Schopenhauer, Métaphysique de l'Amour, Extraits

Extrait de La Métaphysique de l'Amour de Schopenhauer :

 

 

.....Poursuivons : l'opération qui permet à la volonté de

s'affirmer et à l'homme de naître est un acte dont tous les

individus éprouvent une honte intime, dont ils se cachent

avec -soin, effrayés, si on les saisit sur le fait, comme s'ils

étaient surpris dans l'accomplissement d'un crime. C'est

une action dont la pensée n'excite, de sang-froid, que la

répugnance, et, dans des dispositions d'esprit plus élevées,

que l'horreur.

 

......Et cependant l'incessante répétition d'un acte de cette nature

est le seul, l'unique moyen qui assure l'existence de la race

humaine. - Si maintenant l'optimisme avait raison, s'il

nous fallait reconnaître avec gratitude dans notre existence

le don gracieux d'une suprême bonté guidée par la sagesse,

par suite un don en lui-même digne d'éloges, une source

de gloire et de joie, alors l'acte destiné à la perpétuer devrait

revêtir vraiment une apparence tout autre. Cette existence

n'est-elle au contraire qu'une sorte de faux pas, ou de

fausse route, est-elle l'œuvre d'une volonté originellement

aveugle, dont le développement le plus heureux consis-

terait à revenir à elle-même, pour se supprimer de son

propre mouvement, alors l'acte qui perpétue cette existence

doit avoir exactement l'apparence qu'il a.

 

......Ici doit se placer une remarque relative à la vérité pre-

mière et fondamentale de ma doctrine : la honte signalée

plus haut comme provoquée par l'acte de la génération

s'étend même aux parties qui servent à l'accomplir, quoique

la nature nous les ait données dès la naissance, comme tous

les autres organes. C'est encore une preuve frappante que,

non seulement les actions, mais déjà même le corps, de

l'homme se peut regarder comme la forme phénoménale,

comme l'objectivation et l'œuvre de sa volonté. Car l'homme

pourrait-il rougir d'une chose qui existerait sans sa volonté?

 

 

....Cette propriété n'explique pas moins qu'il est le grand

"arrètov", (mot grec) le secret de polichinelle, dont il n'est permis de

parler expressément en aucun temps et en aucun lieu, mais

qui toujours et partout s'entend de lui-même comme la

chose capitale, pensée toujours présente à l'esprit de tous

et qui fait saisir sur-le-champ la moindre allusion à ce sujet.

Puisque partout les uns pratiquent et les autres supposent

des intrigues d'amour, le rôle principal que joue dans le

monde cet acte et tout ce qui s'y rattache répond bien à

l'importance de ce punctum saliens de l'œuf du monde. Le

côté plaisant de la chose, c'est le perpétuel mystère dont on

entoure cette opération, intéressante pour nous entre toutes.

Mais voyez maintenant toute la frayeur de l'intellect

humain, jeune et innocent encore, épouvanté par l'énor-

mité de l'acte commis, quand pour la première fois ce

grand mystère du monde se découvre à lui. En voici la

raison: dans cette longue route que la volonté dépourvue

de connaissance dans le principe avait à parcourir, avant

de s'élever jusqu'à l'intellect, surtout jusqu'à l'intellect

humain et raisonnable, la volonté est devenue tellement

étrangère à elle-même, qu'elle ne connait plus son origine,

cette “pœnitmda origo”, et qu'en la considérant du point de

vue de la connaissance pure et innocente, elle est frappée

de terreur à ce spectacle.

 

....La volonté trouve son foyer, c'est-à-dire son centre et

sa plus haute expression, dans l'instinct sexuel et sa satis-

faction; c'est donc un fait bien caractéristique et dont la

nature rend naïvement compte dans son langage symbolique

que la volonté individualisée, c'est-à-dire que l'homme et

l'animal ne puissent entrer dans le monde que par la

porte des parties sexuelles.

 

 

 

The Violence We Don’t See

September 12, 2013 By Daniel Greenfield

 

Lashawn Marten was playing chess when he announced, “I hate white people.” Then he began hitting random white people who were walking by. By the time he was done, several were wounded and one lay dead.

I have walked by countless times and seen the chess players sitting near the overhang of the Union Square subway entrance; mostly black men daring white passerby into a money game. At the fountain to the left, Moonies squat on a blanket and sing their sonorous chants. To the right, the remnants of Occupy Wall Street set up tables to collect money and dispense buttons.

In warmer weather, break dancers perform on the stairs and office workers sit beneath the statue of George Washington expelling the British and eat lunch. Elderly Puerto Rican men push makeshift wooden carts piled with unlabeled bottles of homebrewed soda pop.

Jeffrey Babbitt, the man Lashawn beat to death, looks familiar to me because he has that type of New York face that you pass on the street. You see it worn by plumbers and high school teachers. It’s the badge of the vanishing New York City working class.

No conclusions will be drawn from the murder. Lashawn Marten was obviously mentally ill. And if his mental illness took the form of violent racism toward white people, that is an incidental fact. The murder is an incident. The details are incidental. No conclusions will be drawn from what happened between the chess tables.

Incidents take place all around us, but patterns have to be articulated. The incident is insignificant. It’s the pattern that counts.

The incident is something we have to learn to get over so we can get back to shopping in downtown Manhattan or walking through Union Square. The pattern is a social problem that we must dedicate ourselves to fighting. The incident isn’t supposed to define our lives. The pattern is.

The murder of Chris Lane was an incident. The murder of Jeffrey Babbitt was an incident.

The Boston Marathon bombing was an incident. So was the Fort Hood Massacre. So was 9/11. No conclusions can be drawn from them and no pattern can be used to tie them together. They are to be processed separately and discarded as having no further meaning than the private pain of their victims.

The media is not that concerned with suppressing incidents. It is concerned with suppressing pattern awareness. No one can deny that the occasional racial murder takes place and that the perpetrators look like Obama’s sons. And no one can deny that Muslims sometimes set off bombs or fly planes into buildings. They deny only that these incidents form a pattern.

Every Muslim terrorist attack is met with media chatter about an Islamophobic backlash. The backlash never materializes, but it doesn’t need to. The mere repetition of it does the trick and sets the pattern. It tells readers that the attack is the incident, but the backlash is the pattern.

The attack is only an incident and not characteristic of Muslims while the backlash is a pattern and characteristic of our bigotry and intolerance.

White racism is a pattern. Black racism is an incident. Racism is characteristic of white people, but not of black people. The crowds passing through Union Square are subdivided into the oppressors and the oppressed. Their lives are color coded for morality and justice. Jeffrey Babbitt, who dreamed of being a motorman, loved comics and took care of his elderly mother, was an oppressor. His death is an incident that in no way detracts from the pervasive pattern of white racism.

Jeffrey Babbitt was an oppressor and Lashawn Marten was one of the oppressed. This social dynamic was imposed on them at birth. The occasional death of an oppressor in no way alters the fixed pattern of the oppressors and the oppressed.

The pattern of American intolerance is likewise unmoved by September 11 or by two Chechens who set off a bomb near an 8-year-old. The blood and ashes of 3,000 dead is nothing but a stain on the liberal pattern. More people die of cancer or in car accidents, the liberal can always answer. Numbers alone do not make a pattern. And if the pattern is not recognized, then it does not exist.

We live in this world of unreal patterns and real lives where inexplicable things happen all the time.

Overhead, I see two beams of pale light piercing the sky and reflecting at an angle. The towers of light remind us of an incident. Not a pattern. After over a decade of war, no one in authority will admit what we are fighting or why. All that ash and rubble, the twisted steel and the falling bodies, are not part of a pattern. But when a Muslim cabbie is stabbed by a drunk, that is a pattern.

Most of us see the real patterns, even if only hazily, like the beams of light cutting across the sky. And we see that the unreal patterns, the obsessions with Muslim backlashes and the martyrdom of Trayvon Martin, are unreal things. Not true patterns, but false patterns that reflect at an angle from the true light.

We do not speak of these true patterns. But we know them. They stir in us when the right moment appears. They keep us alive.

Millions walk through life with this double vision, the lenses of their minds blurring the real and the unreal, paying lip service to the grave threat that someone will spray paint a mosque while nervously studying the Muslim sitting in the seat in front of them or voting for Obama but moving out to the suburbs.

Patterns are power. The pattern-makers and pattern-dealers derive theirs from being able to dictate the problem and the solution. They are determined to understand things for us so that we will see the same patterns that they do. They know all too well that if we stop seeing their patterns, their cause and their power will die.

For now it is men like Jeffrey Babbitt or the spectators in the Boston Marathon and the soldiers at Fort Hood who die. They die caught in an invisible pattern that they cannot see.

We live in a world of phony patterns, of global environmental apocalypses made to order, of shadows and illusions, of phantom fears, panics and doubts. But even in the liberal world of ghosts and shadows, where rogue air conditioners and cow flatulence are a greater threat to the planet than the nuclear bomb, where Lashawn Marten was oppressed by the unconscious white privilege of Jeffrey Babbitt who died for what he did not even know he had and where Muslim terrorism is a phantom fear of bigots, these true patterns intrude.

Terrible acts of violence momentarily tear apart the illusory false patterns with blood and fire and reveal the terrible truth.

On September 11, thousands of New Yorkers standing at Union Square looked downtown to see a plume of smoke rising over Broadway. I was one of them. Some fell to making anti-war posters on the spot. Others enlisted in a long war. On another distant September, some New Yorkers came to the defense of a 62-year-old man being beaten to death for the color of his skin. Others walked on to the farmers’ market, bought their organic peaches while the liberal memes in their heads told them to see no evil.

Our lives are sharpest and clearest when we see the pattern. In moments of revelation, the comforting illusions are torn away and the true pattern of our world stands revealed.

 

L'Islam est le problème; pas les "extrémistes".

Common Sense Moderates vs Violent Extremists

by sheikyermami on May 28, 2013

Extremism and the Displacement of the Political Spectrum

Reject obscurantism. Words like ‘extremism’ are a criminal distortion of reality. When the problem is Islam, we should say ’Islam’, because Islam is the 800 pound gorilla in the room, not “extremism”. Islam is the problem because devout Muslims follow the teachings of Muhammad, the perfect man, uswa hasana, al insan al kamil. When Muslims do that, they turn into violent savages.

May 23, 2013 Colin Liddell

A near Orwellian police state with bans on weapons, bans on words and thoughts, and an incessant flow of PC propaganda is no defence against the insanities created by “multicultural Britain,” as we saw yet again in London, where we were recently ‘treated’ to an iPhone clip of a Sub-Saharan Muslim lecturing us with hands crimsoned with the blood of an off-duty British soldier that he and an associate had just hit with a car and then butchered with knives and a meat cleaver on the streets of Woolwich in South East London.

The basic problem is not the nature of Sub-Saharan Africans or the nature of Islam. These have been well-known for a long time and are what they are for a variety of reasons that it is superfluous to go into here. No, the real problem is one of politics and ideology, and, in short, of the systemic dislocation of the political spectrum.

In the wake of such horror, we can expect to hear the usual cries for “tolerance” and the throb-in-the-throat pleas not to let the “extremists” win. But the trouble is the extremists won long ago. What other word can you use for political parties like the Conservative and Labour Parties that have been creating cultural chaos and enacting genocide and race replacement on a massive scale?

The only extremists are those holding the reins of government, as they have been doing for the last 60 years. But they would have you believe that they are the “moderates,” the reasonable ones, and that the extremists are the “unrepresentative” Muslims who committed the Woolwich atrocity and the “Far Right” parties and organizations who have opposed mass immigration and the kind of multiracialism that has Sub-Saharan Muslims living cheek-by-slashed-jowl with troops serving the interests of America and Israel.

The Muslims who committed this atrocity are not extremists. They are following one of the broadest roads in a major world religion, a religion that grew up among a band of desert cutthroats and expanded by conquest, violence, intimidation, slavery, and mass rape; a religion that tolerates nothing but itself and drives its more logical adherents to acts of violence.

A so-called “moderate” Muslim is nothing more than a bad Muslim, someone who probably drinks alcohol and eats pork as well. A good Muslim is one who acts within the genocidal dictates of the religion’s founder. Needless to say, the rest of us should avoid good Muslims like the plague and be wary of bad Muslims in case they start taking their religion seriously.

The so-called “racists” and “fascists” who oppose multiracial Britain and wish not only to stop mass immigration but also to start the necessary process of “exigration” – the removal of the unassimilatable immigrant population – are not the extremists either. These people are common sense moderates, who, despite the lies of their higher and betters and the endless extremist propaganda of the “multicultural” state, realized at some gut level that the ruling elites were creating a madhouse.

The extremists are David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, John Major, Margaret Thatcher, Jim Callaghan, Harold Wilson, Douglas Hume, Harold McMillan, and Anthony Eden, the prime ministers who facilitated the process by which Britain has been transformed into the Bedlam it is today.

The extremists are the media, the BBC and the newspapers of the oligarchs, who have bandied about the word “racist” in an attempt to suppress any opposition to the Third World colonization of Britain, in effect creating a society whose every second thought is now race.

The extremists are the academics, who have used their intelligence to blind themselves for the pleasures of sneering at lowly common sense and basking in the glow of a false moral smugness, while furthering their lie-driven careers.

But the extremists are also the majority of the British people who have voted for these politicians, listened to these journalists, and respected these academics, all the while feeling that something was deeply wrong.

Things like the increasing imposition of multicultural totalitarianism and the Woolwich atrocity that it pathetically failed to stop are not accidents. They are the symptoms of a deep disease of the political system. This disease is extremism, but not as the mass media uses the term.

Extremism exists naturally at the extreme ends of any system. Think of it like a bell curve. The left and right sides of the curve – the ‘extremes’ – taper to nothing, while the centre bulges to the highest point and contains most of the mass.

The fact that extremes exist in any system is not a problem in itself, and, in the grand scheme of things, may even be necessary. The problem we have in the West is that “the bulge” has been dislocated so that now the weight of opinion and power has been dislocated to the extreme Left for the last 60 years.

What is ‘centric’ or moderate about the ideas on which modern Britain is based? Nothing! The viewpoint that race is a construct, that blood exerts no pull on the human heart, that loyalty to your own kind is evil, and that we are all blank slates is self-evidently an extremist Leftist one, but it is one that has become displaced towards the centre of our society.

What is “extremist” about the wish to prevent your country being colonized and your race sunk in a flood of Third World immigration, degradation, and animalistic violence? This is self evidently a centric notion, but in today’s insane world this is given the name “far-right,” “fascist,” or “racist,” all words signifying extremism and evil.

Sensible common sense, the traditional outlook of the vast majority, is now regarded as right-wing extremism. But what has caused this dislocation of the political spectrum? The causes are many, but essentially it is the switch from a society characterized by structure, ties, and values to one based on fluidity, nexus, and price. This shift requires a change in the basic concept of humanity from a static notion based on essence and being to a dynamic notion based on function and interaction: synapses instead of neurons, algebra instead of numbers.

This results in the cult of “androidism,” where anything man-shaped is considered equivalent and connected to every other thing that is man-like, with the ability to acquire money the only distinguisher. This is how multinationals, super states, and global elites see the world, and it creates the fluidity and interchangeability required by late-period global capitalism to facilitate more economic interactions, be they Keynsian or Austrian, public sector or private. To revert to a world of structure, ties, and values would cause an economic meltdown (actually much to be desired), so we are forced to live outside our mental comfort zone and fall down before the Golden Calf of multiculturalism.

The extremists who control the West see androidism as a means to facilitate short-term economic interests – their own and also that of the wider society (hence the widespread support for this stupidity) – but they also see it as a solution to the problems that it creates. Not only does androidism broaden markets, enlarge the labour pool, and create marketable stresses and problems, but it also promises the solution to the chaos it unleashes in the vast reprogramming of the human race.

Be the subjects Sub-Saharans with markedly lower IQs or Muslims with a deeply incompatible culture, the androidist extremists who control the West believe that they can use “education” and “culture” to maintain the status quo in their vast game of demographic musical chairs. Sub-Saharans can be educated to replace low-breeding Europeans and Muslims can be culturally reprogrammed by the potency and insidiousness of Western popular culture.

In this view, the great multiracial cities of West are educational laboratories doing what has never been done before, or vast cultural concentration camps exterminating the awkward culture of the incomers in a flood of porn, feminism, consumerism individualism, and sheer godlessness.

Credit where it’s due: This is a titanic theory and astounding in its scope – if it works. But the great flaw with extreme ideas is that they are extreme for a reason, and this reason is their more tenuous connection with reality. This is how you know they are extreme. This is the case with androidism. Just because someone has two arms and two legs, and walks upright, doesn’t mean that he is equivalent to all the other two-armed and two-legged creatures walking upright. The atrocity in Woolwich is a graphic example of this much denied truism.

http://alternativeright.com/blog/2013/5/23/extremism-and-the-displacement-of-the-political-spectrum

 

Thomas Hobbes, Karl Poper , Citations

« Aimer son prochain, c’est vouloir le rendre heureux comme l’enseignait Saint Thomas d’Aquin. Mais vouloir le bonheur du peuple est peut-être le plus redoutable des idéaux politiques car il aboutit fatalement à vouloir imposer aux autres une échelle de valeur supérieure jugée nécessaire à ce bonheur. On verse ainsi dans l’utopie et le romantisme : et à vouloir créer le paradis terrestre, on se condamne inévitablement à l’enfer….Que nous ayons le devoir d’aider ceux qui sont dans le besoin, nul ne le conteste; mais vouloir le bonheur des autres, c’est trop souvent forcer leur intimité et attenter à leur indépendance. »
Karl Popper.

« En effet, celui qui est modeste et arrangeant et qui tiendrait toutes ses promesses en temps et lieu, alors que personne d’autre ne ferait de même, ne ferait rien que se transformer en proie pour les autres et pourvoir avec certitude à sa propre perte contrairement au fondement de toutes les lois de la nature qui tendent à la conservation des natures. »   
Thomas Hobbes, 1588-1679 , Léviathan, p.266

« Les pensées secrètes d’une personne parcourent tous les domaines, sacrés, profanes, pudiques, obscènes, graves et légers, sans encourir honte ni blâme, ce que le discours parlé ne peut faire au delà de ce que le jugement de l’époque autorise quant au moment, au lieu et aux personnes. »  
Thomas Hobbes, 1588-1679, Léviathan, Folio, p.151

« Quelle opinion se fait-il de ses semblables quand il voyage tout armé; de ses concitoyens quand il boucle ses portes; et de ses enfants, de ses domestiques quand il verrouille ses coffres ? N’accuse-t-il pas autant le genre humain par ses actes que je le fais avec mes mots ? »  
Thomas Hobbes,1588-1679, Léviathan, Folio p.226

David Cameron et l'Islam

David Cameron dit :

« Ce n’était pas seulement une attaque contre la Grande Bretagne et le mode de vie britannique. C’était aussi une trahison de l’islam et des communautés qui apportent tant à notre pays. Rien dans l’islam ne justifie un tel acte épouvantable." 

Bassam Tibi est un musulman libéral et un éminent spécialiste de l’Islam. Il est né en Syrie. Il vit actuellement en Allemagne où il enseigne les sciences politiques et les relations internationales et il a obtenu la nationalité allemande. Il nous explique ce que veulent dire les versets du Coran qui suivent : (comme s’il en était besoin….)

“Combattez-les jusqu’à ce qu’il n’y ait plus d’opposition et que le culte d’Allah soit rendu dans sa totalité".   Coran : 8 :29
   
 “Combattez-les jusqu’à ce qu’ils paient directement le tribut après s’être humiliés". Coran 9 :29

  « Le Prophète a dit : J’ai reçu l’ordre de combattre les infidèles jusqu’à ce qu’ils professent qu’il  n’y a pas d’autre dieu qu’Allah et que Mahomet est son Prophète; qu’ils prient en se prosternant et paient la Zakat. S’ils le font, leur vie et leurs propriétés seront épargnées » Muslim, C9B1N33

Voici, M. Cameron, les commentaires de Bassam Tibi :

« L’Islam oblige les Musulmans à imposer la foi islamique dans le monde entier. Si les non-musulmans se convertissent ou se soumettent volontairement, il n’y aura pas de violence. Mais s’ils s’y s’opposent, les Musulmans sont obligés de leur faire la guerre. Et les responsables de la guerre seront ceux qui leur résistent. »

« S’ils veulent avoir la paix, les non-musulmans doivent se soumettre à l’appel de l’Islam (dawa) en se convertissant. S’ils ne veulent pas se convertir, ils devront accepter le statut de minorité religieuse (dhimmis) et payer une taxe de protection, la jizya. S’ils ne paient pas ils seront tués et leurs propriétés seront données aux croyants. Ceci est valable uniquement pour les Juifs et les Chrétiens. Pour les autres, c’est la conversion ou la mort.

« Le recours à la force qu’utilisent les Musulmans ne peut pas être appelé « guerre » (Harb); car le mot « guerre » ne s’applique qu’à l’usage de la force employée par les non-musulmans qui résistent à l’Islam. « La paix règnera dans le monde, seulement quand toute l’humanité sera convertie ou soumise à l’Islam ».

Le Coran est clair et la jurisprudence musulmane est claire. L’interprétation exhaustive du Coran est terminée depuis le lXième siècle et ce qui a été dit ici traduit l’exacte doctrine de l’Islam. Aucun Musulman ne peut me contredire sans renier le Coran, l’Islam et Allah. Aucun Musulman n’osera contredire ce qui est écrit dans le Coran. Tout ce qu’il peut faire, c’est de jeter de la poudre aux yeux, de répéter les mensonges habituels en espérant qu’on le croie sur parole.

Cameron préfère nier la réalité que de désavouer l’idéologie qui a mené l’Angleterre à cette situation catastrophique. Il préfère se fermer les yeux et continuer à s’enfoncer plus profondément en espérant que ça ira mieux dans le futur s’il participe aux mensonges et aux faux-fuyants des Musulmans qui ont peur qu’on découvre la vérité pourtant écrite noir sur blanc dans le Coran.

Et il faut être complètement insensé pour croire que les choses vont aller en s’améliorant dans le futur.

Il faut être franchement malade intellectuellement et psychologiquement pour venir nous dire que l’Islam est une religion de paix et que « rien dans l’Islam ne justifie un tel acte épouvantable. »

Lisez donc !

« Exterminez les incroyants jusqu’au derniers afin de faire prévaloir la Vérité. » Coran 8;7-8

« Le Prophète a dit : « Allah m’a donné les clefs de l’éloquence et la terreur m’a donné la victoire. » Boukhari V9B87N127

« Je (Allah) vais jeter l’effroi dans le cœur des infidèles » Coran :8;12


L’islam me considère comme un impie.

L’islam dit qu’il faut me terroriser, m’asservir ou me tuer et je devrais aimer l’Islam !

Je serais un vilain « islamophobe » un fanatique d’ « extrême-droite » ?

MAIS CERTAINEMENT QUE JE SUIS UN ISLAMOPHOBE ! DIEU MERCI ! JE SUIS SAIN D’EPRIT PARMI LES FOUS.

Philippe Bernier-Arcand : entrevue délirante à R-C avec Nuovo 2013-04-07 J'y reviendrai

La paix ? Quelle paix ?

La paix ? Quelle paix ?

Le problème avec la question palestinienne c’est qu’il est inextricablement mêlé avec la religion. L’Islam ne peut pas séparer le politique du religieux. Si on compatit avec le peuple palestinien on aide automatiquement le Hamas, et on contribue à promouvoir ses objectifs : détruire Israël et chasser ou exterminer les Juifs, instaurer la Sharia, islamiser le monde. On se fait complice d’Ahmadinedjad et du Hezbollah. On se fait complice des ennemis d’Israël, un pays démocratique qui partage nos valeurs occidentales. D’où viennent nos valeurs judéo-chrétiennes si ce n’est du peuple juif et de son histoire ? Et où se déroule cette histoire si ce n’est en Judée, en Samarie, en Gallilée, ce que conteste contre toute vérité historique, les Musulmans.

Il y a certainement beaucoup de Palestiniens qui seraient prêts à reconnaître Israël et à vivre en paix avec lui mais personne ne peut exprimer de tels souhaits ouvertement; personne ne peut ouvertement essayer de rallier ses compatriotes à une telle vue sans être physiquement et rapidement éliminé. Les Palestiniens de bonne volonté sont muselés. Il n’y a aucune démocratie. Le Hamas n’a pas été élu démocratiquement parce que personne n’était libre de s’exprimer librement. Il n’y avait aucune alternative au programme du Hamas et du Fatah qui sont du pareil au même.

Le peuple palestinien est pris en otage par ses dirigeants et pour eux, il ne peut pas y avoir de compromis avec Israël. Le Coran avilit les Juifs, les condamne à la soumission, et annonce leur extermination au Jugement Dernier. La politique du Hamas se fonde là-dessus. Que voulez-vous faire ? Que voulez-vous demander à Israël dans de telles circonstances ? Céder, toujours céder ? Aucune concession ne sera suffisante. Céder sur des points qui les mettra à la merci des milices islamistes et des Arabes ? Ce serait suicidaire de leur part. Ils ont cédé Gaza et voyez ce qui en est résulté. Maintenant ils devraient céder le Golan, lever le blocus et laisser entrer les missiles iraniens, les armes, les explosifs ? On veut les exterminer et quand ils se défendent, on le leur reproche !

Le Hamas et le Fatah ont les mêmes objectifs clairement avoués : un seul Étât, la Palestine. Seuls leurs moyens diffèrent pour le moment. Le Fatah fait semblant qu’il cherche la paix sachant très bien qu’il ne peut la faire ni ne la fera. En attendant les dirigeants profitent des milliards de la communauté internationale pour vivre comme des pachas. Les dirigeants et les cadres du Hamas également.

La situation est sans issue. Personne ne peut dédire les paroles du Coran. Personne ne peut les effacer. Personne ne peut effacer les paroles de Mahomet qui avilit les Juifs. Personne ne peut oblitérer les meurtres et les massacres que Mahomet a commis contre les Juifs et personne ne peut demander aux Musulmans de ne pas suivre son exemple. Tout ce qu’a fait ou dit Mahomet est un enseignement divin.

"Notre guerre contre les Juifs est une vieille lutte, qui débuta avec Mahomet ...Notre devoir est de nous battre contre les Juifs, pour l’amour de Dieu et de la religion, et il est de notre devoir d’achever la lutte que Mahomet a entreprise…" (Al Ahram 26-11-1955)

"Dieu a rassemblé les sionistes des quatre coins du monde, de sorte que les Arabes puissent les anéantir d’un seul coup" (6-9-1956) ( p. 83-86)

Hamas prime minister Isma 'il Haniya confirmed this when he said: ". . . the march of resistance will continue until the Islamic flag is raised, not only over the minarets of Jerusalem, but over the whole universe."19 The delusion that they are separate conflicts has conferred an element of legitimacy on the vicious acts of terrorism in Israel.20

According to Abdallah Jarbu', Hamas deputy minister of religious endowments: "May He annihilate this filthy people who have neither religion nor conscience. I condemn whoever believes in normalizing relations with them, whoever supports sitting down with them, and whoever believes that they are human beings. They are not human beings. They are not people. They have no religion, no conscience, and no moral values."28

Hadith: Sahih Muslim, Book 041, No. 6985:Abu Huraira reported Allah’s messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

Hadith: Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 53, No. 392:Narrated Abu Huraira: While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let us go to the Jews" We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle.

Khomeiny : “…those who study jihad will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. All the countries conquered by Islam or to be conquered in the future will be marked for everlasting salvation. For they shall live under [Allah’s law; the Sharia]….Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender [to the enemy]? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to paradise, which can be opened only for holy warriors! There are hundreds of other [Koranic] psalms and hadiths [sayings of the prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”

La paix avec ça ?

Zigzag : Duranty, Einstein, Pinochet, New Deal

Duranty et Muggeridge

Je vais vous raconter l’histoire de Walter Duranty et de Malcolm Muggeridge.

En 1930 il y avait des rumeurs de famine en URSS. Walter Duranty, le correspondant du New York Times écrit : « There is no famine or actual starvation, nor is there likely to be. » Il a recu, cette année-là, le prix Pulitzer, Le jury le loua pour son reportage « marked by scholaship, profundity, impartiality, sound judgement and exceptionnal clarity ».

Pendant ce temps-là, l’écrivain anglais, Malcolm Muggeridge, écrivait d’Ukraine que les paysans mouraient de faim. « I mean starving in its absolute sense; not undernourished as, for instance, most Oriental peasants….and some unemployed workers in Europe, but having had for weeks next to nothing to eat.” Un peu plus tard, il écrivait encore que cette famine était causée délibérément. Et que c’était « one of the most monstruous crimes in history, so terrible that people in the future will scarcely be able to believe it ever happened ». Les reportages de Muggeridge not été qualifiés de “tirades hystériques » par Béatrice Webb dans une étude célèbre sur l’URSS. Muggeridge a été stigmatisé et a été incapable de se trouver de l’ouvrage comme écrivain après avoir été relevé de son assignation en URSS. Il a sombré dans la pauvreté. Lui, sa femme et ses deux jeunes enfants ont dû déménager chez des amis. Aucun éditeur n’a voulu avoir affaire à lui. Il est facile de comprendre que ce qu’il disait ne concordait pas avec la vision de l’Union Soviétique que l’intelligencia voulaient privilégier.

Les archives de l’URSS ouvertes aux chercheurs par Gorbatchev pendant quelques années à la suite de la chute du communisme, révèlent qu’il y eut autour de 6 millions de morts. C’est ce que Robert Conquest, dans Harvest of Sorrow estimait lui aussi.

Les gens ont vaguement ou même jamais entendu parler de ce crime monstrueux, et délibéré, aussi monstrueux que l’Holocauste juif perpétré par Hitler et les Nazis. Quand ils en entendent parler, cela leur semble être un fait divers. Pourquoi ? Parce que la majorité des journaux de l’époque étaient sous l’influence d’ « intellectuels de gauche », admirateurs de l’URSS et de Staline. À cette époque où la crise faisait ses ravages en Amérique et en Occident, les intellectuels comparaient les "magnifiques réalisations" du communisme avec "l’échec lamentable" du capitalisme et rêvaient de voir un paradis semblable voir le jour chez eux. Ils répugnaient à parler en mal contre le régime soviétique de peur de nuire à la Grande Idée qui ne pouvait pas s'incarner sans casser quelques oeufs. Pourquoi la compromettre pour quelques victimes malheureuses ?

Les services secrets soviétiques déployaient beaucoup d’énergie et dépensaient des sommes énormes pour séduire les intellectuels, les journalistes, les écrivains, les syndicalistes et les agitateurs de toutes sortes, ce que l’enquête de McCarthy a bien démontré. On sait ce que les mêmes intellectuels qui niaient la famine ont réussi à faire de McCarthy : la même chose qu’à Muggeridge.

Il est vrai que l’influence du communisme se réduisait surtout au milieu intellectuel et que les USA n’ont jamais vraiment été menacé d’une révolution prolétarienne mais les sympathies, la collaboration, et même la promotion du communisme par beaucoup d’intellectuels a été très importante. Le McCartysme n’a pas été une chasse aux sorcières. C’est un des nombreux mythes de gauche comme le succès du New Deal, le libérateur Castro, le saint révolutionnaire Guevarra, le bon docteur Allende et le communisme à visage humain, la Révolution Espagnole, le Révolution Française, le Révolution Russe etc. etc. De tous ces sujets c’est la thèse de gauche qui domine totalement. Le point de vue libéral n’a pas le droit d’exister. Aussitôt que quelqu’un ose déboulonner un de ces mythes, l’analyser, c’est l’étonnement, la réprobation, la stigmatisation, le scandale. Le mot « fasciste » est l’argument qui fait taire tous les doutes sur les mauvaises intentions de celui qui ose examiner les faits avec un peu plus de mesure et d'objectivité.

Pendant que Charlie Chaplin réalisait le Dictateur (1938-39) en pensant évidemment à Hitler, il soutenait un autre dictateur, Staline, qui avait pourtant déjà commis des crimes monstrueux, bien avant Hitler. Et pourtant il ne voyait rien et probablement ne voulait rien voir tellement il était obnubilé par l’utopie d’un paradis communiste et le « cauchemard » capitaliste.

Walter Duranty ne s’était pas trompé de bonne foi car ce qu’il disait aux diplomates et aux journalistes de l’époque était tout-à-fait différent. En 1933, un diplomate anglais rapportait de Londres que « M. Duranty thinks it quite possible that as many as 10 millions people may have died directly or indirectly from lack of food in the Soviet Union during the pas year”.

Si le crime de Hitler est une abomination et celui de Staline, un fait divers, c'est que l'intelligentsia occidentale avaient des sympathies envers le socialisme russe et filtrait l'information comme c'est encore le cas aujourd'hui où le point de vue "progressiste" a toujours le haut du pavé au détriment de toute autre interprétation ou point de vue.

Le point de vue libéral est complètement méconnu ou stigmatisé. La sympathies des journalistes vont à Khader plutôt qu'aux victimes du régime iranien; à Assange plutôt qu'au gouvernement américain; à la mosquée sur le site de 9/11 plutôt qu'à ses opposants qui sont traités d'islamophobes, de racistes; aux Palestiniens musulmans totalitaires et génocidaires plutôt qu'aux Israéliens démocrates; à la thèse apocalyptique du réchauffement climatique plutôt qu'a ceux qui la mettent en doute; le prix Nobel de la paix à Obama qui n'a jamais rien fait, plutôt qu'à quelqu'un de méritant; le prix du festival de Cannes au gros Moore plutôt qu'à un cinéaste de talent, le prix Nobel d'économie à un Krugman qui nous dit que si la crise se prolonge c'est qu'il faudrait injecter encore 2 trillions de dollars dans l'économie en plus du 1.3 déjà dépensé en pure perte, le "Bush bashing" éhonté, Katrina, les pretzels, la canonisation d'Obama et la réticence des journalistes à le critiquer; l'inculte Harper etc, etc. (Je viens tout juste d'entendre deux commentaires à R.-C. où Harper est traité de dictateur de droite, de néo-conservateur dangereux. Et un autre progressiste qui parle d'insurrection éventuellement nécessaire, d'imposition obligatoire de l'école française à tous les citoyens habitant le Québec. Voilà un vrai libéral de gauche ! Voilà un vrai progressiste et non un dangereux conservateur.

Je me suis écarté de mon sujet. Je voulait simplement te raconter l'histoire de Duranty.
Certains renseignements ont été puisés dans : Intellectuals and Society, Thomas Sowell, p. 126 - 127 et Intellectual Pilgrimage, Paul Hollander, p. 119 et 164.)



***********************************************************
Enstein et Lénine


"This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism... I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child." -- Albert Einstein

On voit qu'un grand savant peut être aussi ignorant et malavisé que n'importe quel citoyen quand il s'écarte de son champ de spécialisation. Ici, Einstein endosse presque parfaitement la vision surréaliste et catastrophique de Lénine :
« Enregistrement et contôle, tel est l’essentiel, et pour la mise en route et pour le fonctionnement régulier de la société communiste dans sa première phase. Ici, tous les citoyens se transforment en employés salariés de l’Étât constitué par les citoyens armés. Tous les citoyens deviennent les employés d’un seul cartel du peuple tout entier, de l’Étât. Le tout est d’obtenir qu’ils fournissent un effort égal, observent exactement la mesure du travail et reçoivent in salaire égal…..la société toute entière ne sera plus qu’un seul bureau et un seul atelier avec égalité du travail et égalité du salaire. »« L’enregistrement et le contôle » ont déjà été « simplifiés à l’extrême » par le capitalisme et sous le communisme, ils se réduiront « aux opérations les plus simples de surveillance et d’inscription et à la délivrance de reçus correspondants, toutes choses à la portée de quiconque sait lire, écrire et connaît les quatre règles de l’arithmétique. »
Lénine, 1975, T. lll, p.366 (A. Besançon, Les Origines intellectuelles du léninisme.

Trois ans seulement après avoir pris le pouvoir, Lénine constatait que la Russie faisait face à la "ruine, la famine et la devastation".Lénine, Le rôle et les fonctions des syndicats sous la nouvelle politique économique, Oeuvre choisies, Vol. II, Chap. 2, P. 618

Einstein pouvait être un génie en physique mais il était certainement un imbécile en économie.



************************************************************************
CRISE DE 1929 et New Deal

« There is, of course, no way to re-run the stock market crash of 1929 and have the federal government let the market ajust on its own to see how that experiment would turn out. The closest thing to such an experiment was the 1987 stock market crash similar in size but not in duration to the 1929 collapse. The Reagan administration did nothing, despite outrage in the media at the government’s failure to act.

“What will it take to wake up the White House ?” the New York Times asked, declaring that “the President abdicates leadership and courts disaster” Washington Post columnist Mary McGrory said chat Reaga “has been singularly indifferent” to the country’s “current pain and confusion”. The Financial Times of London said chat President Reagan “appears to lack the capacity to handle adversity” and “nobody seems to be in charge”.
A former official of the Carter administration criticized President Reaga’s “silence and inaction” following the 1987 stock market crash and compared him unfavorably to President Franklin D. Roosevelt whose “personnal style and bold commands would be a tonic” in the current crisis.

The irony in this was that FDR presided over an economy with seven cosecutive years of double-digit unemployment, while Reagan’s policy of letting the market recover on its own, far from leading to another Great Depression, led instead to one of the coutry’s longest periods of sustained economoc growth, low unemployment and low inflation, lasting twenty years."

Intellectuals and Society, Thomas Sowell, Basic Books, 2009

***********************************************************************

CASTRO ET PINOCHET
jcdturbant, 12 déc. 2006, Pinochet - Castro :Quand on aime, on compte pas.


"Voici quelques extraits des JT d’hier (notamment, on s’en doute, celui de Canal +, la chaîne qui confond impertinence et incontinence idéologique). En substance, voici, parmi mille autres choses, ce que l’on pouvait entendre sur nos petits écrans : « Pinochet a terminé sa carrière sur un échec politique retentissant : au référendum de 1990, les chiliens l’ont renvoyé du pouvoir » ! On peut voir les choses comme ça… On pourrait aussi dire que, contrairement à Castro, Pinochet a quitté volontairement le pouvoir et a accepté la transition vers la démocratie ! Mais ce serait laisser entendre que Pinochet était moins despote que son homologue cubain, et ça, la gauche française n’est pas prête à l’admettre !

Autre exemple : « Dans les années 70-80, il mène une politique ultra-libérale qui accroît les inégalités » ! Ca aussi il fallait s’y attendre : Pinochet = libéralisme = fascisme (lisez Sarko-Pino : même combat !) Nos journaleux sinistrés (du latin « sinister » etc.) préfèrent de loin les dictateurs socialistes qui ont ruiné leur pays en collectivisant l’économie, tandis que le Chili est aujourd’hui une des économies les plus solides d’Amérique latine…

Enfin, last but not least, AUCUN média français ne s’est employé à faire une comparaison, même sommaire, entre la dictature de Pinochet et celle de Castro. Et pourtant : il n’y a pas photo !

Pinochet = 16 ans de dictature terminées par un départ volontaire du dictateur et une transition démocratique réussie.

Castro = 47 ans de dictature qui devraient s’achever d’ici quelques semaines ou quelques mois par une transmission du pouvoir au frère cadet !Pinochet = environ 3000 morts en 16 ans et quelques milliers de prisonniers politiques. Castro = 15 à 17 000 personnes fusillées (vous avez bien lu !) en un demi-siècle et plus de 100 000 cubains (vous avez bien lu !) qui ont connu les camps ou les prisons cubaines (source : Le livre noir du communisme, Pocket, p 939).

Pinochet = laisse un pays prospère en quittant le pouvoir.

Castro = aura totalement ruiné son pays (un des plus riches d’Amérique latine en 1959, un des plus pauvres de la planète aujourd’hui) au moment où Dieu aura la bonne idée de le rappeler à lui !

Est-il vraiment nécessaire de poursuivre la démonstration ?Mais nos journalistes ont-ils seulement le temps de lire ? N’ont-ils pas trop à faire à répéter inlassablement les mêmes poncifs et les mêmes mensonges, acharnés qu’ils sont à défendre leur cause à défaut d’informer leur public ?
Voir aussi l’excellent édito de Stéphane dans Le meilleur des mondes."

Wilders’ Message to Muslims

Posted by MuslimsDebate.com on Jul 20th, 2010
(Editor’s note: the new site MuslimsDebate.com asked Geert Wilders why he became anti-Islam and what his message would be to Muslims. Below is his response.)

From : FrontPage Mag 2010-07-20

I first visited an Islamic country in 1982.

I was 18 years old and had traveled with a Dutch friend from Eilat in Israel to the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm-el-Sheikh.
We were two almost penniless backpacking students.
We slept on the beaches and found hospitality with Egyptians, who spontaneously invited us to tea.

I clearly recall my very first impression of Egypt: I was overwhelmed by the kindness, friendliness and helpfulness of its people.

I also remember my second strong impression of Egypt: It struck me how frightened these friendly and kind people were.
While we were in Sharm el-Sheikh, President Mubarak happened to visit the place.

I remember the fear which suddenly engulfed the town when it was announced that Mubarak was coming on an unexpected visit; I can still see the cavalcade of black cars on the day of his visit and feel the almost physical awareness of fear, like a cold chill on that very hot day in Summer.
It was a weird experience; Mubarak is not considered the worst of the Islamic tyrants and yet, the fear of the ordinary Egyptians for their leader could be felt even by me. I wonder how Saudis feel when their King is in town, how Libyans feel when Gaddafi announces his coming, how Iraqis must have felt when Saddam Hussein was near. A few years later, I read in the Koran how the 7th century Arabs felt in the presence of Muhammad, who, as several verses describe, “cast terror into their hearts” (suras 8:12, 8:60, 33:26, 59:12).

From Sharm el-Sheikh, my friend and I went to Cairo. It was poor and incredibly dirty. My friend and I were amazed that such a poor and filthy place could be a neighbor of Israel, which was so clean. The explanation of the Arabs, with whom we discussed their poverty, was that they were not in any way to blame for this affliction: They said they were the victims of a global conspiracy of “imperialists” and “Zionists”, aimed at keeping Muslims poor and subservient. I found that explanation unconvincing. My instinct told me it had something to do with the different cultures of Israel and Egypt.

I made a mistake in Cairo. We had almost no money and I was thirsty. One could buy a glass of water at public water collectors. It did not look clean, but I drank it. I got a terrible diarrhea. I went to a hostel where one could rent a spot on the floor for two dollars a day. There I lay for several days, a heap of misery in a crowded, stinking room, with ten other guys. Once Egypt had been the most advanced civilization on earth. Why had it not progressed along with the rest of the world?

In the late 1890s, Winston Churchill was a soldier and a war correspondent in British India (contemporary Pakistan) and the Sudan. Churchill was a perceptive young man, whose months in Pakistan and the Sudan allowed him to grasp with amazing clarity what the problem is with Islam and “the curses it lays on its votaries.”

“Besides the fanatical frenzy, …, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy,” he wrote. “The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist where the followers of the Prophet rule or live. … The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to a sole man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. … Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities – but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it.” And Churchill concluded: “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”

There are people who say that I hate Muslims. I do not hate Muslims. It saddens me how Islam has robbed them of their dignity.What Islam does to Muslims is visible in the way they treat their daughters. On March 11, 2002, fifteen Saudi schoolgirls died as they attempted to flee from their school in the holy city of Mecca. A fire had set the building ablaze. The girls ran to the school gates but these were locked. The keys were in the possession of a male guard, who refused to open the gates because the girls were not wearing the correct Islamic dress imposed on women by Saudi law: face veils and overgarments.

The “indecently” dressed girls frantically tried to save their young lives. The Saudi police beat them back into the burning building. Officers of the Mutaween, the “Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice,” as the Police are known in Saudi Arabia, also beat passers-by and firemen who tried to help the girls. “It is sinful to approach them,” the policemen warned bystanders. It is not only sinful, it is also a criminal offence.

Girls are not valued highly in Islam; the Koran says that the birth of a daughter makes a father’s “face darken and he is filled with gloom” (sura 43:15). Nevertheless, the incident at the Mecca school drew angry reactions. Islam is inhumane; but Muslims are humans, hence capable of Love – that powerful force which Muhammad despised. Humanity prevailed in the Meccan fathers who were incensed over the deaths of their daughters; it also prevailed in the firemen who confronted the Mutaween when the latter were beating the girls back inside, and in the journalists of the Saudi paper which, for the first time in Saudi history, criticized the much feared and powerful “Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.”

However, Muslim protests against Islamic inhumanity are rare. Most Muslims, even in Western countries, visit mosques and listen to shocking Koranic verses and to repulsive sermons without revolting against them.
I am an agnosticus myself. But Christians and Jews hold that God created man in His image. They believe that by observing themselves, as free and rational beings capable of love, they can come to know Him. They can even reason with Him, as the Jews have done throughout their history. The Koran, on the contrary, states that “Nothing can be compared with Allah” (sura 16:74, 42:11). He has absolutely nothing in common with us. It is preposterous to suppose that Allah created man in his image. The biblical concept that God is our father is not found in Islam. There is no personal relationship between man and Allah, either. The purpose of Islam is the total submission of oneself and others to the unknowable Allah, whom we must serve through total obedience to Muhammad as leader of the Islamic state (suras 3:31, 4:80, 24:62, 48:10, 57:28). And history has taught us that Muhammad was not at all a prophet of love and compassion, but a mass murderer, a tyrant and a pedophile. Muslims could not have a more deplorable role model.

Without individual freedom, it is not surprising that the notion of man as a responsible agent is not much developed in Islam. Muslims tend to be very fatalistic. Perhaps – let us certainly hope so – only a few radicals take the Koranic admonition to wage jihad on the unbelievers seriously. Nevertheless, most Muslims never raise their voice against the radicals. This is the “fearful fatalistic apathy” Churchill referred to.
The author Aldous Huxley, who lived in North Africa in the 1920s, made the following observation: “About the immediate causes of things – precisely how they happen – they seem to feel not the slightest interest. Indeed, it is not even admitted that there are such things as immediate causes: God is directly responsible for everything. ‘Do you think it will rain?’ you ask pointing to menacing clouds overhead. ‘If God wills,’ is the answer. You pass the native hospital. ‘Are the doctors good?’ ‘In our country,’ the Arab gravely replies, in the tone of Solomon, ‘we say that doctors are of no avail. If Allah wills that a man die, he will die. If not, he will recover.’ All of which is profoundly true, so true, indeed, that is not worth saying. To the Arab, however, it seems the last word in human wisdom. … They have relapsed – all except those who are educated according to Western methods – into pre-scientific fatalism, with its attendant incuriosity and apathy.”

Islam deprives Muslims of their freedom. That is a shame, because free people are capable of great things, as history has shown. The Arab, Turkish, Iranian, Indian, Indonesian peoples have tremendous potential. It they were not captives of Islam, if they could liberate themselves from the yoke of Islam, if they would cease to take Muhammad as a role model and if they got rid of the evil Koran, they would be able to achieve great things which would benefit not only them but the entire world.

As a Dutch, a European and a Western politician, my responsibility is primarily to the Dutch people, to the Europeans and the West. However, since the liberation of the Muslims from Islam, will benefit all of us, I wholeheartedly support Muslims who love freedom. My message to them is clear: “Fatalism is no option; ‘Inch’ Allah’ is a curse;
Submission is a disgrace.

Free yourselves. It is up to you.

Geert Wilders

RÉFÉRENCES

Coran:8;12-13 Je vais jeter l’effroi dans le coeur des incrédules: frappez sur leurs cous; frappez-les tous aux jointures. Il en fut ainsi parce qu’ils se sont séparés d’Allah et de son Prophète, Allah est terrible dans son châtiment envers celui qui se sépare d’Allah et de son Prophète.

Coran:8;60 Préparez pour lutter contre eux, tout ce que vous trouverez de forces et de cavalerie, afin d’effrayer l’ennemi d’Allah et le vôtre et d’autres encore que vous ne connaissez pas, en dehors de ceux-ci mais que Allah connaît.

Coran:33;26 Il a fait descendre de leurs forteresses ceux des gens du Livre taillées aux factions. Il a jeté l’effroi en leurs cœurs. Vous avez alors tué une partie d’entre eux et vous avez réduit les autres en esclavage.

Coran:59;12 Vous jetez certainement dans leurs cœurs plus de terreur qu’Allah lui-même parce que ce sont des gens qui ne comprennent pas.

Coran:43;15-19 Allah se serait-il donné des filles parmi les êtres qu’il a crées alors que, pour vous il aurait choisi des fils ? Lorsqu’on annonce à l’un d’entre eux la naissance de ce qu’il attribue au Miséricordieux,son visage s’assombrit, il suffoque : « Eh quoi ! cet être qui grandit parmi les colifichets et qui discute sans raison !… » Ils considèrent les Anges, seviteurs du Miséricordieux comme des femelles.

Coran:16;74 Allah sait et vous, vous ne savez pas.

Coran:42;12 Rien n’est semblable à lui.

Petite digression pour que vous puissiez admirer les enseignements du Coran :

Coran 16;76 Allah propose en parabole deux hommes : l’un est muet, il ne peut rien faire, il est à charge de son maître. Quelque lieu où celui-ci l’envoie, cet homme ne lui rapporte rien de bon. Est-il l’égal de celui qui ordonne l’équité et qui suit une voie droite ?

Dans le Coran, un homme muet « ne peut rien faire » , « il est à charge de son maître », il ne suit pas « une voie droite » il n’ « ordonne pas l’équité ». !!!!!!!!! Allah parle d’une façon insensée, il dit des bêtises : Au contraire, un muet peut faire beaucoup de choses, il n’est absolument pas à charge de son maître parce qu’il est muet, il peut lui rapporter autant que n’importe quel autre travailleur, il n’ « ordonne pas l’iniquité » parce qu’il ne parle pas et il peut suivre la « voie droite » comme n’importe qui. Mesurez la différence des enseignements du Coran et ceux des Évangiles.

Le Coran est rempli de telles absurdités et d’enseignements mauvais. Allah-Mahomet approuve le vol, le brigandage, l’esclavage, le viol, le meurtre, Allah sauve et damne qui il veut, arbitrairement, Allah se réjouit des souffrances des incrédules, Allah choisit ceux qui vont croire et ceux qui ne croiront pas sans qu’intervienne aucun libre arbitre. etc. etc.

Coran:3;31 Obéissez à Allah et à son Prophète. Mais si vous vous détournez, sachez qu’Allah n’aime pas les incrédules.

Coran :4;80 Ceux qui obéissent au Prophète obéissent à Allah.

Coran :24;62 Seuls sont croyants ceux qui croient en Allah et en son Prophète.

Coran :48;10 Ceux qui te prêtent un serment d’allégeance ne font que prêter serment à Allah. La main d’Allah est posée sur leurs mains.

Coran 57 :28 O vous les croyants ! Craignez Allah ! Croyez en son Prophète.

(Remarquez qu’ Allah parle de lui-même à la troisième personne et que partout Mahomet est l’égal d’Allah. Mahomet EST Allah et Allah EST Mahomet. Les Musulmans révèrent plus Mahomet qu’Allah lui-même. Pourtant….. Mahomet a été polythéiste dans son enfance, a commis beaucoup de « péchés », n’est pas assuré de son salut, n’a jamais fait de miracles, ne s’est jamais élevé au dessus des autres hommes comme modèle de vertu et de conduite. On n’a qu’à lire le Coran, la Sura et les Hadiths pour s’en convaincre.)

Soyez assurés que ce qui va secouer la léthargie des Musulmans au XXl siècle c'est le Jihad, la guerre contre les infidèles. L'Islam sans ennemis, sans guerre, sans pillage matériel et culturel retombe dans la médiocrité et la misère que les enseignements du Coran archaïques, arriérés et retrogrades rendent inévitables.

Bande de caves !

… C’est en 1955, l’année de Bandoeng, que la propagande anti israélienne s’exaspéra au Caire :

"Notre guerre contre les Juifs est une vieille lutte, qui débuta avec Mahomet ...Notre devoir est de nous battre contre les Juifs, pour l’amour de Dieu et de la religion, et il est de notre devoir d’achever la lutte que Mahomet a entreprise…" (Al Ahram 26-11-1955) "Dieu a rassemblé les sionistes des quatre coins du monde, de sorte que les Arabes puissent les anéantir d’un seul coup" (6-9-1956) ( p. 83-86)

C'est encore l'objectif des Islamistes et des Musulmans en général. Ils obéissent au Coran et à Mahomet. Le fond du problème palestinien est là.
Haïr, tuer, massacrer, soumettre, taxer et humilier les Juifs et les "infidèles" que nous sommes, est un devoir religieux. Lisez le Coran, "bande de caves" !

Voir un Étât israélien fort, prospère, moderne, démocratique est intolérable pour l'orgeuil Musulman quand on sait que le Coran, Mahomet, Allah les destinaient à l'avilissement, la honte, la soumission, la mort. Les Juifs font mentir Allah et Mahomet et le Coran.

Et qui vit dans la misère et l'avilissement : LES MUSULMANS !

Carter - Obama

1. 
   
   June 3rd, 2010 8:43 am
   Our 1979 by Victor Davis Hanson, Newsreal Blog
   
   The Year That Was
   It has been sort of a topos to evoke the specter of 1979. I’ve done it repeatedly, as have other observers.
   Aside from the growing stagflation in the U.S. (I remember farming that year at the ending of an inflation-driven boom), that was the year that China invaded Vietnam. Muslims assassinated the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan. Russia later invaded Afghanistan. The world seemed to have become unhinged. And there was more still.
   The shah was abandoned and soon fell, amid American proclamations of support for him on Monday, and then denunciation of his dynasty by Tuesday, and yet more leaked reports on Wednesday of reaching out to Khomeini in Paris. Soon in his death throes he would jet the globe looking for a home and a doctor, as the U.S. let the phone ring when he called.
   Soon Ayatollah Khomeini arrived in Teheran from Paris and proclaimed an Islamic revolution. Iranian students (Ahmadinejad probably among them) stormed our embassy and took hostages. In no time Ramsey Clark was denouncing America on Iran’s behalf, and rumors abounded of Carter’s backdoor deal-making to get them home at any cost before the 1980 election. (In 1980 a humiliating and disastrous rescue mission would see imams desecrating American dead on worldwide television. I recall an odious Ayatollah Sadegh Khalkhal, the hanging judge who sent thousands to the gallows, zipping open the body-bags to poke and probe the charred American corpses.)
   The Sandinistas also took over Nicaragua. Radical Islamists torched the U.S. embassy in Pakistan. I could go on, but you get the picture. In all these cases, a baffled Mr. Carter sermonized a lot, blamed a lot — and in the end retired to the Rose Garden or fought rabbits from a canoe. He seemed petulant that he had come into the world in divine fashion to save us, and we flawed mortals were unwilling to be saved by him. The so-called “malaise speech” summed up his disappointment in the rest of us.
   And after such a wonderful beginning…
   So 1979 followed two years of Carteresque utopian proclamations. Do we remember them all still? There was Cy Vance, in perfect aristocratic style, and in perpetual atonement for his earlier support of the Vietnam War, with his creased brow and sermonizing tone, bringing in the kinder, gentler order. He resigned over the failed hostage rescue, replaced by a stoic Ed Muskie. And there was Andrew Young at the UN trying to be a sort of proto-Barack Obama, reaching out to the radical Palestinians, and so on.
   Remember the commandments? No more inordinate fear of communism; human rights governing U.S. foreign policy; no more nuclear weapons housed in South Korea which was to be free of U.S. troops; outreach to the terrorist/rebel/reformer Mugabe, and so on.
   In other words, it took a flawed world about 24 months to size up the new idealistic administration, and to determine that it either could not or would not continue U.S. foreign policy of the previous three decades. Soon the more daring then decided to make “regional adjustments.” Finally a panicked Carter was attempting everything from boycotting the Olympics and arming Islamists in Afghanistan to threatening to use nuclear weapons in the Middle East and restoring draft registration to reclaim lost U.S. deterrence.
   Here we go again…
   Obama started out in similar fashion with his first al-Arabiya interview. Then followed the apology tour, the bowing, the Cairo myth-making speech, the reach out to Ahmadinejad, Assad, Castro, Chavez, and Putin, the estrangement with Israel, the neglect of the brave Iranian dissidents, the phony deadlines over Iranian proliferation, the missile defense walk-back from the Poles and Czechs, the constant Bush-bashing reset-button diplomacy rhetoric, the serial humiliation of things British, the failed deal to appease Putin in hopes of Russian help in stopping Iran from going nuclear, the new loud commitment to the UN, the promises to end all nuclear weapons, the nuke deal with Russia that saw us give up sophisticated weapons to match dismantling of poorer Russian models—all amid a backdrop of massive U.S. spending and the highest two budget deficits in American financial history.
   We have sowed and now we shall reap, and so soon we shall endure our first post-national, post-racial, Nobel Laureate president treated quite shabbily by those whom he was supposed to mesmerize. In places like Teheran or Damascus, Obama’s racial heritage, his Harvard Law Review billet, his membership in the Trinity Church, his brotherhood with Wright and Ayers, all that and more mean less than zero. To such thugs, Obama is the face of America, and he is to be tested rather than worshipped. Hugo Chavez is not a Harvard dean; Putin is not a senior Newsweek editor. Their legs do not tingle when they hear the president, except perhaps in giddy anticipation of what they might wrestle from him. They are not impressed with identity politics; they care little for degrees or titles; they have no elite white guilt. Again, Obama is just an American president who must be analyzed, tested, and if need be dared and humiliated.
   Back to 1979
   In 1979 fashion, we have seen Syria sell missiles to Hezbollah. Iran almost weekly boasts of getting nukes and ending Israel. The North Koreans torpedoed a South Korean ship, killed 46 South Koreans, and await a reply to see how this latest round of extortion works. China seems amused that its neighbors like South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan are learning from the incident that their vibrant economies don’t always translate into real power. Turkey is emerging as the new southeastern regional hegemon, as an Islamist rallying voice against Israel. U.S. nonproliferation policy has been outsourced to Brazil and Turkey. Our sanctions against Teheran are going nowhere.
   At the current rate, expect within a year or two for Iran to go nuclear (it will make North Korea’s nuclear antics and extortion seem like child’s play). Worry about some sort of Mideast war, perhaps begun with a tripartite missile shower on Israel, from Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza. China continues to expand its muscles and hopes that Japan, the Philippines, Taiwan, and South Korea drift away from a weakening U.S. protectorate. I think Turkey is de facto no longer a NATO member as we once knew it (will it evoke Article 5 if it gets into a shooting sea war with Israel?), in the manner Greece is really not a part of the EU (does anyone think it will pay back more than $150 billion at rates at or above 8%). Both stay in these organizations because their charters were obsessed with new memberships without any guide about how to expel existing members. Oddly they both seem to resent northern Europe and the U.S. almost as much as they hate each other. Expect the southern Mediterranean to be a very dangerous place, with Greece, Israel, and Turkey mixed up amid a backdrop of financial insolvency, estrangement from the U.S. and Europe, Iranian nukes, and Islamic adventurism.
   In addition a Germany, quite understandably, will begin to look out for its own interests in a way that history warns against. (I half imagine in some vault in a German bank there are trillions of Deutsche marks already printed and waiting.)
   All this will transpire, as in 1979, amid utopian rhetoric, bashing of a prior president, and angst, whining, and blame gaming that the world is not working out as it should, given that our own messianic laureate deigned to sacrifice his time and energy on their behalf.
   From 1979 to 2010
   About every 30-40 years, democratic citizenries begin to become complacent. They assume their defenses are unnecessary if not destabilizing, and take away from more needed social services and income redistribution. Deterrence and preparedness are assumed in turn the stone-age tools of unsophisticated mind. The peace that follows from past victories and postwar deterrence is considered artificial, and can instead grow far more organically from professed good intentions and signs of magnanimity, if not apology. Philosopher kings assure the world of a new age to come, one in which a new human nature replaces the old Neanderthal pessimism. Slogans that “we are the ones we have been waiting for,” “yes, we can,” “this is the moment,” and so on usher in the new golden age, free of nukes and war itself.
   Carter’s Christian self-righteousness was simply a religious variant on Wilson’s academic haughtiness; Obama’s elite condescension—human nature can be uplifted and changed if it follows the exalted behavior of our president—is a mixture of Chicago activism and the hothouse of academia.
   Again, remember 1979. I imagine that, like Carter, Obama will begin scrambling to restore deterrence, since the alternative would mean the end of his plans for amnesty, cap and trade and more expansion of the social welfare state. So expect a sudden tough line with Korea, more warnings to Iran, and in general some Carter-like posturing to make up for lost time.
   We are in a very dangerous age indeed.
   

Hypocrisie turque.

The Modern Turkish Variety of International Hypocrisy
2010 June 5

by Alexander Levkovsky
tags: Armenian Genocide, Greek pogroms, Israel, News, Politics, Tayyip Erdogan

On June 4, the pious and virtuous Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, lecturing the “cruel and heartless” Israel, publicly proclaimed:
I am openly appealing to the conscience of all humanity. During war, children should not be attacked, during war women and the elderly should not be attacked, during war civilians and religious men and women should not be attacked.
Reading this sermon, I wondered: did the words Armenian genocide cross the Prime Minister’s mind when he delivered that lofty speech? How could he appeal “to all humanity” on behalf of the Turkish society, whose history is forever spattered with the blood of innocent Armenian children and women? Didn’t he know that in 1915 his compatriots had committed the first genocide in the world history – and not against their external enemies, but against their own citizens?
The encyclopedia of the Armenian people, Armeniapedia.org, renders this description of those horrific events:
On April 25th, 1915, hundreds of Armenian leaders were murdered in Istanbul after being summoned and gathered. The now leaderless Armenian people were to follow.
[The genocide] was implemented through wholesale massacres and deportations, with the deportations consisting of forced marches under conditions designed to lead to the death of the deportees. The total number of resulting Armenian deaths is generally held to have been between one and one and a half million.
Well, maybe Mr. Prime Minister thinks that the massacre of the Armenians is not such a big deal, since it had occurred almost 100 years ago. Then what about the massacres and pogroms of Greeks, which had taken place in not so distant past? Doesn’t Mr Erdogan remember the frightful 1955 Greek pogroms in Istanbul? Doesn’t he know that the Turkish mob had been assaulting the Istanbul’s Greek community for nine horrendous hours in a row?
The New World Dictionary of the American language defines hypocrisy as “pretending to be what one is not; or to feel what one does not feel, especially, a pretense of virtue and piety.”
But his definition should be classified as the description of simple hypocrisy; and, because of its simplicity, this definition cannot be applied to Mr. Tayyip Erdogan. He is a worthy representative of the more sophisticated degree of this phenomenon – the so-called international hypocrisy.
Mr. Erdogan is not a fool; he knows very well that in confronting the gang of Islamic and Leftist thugs near the shores of Gaza on May 31 the Israeli Navy acted responsibly. Still, being the ultimate hypocrite, with all the blood of the massacred Armenians and Greeks soiling the Turkish history, he didn’t hesitate to lecture the “brutal” Israelis with this homily:
The sixth commandment says “thou shalt not kill“. Did you not understand? I’ll say again. I say in English “you shall not kill“. To slay innocent people, to treat civilians like terrorists is degradation in the eyes of humanity.
No, Mr. Erdogan, Israeli soldiers didn’t treat “civilians like terrorists”; they treated terrorists like terrorists.
And the real degradation in the eyes of humanity is to falsely accuse the truly democratic Israel by Prime Minister of the country, culpable of killing 1.5 million of its own citizens.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

An Open Letter to Turkey
by Daniel Greenfield

Dear Former Friends, Ever since you decided to trade in the Secularism of Ataturk for the Islamism of Erdogan, you also seem to have dispensed with the ability to coexist with non-Muslims on a peaceful basis. These days all we ever seem to get from you, is video clips of your leader, Prime Minister Erdogan, barking at us like a dog that its owner carelessly let off the leash. And if you don't know that Erdogan's owner lives in Riyadh, then you don't know very much of what goes on in your own country.

But your affairs are your own affairs. And our affairs are our affairs. If you want to let a fanatic in a cheap suit destroy Turkish nationalism in the name of Islam, that's your business. But when he gets into business with terrorist organizations who attack and murder our soldiers, then it's our business. And when a country that persecutes its Kurdish, Assyrian and Armenian citizens, and sends their elected representatives to jail-- presumes to self-righteously lecture us on how to manage our affairs, it had better remember that holding a stone throwing contest in a glass house will just lead to piles of broken glass.

You say you want an international investigation into the flotilla raid? Sure. Right after we have an international investigation into that minor matter of Armenian genocide that you've been ducking for quite a while. As the new "standard bearer" in fighting for human rights, I'm sure you will agree that it's only fair that Turkey should undergo the same scrutiny it demands for other countries. And then we can move on to the more than 10,000 political prisoners in your jails. A number that at times has topped 100,000. An independent investigation could also begin by looking into the torture and murder of political activists such as Engin Ceber. They could meet with representatives of TAYAD, the organization representing the families of prisoners. And they would no doubt be fascinated by the more than 1500 children in your prisoners who are there on "terrorism" charges. Like that 12 year old you arrested in 2008 for singing a Kurdish folk song.

So by all means wrap yourselves in the banner of "Human Rights" and we'll turn it into a noose and strangle you with it. In Israel, Arabs are a legally recognized minority. Arabic is taught in schools and used as a legally recognized language. Meanwhile Kurdish identity is all but banned in Turkey. Kurdish names, folk songs and even the Kurdish language itself has been repressed. Your regime has actually prosecuted and removed officials for simply incorporating a Kurdish phrase into a greeting. You screech self-righteously about the "Palestinian children"-- perhaps we should talk about the hundreds of Kurdish children arrested for throwing stones at protests. Arrested and charged with terrorism. Just more of the thousands of political prisoners of oppressed minorities in your prisons. And perhaps next time your dog Erdogan gets up to bark up at us about human rights, we can stuff this in his mouth. Jenin, the Second Lebanon War and every armed encounter between Israel and Islamic terrorists over the last 20 years combined together killed fewer people, than your country did in 1997 alone. After you get through lecturing us on the use of force against Islamic terrorists, shall we discuss how many times you used jets to bomb Kurdish rebels who were lightly armed at best. Including in 2008 when you invaded sovereign Iraqi soil in order to continue your genocide of the Kurdish people. You talk about stolen land, when your entire country is stolen land, from Cyprus to Istanbul. Your regime is a racist illegitimate entity based on the oppression of the Kurds, the Armenians, the Assyrians, the Circassians and numerous others. You went directly from being Imperialists to Fascists to Islamists, a truly dubious achievement for any nation.

Your history is filled with slavery, ethnic cleansing, genocide and invasion. And that's just in the last century alone.

If you had any sanity or shame, you would dig a hole, crawl into it, and hope that no one mentions words like "Minority Rights" or "Territorial Legitimacy" in your presence, instead of trying to use them as a club against a nation whose national history predates yours by thousands of years.

We had kingdoms and a civilization that changed the world, back when your ancestors were still trying to decide whether to eat the sheep or rape it. But let us get back to your precious Islamist flotilla, decorated with Turkish flags that used to be more than just red versions of the Saudi flag. That ship you filled up with Muslim Brotherhood members and Islamist radicals bound for our shores. Over in your wonderful nation of boundless freedom, reporters have been put on trial for even interviewing leaders of terrorist groups. You sentenced the head of a Kurdish party to six months in prison for calling the head of the PKK, Mr. Ocalan, instead of just Ocalan. He joins the more than 800 Kurdish politicians you imprisoned in the last year alone. And after all that you actually have the nerve to pretend to be "outraged" when Israel intercepts your flotilla full of political terrorists? But of course we know how strongly you feel about blockades. Like the time you blockaded Armenia for Sixteen Years. Very well then. If you insist on sending vessels flying the Turkish flag to aid Hamas, perhaps we'll begin sending vessels flying the Israeli flag to aid the PKK. We're not big fans of the PKK, but since you've decided to friend Hamas, then what's good for the turkey, just might be good for the gander. We can also fill a flotilla full of senile troublemakers, phony survivors and leftist radicals-- along with a few hundred well armed "activists" who know how to use a knife. Or perhaps we won't bother with any of that. Instead for every boat flying the Turkish flag that invades our territory, we'll donate a million to the PKK. I wonder how many rocket launchers that would buy. Perhaps the next time, your air force sweeps in to bomb Kurds out of their homes, they might get a surprise or two. And then there's the Republic of Cyprus, which has actually been helping us stop weapons smuggling. They might benefit from significantly upgraded air defenses. While the US insists on equalizing weapons sales to Turkey and Greece, we just might have something tastier to offer to one side. And the citizens of the Republic of Cyprus might actually be able to sleep soundly in their beds, instead of being intimidated by savages showing off their F-16's over their heads. The Cyprus National Guard likes our drones, just like you do. But what if they had a much better equalizer at their disposal? Being a small non-Muslim nation surrounded by much larger Muslim countries, we do have a certain fondness for the infidel underdog. Oh I know, what you're going to say. This means war. But you might want to consider that we've fought and beaten enemies many times our size. And what exactly was the last war you won single-handedly? And no, bombing starving Kurdish rebels from the air, or occupying Cyprus doesn't count. And how long could you fight that war, before a domestic Kurdish insurgency overthrows your little empire. If that doesn't happen, you might want to think about the big Russian bear at your back. The bear has been eyeing you for a long time now. And with your military engaged in a disastrous war for the Great Caliphate, your borders would be temptingly open. And who exactly would bail you out then? Oh I know you've made many great news friends, such as Ahmadinejad and that nice burnoosed king in the Arabian Desert, who tells your Erdogan when to jump and how high, but if you think Iran is about to pass up Russian nukes in order to bail you out, you've got another thing coming.

Meanwhile old Abdullah in the desert can't even protect himself without the US Marines. And if you think Obama would send them in to save your asses, you've got another thing coming. I'm sure if there were Russian tanks headed to Ankara, he'd make a vocal statement about it. And Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov would pretend not to laugh while hanging up the phone. There is of course the European Union. Last time Russia pulled that trick, it was Britain that bailed you out in the Crimean War. But these days Her Majesty's Empire isn't quite in the same shape it used to be. Sure Cameron, Clegg and Harman will lick Erdogan's feet. But none of them want to be the next Tony Blair either. Germany doesn't like you very much anymore. Perhaps that time when it got enmeshed in WW1 to protect your Ottoman Empire may have put them off. Or your internal campaign of subversion exploiting Germany's horde of Turkish laborers. What are you left with then? France, Italy or perhaps Austria will forget that whole pesky Gates of Vienna thing and this time ride to your rescue. No, when Russian commandos are ripping off your wife's Burqa-- there will be no one left to save you. Not your newfound allies, or Erdogan who will take the first plane to Riyadh, with as many Lira as his sweaty hands can shove into the pockets of his cheap suit. And just think of it, as the Hagia Sophia church that you turned into a mosque, will become a church again. Istanbul will once again be Constantinople, which means a certain catchy 20's song will require a rewrite. Of course it may not happen exactly that way. But it will happen. Erdogan's plan to suppress and integrate Kurds into a Muslim Turkey will not succeed. And his antagonizing of former allies means that Turkey is exchanging friends, for enemies. Meanwhile your new friends happen to share borders with you and have territorial claims on your land.

So when that day of reckoning comes, you will find that you have made enemies of former allies such as Israel and the US-- and that the new allies Erdogan has found for you in Iran and Syria would prefer a Russian controlled Turkey, that has no chance of ever reverting to a Kemalist government. And Erdogan's godfather in Saudi Arabia commands oil money, not troops. And while he might be willing to sink Turkey for the sake of Islam, perhaps there are Turks who value their nation, more than Islamism. If not, you can look forward to Erdogan "reforming" your country, until it has the military might of Pakistan, the literacy level of Saudi Arabia and the poverty rate of Egypt. It is of course your choice. A people have the right to choose their destiny, for good or ill.

And if you find that this letter is filled with contempt, it is a contempt fully merited by a regime that seeks to cloak its shameful betrayal of a former ally in the guise of human rights, when it brutally suppresses the rights of its own minorities. You may wish to go on dancing to the tune being played by Erdogan, to sheet music composed in Riyadh. It is a very good tune. Filled with hate, violence and religious fanaticism. That also is your choice. But know that whatever you have was bought and paid by your ancestors who understood that Turkey would either modernize out of the gutter of Islam, or it would be washed away by the colonial tide. Your power does not come from Islam, it comes from the bread crusts of civilization that fall from the table of Europe. Abandon them for the red hued madness of the Jihad, and you will not rule over an empire, but over a wasteland. If you doubt that, look to the south and to the east. Look to the desert. You came from there once. And if you throw away civilization for the fanatical madness of Islam-- you will return there again. Sincerely Yours A Descendant of a Subject of the Ottoman Empire

Daniel GreenfieldCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.