the Left supports people like Osama and Saddam who would return us to 8th century tyranny, we cannot let them delude us.

Many technological marvels came onto the marketplace after the American Revolution from innovators like Franklin, Whitney, Morse, Bell, Edison, Marconi, and Wozniak.  Many non-Western cultures have had success coming to terms with these advances.  East Asia and South Asia, for instance, have made the transition.  Japan remains Japan and India remains India, but they have entered the 21st century forthrightly.  West and Central Asia, however, have had their problems doing so.

150 years ago, Scholars in the Moslem world recognized the problem and developed strategies for accommodating their people to the new situation.  They called their approach ISLAMIC MODERNISM.  A good example of this occurred in British India where teachers like Sayyed Ahmed Khan and Sir Mohhamed Iqbal founded schools for Muslim children so that they could gain the skills to get good employment in the Indian Civil Service or other sectors of the British Raj.  

Most Moslems worldwide continued to follow a more mystical approach to their religious life, generally speaking called the SUFI WAY.  This system does not necessarily take any particular stand with respect to the West or politics.  Sufi thought has influenced Westerners and others in the last century, however.

Unfortunately, great sums of petro-dollars have flowed into the hands of reactionary rulers who have used the money not to foster Modernism, but rather the teachings of Muhammad ibn-Abdul Wahhab.  Wahhab opposed both the Modernists and the Sufis.  WAHHABISM preaches reactionary political ideas under the guise of Islam.  It emphasizes a return to the rule by their version of the Philosopher-King, called the Caliph.  If successful, it would take many countries back to the hereditary tyrannies of the 8th century Ummayad rule, the rule of the many by the few.  Since the American Left also favors the rule of the many by the few, they have entered into this bizarre alliance.

Webster defines sedition as “the arousing of discontent against the government” or “conduct which tends to treason but which falls short of it for want of an overt act.”  Barbara Lee has embraced sedition from the first week of this war.  She has led many of her colleagues in that direction, but others fear her extremism and what it could do to the party and their positions of power.  It is long past time for traditional Democrats and Independents to reject the Left by voting against politicians like Barbara Lee.  A vote for John den Dulk will do this.

Three fourths of Iraq is safer than half of Oakland