The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Islam on My Mind

I’ve been criticized by some
readers as having “Islam on the brain.” It’s not a very kind
criticism considering the seriousness of the Islamic jihad against them and me and everyone else in the West. Why, my
critics ask, don’t I devote myself to more important topics such as President
Barack Obama’s assault on freedom of speech, on his assault on private
ownership of guns, on the government’s assault on private property, on Obamacare,
on Holder’s Fast & Furious, and so on?

I don’t know where these
readers have been, but I’ve logged in over 500 columns on those and many more
subjects on Rule of Reason alone. I think I am well versed in the damage Obama
and Company have wrought domestically, never mind the twisted alchemy of their
foreign policies, and have written extensively on both phenomena. I’ve been
excoriating Obama ever since he poked his head out of Illinois many years ago
in a stage-managed debut at the 2004 Democratic
Convention
.

A faraway friend lamented the
shortsightedness of my critics, as well, saying they lacked my
“metaphysical intelligence.”

That being said – I’ve penned
close to a million words on all those subjects over the years, including movies,
TV series, book reviews, etc.; I write these columns gratis, thank you very much – I offer this roundup of things
Islamic.

The Beast That Bites the Hand that Feeds It

Winston Churchill wrote:  An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile,
hoping it will eat him last.

Raymond Ibrahim, writing for
the Middle East Forum on May 23rd, addresses the question of
crocodiles in “The Calm
Before the Jihadi Storm
“: Where did these killers come from?  Who enabled them? What have they up their
sleeves? If they are crocodiles, why are we still feeding them?

There is no good news, he
writes.

On
this Memorial Day, it’s important to remember that the very same U.S. policies
that created al-Qaeda in Afghanistan in the 1980s – leading to the horrific
attacks of 9/11 – are today allowing al-Qaeda to metastasize all around the
Muslim world. As in the 80s, these new terrorist cells are quietly gathering
strength now, and are sure to deliver future terror strikes that will make 9/11
seem like child’s play.

In
the 1980s, the U.S. supported Afghani rebels – among them the jihadis – to repel
the Soviets. Osama bin Laden, Ayman Zawahiri, and countless foreign jihadis
journeyed to Afghanistan to form a base of training and planning – the first
prerequisite of the jihad, as delineated in Sayyid Qutb’s Milestones.

 Al-Qaeda
– which tellingly means “the base” – was born. The U.S. supported
al-Qaeda, they defeated the Soviets, shook hands with Reagan, Afghanistan
became ruled by the Taliban, and for many years all seemed well.

Read the rest of Ibrahim’s
article. It is one of the most compact, incisive and hard-hitting indictments
of our foreign policy I’ve read anywhere.

But
if Reagan helped create the first al-Qaeda cell in relatively unimportant
Afghanistan, Obama is helping to create numerous, more emboldened, al-Qaeda
cells in some of the most important Islamic nations. He is doing this by
helping get rid of Arab autocrats who were effective at suppressing jihadis…while
empowering some of the most radical jihadis who were formerly imprisoned or in
hiding.

And
all in the name of the “Arab Spring” and “democracy.”

This caliber of exposé makes
one question the “metaphysical intelligence” of our political
leadership. But then, our political leadership is not noted for its grasp of
reality or its recognition of causo-connections. So what if the logic is
apparent? they’d protest. What difference does it make? When you boil it down
to the essentials discussed by Ibrahim, it’s the difference between our lives
and our deaths. The appeasers are feeding us to the Islamic crocodile.

The Inbred Insanity of Islam

Europe News in August 2010
ran an interesting article on the worldwide gene pool of Muslims, “Muslim Inbreeding: Impacts on
intelligence, sanity, health and society
,” by Danish psychologist
Nicolai Sennels. Sennels wastes no time establishing his thesis:

Massive inbreeding
within the Muslim culture during the last 1.400 years may have done
catastrophic damage to their gene pool. The consequences of intermarriage
between first cousins often have serious impact on the offspring’s
intelligence, sanity, health and on their surroundings.

We make light of the Hatfield
and McCoy clans of Appalachia gunning for each other over who had an
unauthorized roll in the hay with someone else’s first cousin. But our
Hatfields and McCoys are not flying planes into skyscrapers or preparing
pressure cookers to blow up in Boston. Muslims are.

The high amount of mentally retarded and
handicapped royalties throughout European history shows the unhealthy
consequences of this practice. Luckily, the royal families have now allowed
themselves to marry for love and not just for status.

The Muslim culture still practices inbreeding and
has been doing so for longer than any Egyptian dynasty. This practice also
predates the world’s oldest monarchy (the Danish) by 300 years.

A rough estimate shows that close to half of all
Muslims in the world are inbred: In Pakistan, 70 percent of all marriages are
between first cousins (so-called “consanguinity”) and in Turkey the
amount is between 25-30 percent (Jyllands-Posten, 27/2 2009 More
stillbirths among immigrants”
)

The Turks and the Pakistanis
are not the only ones guilty of marrying the cousin next door.

Statistical research on Arabic countries shows
that up to 34 percent of all marriages in Algiers are consanguine (blood
related), 46 percent in Bahrain, 33 percent in Egypt, 80 percent in Nubia
(southern area in Egypt), 60 percent in Iraq, 64 percent in Jordan, 64 percent
in Kuwait, 42 percent in Lebanon, 48 percent in Libya, 47 percent in
Mauritania, 54 percent in Qatar, 67 percent in Saudi Arabia, 63 percent in
Sudan, 40 percent in Syria, 39 percent in Tunisia, 54 percent in the United
Arabic Emirates and 45 percent in Yemen (Reproductive Health Journal, 2009 Consanguinity and reproductive health among Arabs.)

A large part of inbred Muslims are born from
parents who are themselves inbred – which increase the risks of negative mental
and physical consequences greatly.

The consequences are fairly
evident, too, and can be seen during those noisy and noisome mass
demonstrations against freedom of speech and in the criminal activities of
Muslims in the way of honor killings, rapes, assaults on infidels in their own cities,
and in just general hell-raising when something happens in the West that
offends Muslims and sends them into the streets wielding meat cleavers and guns.

If you look into the eyes of
a Muslim who is shouting “Death to blasphemers!” do you see intelligence
or the dark soul of a “drooling beast”? We will never know for sure,
because, for example, the Swedish
authorities
seem to be reluctant to take a genealogical survey in between
burned out cars and torched buildings, but probably if they braved a survey
they would find that a high percentage of the rioting “youths” are
products of inbreeding. It can help to account for their behavior. Which
doesn’t excuse them, of course.

Sennells’ paper is long but
not dry reading. It is chock full of interesting information about the
consequences of Muslim inbreeding. Unfortunately, he ends his paper with a call
for a legislative ban on first cousin marriages in the Muslim world, in the
European Union, and in other Western countries, which, he says, would be
logical and compassionate.

A more logical and
compassionate move would be to ban further Muslim immigration into the West and
to offer tickets home whence they came to any Muslims unhappy with living under
secular law.

Mommy! Johnny Stuck His Tongue Out at Me! Or, Islamic
Grievance-Mongers

Videos of Muslim funerals in
the Mideast show men shouting with maniacal and bellicose anger in their grief
over the death of another Muslim. This is odd behavior because the Muslim
assumption is that life on earth is transient and the deceased is now happier
in Allah’s paradise. So, why are they angry? It is in direct opposition to the
typical, quiet Christian form of grief, usually expressed that the deceased has
gone to a better life. Is Islamic “grief” synonymous with
“grievance”?

Peter Huessy, in his
Gatestone article of May 30th, “The
‘Grievances’ Defense
,” examines the regular fall-back explanation of
Islamic “grievances” as the root of Islamic terrorism.  The government, the MSM, and Islamic
spokesmen all subscribe to the “Grievances Defense.” Huessy warns
that whether or not the “grievances” are legitimate – and they are
not – then we face what Ibrahim in his article described as a “jihadi
storm.”

The
April terrorist attacks during the Boston Marathon killed and wounded scores of
people. Machete-wielding thugs last week butchered a British soldier in full
view of citizens on a London street. Simultaneously, in Sweden, a full five
days of riots have seen burned cars, banks and schools, and assaulted citizens.
These attacks raise the uncomfortable question: “Why are we being
attacked?”

A
newly announced American policy to deal with such threats involves
“addressing grievances and conflicts” that feed what is described as
“extremism.”

What is the common
denominator of all the “grievances” cited by the government, the MSM,
and Islamic spokesmen? American actions ranging from American intervention in
Iraq and Afghanistan to alleged anti-Muslim “backlashes” to a lack of
respect for Islam and Muslims, coupled with a bigoted “misunderstanding”
of Muslim immigrants.

Even
now, many weeks after the Boston Marathon bombing, the “Blame
America” syndrome is on full display. The New York Times charged
that the US had failed to assimilate the bombers’ family, implying presumably,
“What could anyone expect them to do other then bomb the Boston
Marathon?”

Then
the bombers were humanized. They were described as friendly school chums,
attractive to women. The New York Times compared one of the bombers to
the hero of that classic American book Catcher in the Rye, Holden
Caulfield. Then came the “self-actualization” explanation for
terrorism: apparently, as the two brothers were not members of any terrorist
group but possibly just lone-wolf types, America had failed to
“assimilate” them properly — implying that their bombing was
somehow our fault.

That
rationalization was followed by strenuous efforts to avoid making any
connection to their Islamic background, their travel to Dagestan, and their
connection to a nearby Boston mosque from which a half dozen members and key
leaders have been convicted of terrorist acts in the past decade.

What underlies this
“blame America first” mantra?

This
compulsion to explain terrorism as driven by grievances against America
continues as the politically correct
narrative
. If “legitimate grievances” motivate terrorists, the
thinking apparently goes, then such terrorism is justified. [Italics mine.]

If
grievances explain terrorism, the implication is that removing these grievances
would remove the terrorism.

Political correctness in
thought and speech stunts the mind, encourages the dismissal of truth, and
guarantees the deleterious consequences of appeasement. Huessy demonstrates
that even though the U.S. (and the West) have bent over backwards to correct
these “grievances” to the point of threatening to up-end the First
Amendment and subjecting American troops to suicidal “rule of
engagement” in Afghanistan to avoid civilian casualties, terrorism has not
only continued but has increased in frequency. Huessy concludes his article
with

If…the
driving force behind terrorist attacks on the United States is a strategy to
harm the United States and other Western nations, to eliminate their presence
in the Middle East or terrorize them into agreeing to live under the laws of
Islam, a credible case can be argued that the U.S. and its allies have the
right of self-defense.

This
is even truer if the threat the West faces is a force that seeks to establish
totalitarian Islam throughout the Muslim world, then everywhere else. If the
tip of the spear may indeed be a nuclear weapon, let us rethink what it means
to “provide for the common defense.”

Islamic
“grievances” are endless. Islamic grievance-mongers can point to any
little thing and either behead another infidel in protest or file a lawsuit in
an American court. Our political leaders shy away from any notion of
“self-defense” because to concede its necessity would be to
acknowledge that Islam is the enemy. This they refuse to do. See my column
Why
Liberals Love Islam
” for a discussion.

The Psycho
Syndrome of Islam

While both films are
touchstones of cinematic technical excellence, Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho is not one of my favorite movies,
nor is his The Birds. While the
latter film depicts nature gone mad (it could be called the first ecological
horror film), the former is more germane to our theme here.

Psycho is
the great-grandfather of scores of copycat films of diminishing quality over
the decades. It presents Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) who runs an
out-of-the-way motel and apparently has little contact with the outside world.
His alternate persona is governed by
his dead mother. “She” comes to life when temptation crosses his
path. The voyeuristic sight of Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) in semi-undress in
one of his motel rooms triggers in Norman an urge to kill and eliminate the
temptation. A cross-dressed Bates stabs her to death in the shower, then
disposes of her body and car in a neighboring swamp. A detective, Arbogast
(Martin Balsam), investigating Crane’s disappearance is also murdered by
Bates-as-Mother, to protect Norman from the consequences of his actions.

Norman Bates is subsequently
deemed mentally ill and committed to a prison for the criminally insane.

The parallels with Islam here
are fairly obvious. The Bates Motel is Islamic culture. Islam is Norman Bates
who is compelled to kill whatever doesn’t comport with Islam’s
death-worshipping doctrine (because Allah commands it). Marion Crane is the temptation,
the uncovered infidel female. Detective Arbogast is the truth-seeker and
truth-teller who criticizes Islam. Call him Salman Rushdie or Kurt Westergaard
or Geert Wilders. Or filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was actually stabbed to death on the streets of Amsterdam in 2004.

Islam fosters a special kind
of mental illness that can lay latent and fester in any Muslim until it erupts
in criminally insane behavior. Like Norman Bates, who on the outside is a nice,
congenial, harmless guy, the average Muslim is someone you can’t really know.

Nicolai Sennels pursues this
psychological angle, as well, in “Muslims
and Westerners: The Psychological Differences
.” He interviewed 150
Muslim and 100 non-Muslim prisoners in a Danish prison and published his
findings in Criminal Muslims: A
Psychologist’s Experiences from the Copenhagen Municipality
in 2009 (published
by the Free Press Society – strangely, not to be found on any Amazon Books
site, including Denmark’s). He discusses the archetypical character traits of
the average Muslim: anger, locus of control, self-reflection, the role of
“honor,” and Muslim identity. Sennels writes:

After
having consulted with 150 young Muslim clients in therapy and 100 Danish
clients (who, on average, shared the same age and social background as their
Muslim inmates), my findings were that the Muslims’ cultural and religious
experiences played a central role in their psychological development and
criminal behavior.

Discussing
psychological characteristics of the Muslim culture is important. Denmark has
foreigners from all over the world and according to official statistics from Danmarks Statistik all non-Muslim groups of immigrants are less criminal than
the ethnic Danes. Even after adjusting, according to educational and economic
levels, all Muslim groups are more criminal than any other ethnic group. Seven
out of 10, in the youth prison where I worked, were Muslim.

On the subject of anger and
angry threats, Sennels distinguishes the Western attitude towards anger from
the Muslim practice of it. Unbridled anger over mundane issues, he writes, in
the West is symptomatic of a character weakness. In Muslim culture, such anger
is a mark of strength, manliness, and honor.

In
the eyes of most Westerners it looks immature and childish when people try to
use threatening behavior, to mark their dislikes. A Danish saying goes
“…Only small dogs bark. Big dogs do not have to.” That saying is
deeply rooted in our cultural psychology as a guideline for civilized social
behavior. To us, aggressive behavior is a clear sign of weakness. It is a sign
of not being in control of oneself and lacking ability to handle a situation.
We see peoples’ ability to remain calm as self confidence, allowing them to
create a constructive dialogue. Their knowledge of facts, use of common sense
and ability in producing valid arguments is seen as a sign of strength.

With Muslims, however,
knowledge of facts, civil behavior, common sense, and the willingness and
ability to calmly debate or argue a point are all signs of weakness. Muslims
would rather resort to breast-beating bravado, insults, making a lot of noise
about their “grievances,” or settle for actual physical assaults, all
while playing the “victim” card. This behavior is bizarre to most
Westerners and not quite understood by them.

This
cultural difference is exceedingly important when dealing with Muslim regimes
and organizations. Our way of handling political disagreement goes through
diplomatic dialogue, and calls on Muslim leaders to use compassion, compromise
and common sense. This peaceful approach is seen by Muslims as an expression of
weakness and lack of courage. Thus avoiding the risks of a real fight is seen
by them as weakness; when experienced in Muslim culture, it is an invitation to
exploitation.

A thorough and daily
immersion in Islam and its social culture encourages the development of a
religious resistance to adjusting to Western culture and a conscious rejection
of the idea of assimilation into it, a resistance and rejection encouraged by
not a few mosques and their manipulative imams in the West.

Western culture also has had
the virtue of imbuing an individual with a sense of personal responsibility for
his happiness, success, failures, and goals. Islamic culture, on the other
hand, fosters a sense of helplessness and a habitual shifting of blame for his
unhappiness, failures, and dubious goals to external forces beyond his control.
Westerners are astonished when convicted jihadists
express no guilt for their crimes, and, indeed, defiantly boast of them.
Sennels writes:

In
societies shaped under Islamic and Qu’ranic influences there may be fewer feelings
of guilt and thus, more freedom to demand the surroundings to adapt to one’s
own wishes and desires. This may include demands to wear Islamic costumes which
can result in more Muslim demands for Islamization of our Western societies,
but it is also a powerful source of victim mentality and leads to endless
demands on one’s surroundings. In a very concrete way this cultural tendency,
shows itself in therapy, as a lack of remorse. The standard answer from violent
Muslims was always: “…It is his own fault that I beat him up. He provoked
me.” Such excuses show that people experience their own reactions as
caused by external factors and not by their own emotions, motivation and free
will.

Again, Sennels’ paper is a
long but insightful read into the mentality of Muslims, “moderate,”
“extremist,” and anything in between.

Chechnyan Attacks FBI Agent with Fingernails, Is
Unconstitutionally Shot

The Washington
Post
had this headline on May 29th, about a friend of Tamerlan
Tsarnaev, who was killed while being arrested (actually by his fleeing brother,
Dzhokhar, in an SUV) for the Boston Marathon bombing of April
15th: “
Officials: Man who knew Boston bombing suspect was unarmed when shot.”

An air of mystery has surrounded the FBI shooting
of Ibragim Todashev, 27, since it occurred in Todashev’s apartment early on the
morning of May 22. The FBI said in a news release that day that Todashev, a
former Boston resident who knew bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was killed
during an interview with several law enforcement officers.

In its only statement about the Todashev’s
shooting, which was issued on the day of the incident, the FBI said that an
agent, along with two Massachusetts State Police troopers and other law
enforcement personnel, were interviewing “an individual” in connection with the
Boston Marathon bombing investigation when a “violent confrontation was
initiated by the individual.” The agent sustained non-life-threatening
injuries, later described by one law enforcement official as “some cuts and
abrasions.”

Initial reports citing anonymous law-enforcement
sources provided conflicting accounts of what happened. Some law enforcement
officials said Todashev wielded a knife and others suggested that he attempted
to grab the FBI agent’s gun.

The term “unarmed” insinuates
that the FBI agent had a gun, while poor helpless Todashev was
“unarmed,” except perhaps for a knife, or his fists, or his fingernails,
with which to inflict those “cuts and abrasions.” Such usage is par
for the course in an MSM committed to white-washing Islamists and Muslims and
characterizing jihadist-fighting authorities as trigger-happy morons.

In any event, the FBI had no
reason to shoot the Chechnyan unless he attacked the agents and posed a
life-threatening threat to them. He was a treasure trove of information about
other Chechnyans and cohorts of the Tsarnaev brothers. I’m certain that a
thoroughly trained FBI agent won’t shoot a terrorism-related suspect if the
suspect simply assaults him with Chechnyan or Russian or Arabic maledictions.
Or even with broken English ones.  

And no one has any reason to
read this column unless he is seriously concerned about the threat of Islam and
its ongoing invasion of the U.S. at the invitation and with the blessing of our
totalitarianism-friendly government. Those in denial of that threat are already
dhimmis and I do not speak to them.

Previous

“Islam’s Reign of Terror”: An Excerpt

Next

The Stinking Badges of Our Federales

2 Comments

  1. Ilene Skeen

    Excellent piece! I wonder if Muslim's posturing against death of their own has to do with arriving in Muslim heaven without the requisite number of Infidels killed before they die. A peaceful, responsible Muslim gets no points for leading a fruitful life, but a killer of infidels is a hero for all eternity. Thus, every Muslim death is a tragedy, and every non-Muslim death is justified.

  2. Edward Cline

    I haven't a clue to the reason behind Muslim funeral hysterics. I guess it's just the tribal way of "grieving." They look so contrived, especially when Muslims know a camera is present. Much of the photography coming from Gaza, the West Bank, and now Syria looks so staged it's pathetic. It's on a par with that "Innocence of Muslims" trailer that Clinton and Obama claimed was responsible for the Benghazi attack.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén