Islamism, “The Naked Emperor”, and The “Useful Idiots” of Canada
by Sergei Bourachaga
For the last two decades, in private conversations and public forums, I have often argued that what infuriates me the most in the rise of Islamic fundamentalism is not the demonisation and dehumanisation the Koran promotes against the infidels of this world who reject the message of the desert bandit known as Prophet Mohammad. Instead my ire is aroused by the stupidity of many Westerners, mostly naïve idealists born and raised in Western democracies, who espouse the self-deceiving notion that Islam is the religion of peace, who insist that the West deserves the tragedies inflicted on it by Muslim radicals, and who harbour a pathological contempt for the democratic values and principles that have shaped and coloured the Western way of life. Within their ranks you will encounter leftists and left-leaning liberal intellectuals, lawyers, political figures, university professors, journalists, etc. In other words, individuals who shape minds and attitudes in the very institutions entrusted with the protection of the Western way of life.
Throughout history, the previously described group played a significant destructive role in every major historical event, from hastening the demise of the Roman Empire to the rise of the Bolsheviks in the Russian Revolution and their successful elimination of the Tsarist regime. Though they always existed in the annals of history, it was Lenin who first called this group the “Useful Idiots” of the revolution, who would sell to his Communist regime the very rope it needed to hang the capitalists of the world and the democracies that support them. During the Cold War, these useful idiots served as apologists for Soviet expansionism, and with their unending diatribes attacked all things Western, and though all of them in the comfort of their living room couches were enjoying the very best Western democracies offered in terms of supremacy of the law, individual freedoms protected by a constitution or bill of rights, the total independence of the judicial system, etc. Many of them left their professions (physician, lawyer, writer, …) to become guerrilla fighters and leaders dedicated to the worldwide triumph of Communism.
Most of them were disappointed when, during trips to the Soviet Union, they were exposed to the miserable realities of the daily pain and frustrations experienced by the average person on the street. On rare occasions, isolated voices from the ranks of the Western idiots condemned the long agonizing line-ups to buy the basic essentials of daily survival, the empty shelves in major department stores, the rampant corruption and nepotism within the ranks of the Communist Party, from the Politburo to the commissars of the army, and, last but not least, the brutal repression employed the KGB to silence dissent and maintain the illusion/deception that communism had managed to create a utopian paradise on earth.
All the “Useful Idiots”/parasites of the Western democracies took the very best the Western civilization had offered in every major area of human endeavour, from medicine to advanced agricultural methods, from the conquest of most communicable diseases to freedom of thought and worship, and denounced the very values that were the pillars upon which our freedoms in the West rested — the values inherited from the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Today the West is no longer facing the threat of the hammer and sickle, but a formidable new enemy, more brutal and bloodthirsty than the KGB, has focused its attention on the West for the last two decades and declared a war of terror, a war of attrition that will be waged mercilessly until the West is destroyed and the green banner of the prophet of Islam flies triumphantly on every acre of soil conquered by the dedicated soldiers of Allah. The “Useful Idiots” of Canada, from politicians with a vested interest in appeasing Islamic radicalism, to leftists waving the flag of multiculturalism and the marvels of the Canadian ethnic mosaic, have refused to hear the drums of war, and have been quick to accuse those ringing the alarm bells as “Islamophobes overreacting to excesses committed by a few misguided radical Muslims, and labelling their isolated violence as WAR.”
Let us for a moment dissect the previous accusation and see if a thorough scrutiny based on the rules of “cold logic” and historical longitudinal analysis can assign any merit to it. First, let us direct our attention “to excesses committed by a few”. Atrocities committed in the name of Allah during and since 9/11 cannot be labelled as mere “excesses” when the death toll is in the thousands. Only a full-blown war waged over a period of time leads to heavy casualties in the thousands. My starting point in history will be the tragedy of 9/11 with a death toll of 3,000 infidels.
| October 12, 2002 | The simultaneous bombing of two night clubs (Sari’s Club, Paddi’s Pub) in Bali, Indonesia, frequented mostly by Western infidels (Australian). Death toll 202, 240 injured and maimed. The soldiers of Allah who committed this pious act of revenge belonged to the “Jemaah Islamiah”. | |
| October 23, 2002 | The Moscow Theatre (House of Culture) hostage crisis in Russia. 50 heavily armed Chechen Islamists occupied the theatre and took 850 patrons hostage. The ordeal ended with a death toll of 129 hostages and 39 attackers. | |
| March 11, 2004 | Madrid Commuter Train Bombing, Spain. Death toll 210 infidels, 2050 injured. The soldiers of Allah who masterminded and executed this savagery belonged to “Al Jihad Al Salafi” a North African Islamist movement loosely affiliated with Al Qaeda. | |
| September 01, 2004 | Beslan School Massacre, Russian Federation. Chechen soldiers of Allah, under the command of a thug named Shamil Basayev, reached the town of Beslan in North Ossetia on Sept.01/04 and took 1,100 infidels hostage (including 750 children) in a school. After 3 days of non-productive negotiations, Russian Security Forces in an ill-planned attack stormed the school. The Islamic militants detonated explosive charges placed in a dozen critical locations inside the school, and the carnage that followed resulted in a death toll of 385 infidel hostages, including 304 children, 21 Russian Special Forces, and 783 maimed and injured (hostages and security forces combined). | |
| July 7, 2005 | Underground Trains Bombing and a Double Decker in London, England. Death toll 52 infidels, 4 Islamic martyrs/suicide bombers, 705 commuters and innocent bystanders injured. In a videotape delivered by Al Qaeda to the Arab owned Al Jazeera station, and aired on September 1, 2005 Mohammad Sidique Khan, one of the suicide bombers conveyed this message to the West: “I and thousands like me are forsaking everything for what we believe. Our drive and motivation doesn’t come from tangible commodities that this world has to offer. Our religion is Islam, obedience to the one true God and following the footsteps of the final prophet messenger. Your democratically-elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters. Until we feel security you will be our targets and until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight. We are at war and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation.” | |
| July 11, 2006 | Mumbai Train Bombings, India. Explosive devices were placed by Lashkar-e-Taiba (an Islamic terrorist organization based in Pakistan) and The Students Islamic Movement of India inside commuter trains linking towns and villages to central Mumbai. Death toll 210 infidels, 714 injured. | |
| November 26, 2008 | Coordinated Mumbai Attacks (known also in the media as India’s 26/11). Masterminded by Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Pakistan-based Islamic militant organisation and extensively supported by Pakistani Intelligence (ISI), 10 soldiers of Allah used a speed boat to reach Mumbai and for three days rampaged and killed innocent infidels in train and bus terminals, hotels, a cafe, a hospital, and a synagogue. Death toll of the massacres on Nov. 29/08 was 164 infidels and 308 were wounded. For the purpose of this article, I will devote several paragraphs to the synagogue attack to undermine and contradict the argument made by “useful idiots” that the synagogue was selected because it represented a “soft target” or a “target of opportunity” for the Islamic militants from Pakistan, when in reality it was strictly a symbol of hatred and contempt harboured by every Muslim militant for the Jews. |
The Nariman House, also known as the Mumbai Chabad House, located in the Colaba area of southern Mumbai, housed an educational cultural centre, a synagogue, a Jewish outreach office offering counselling and drug prevention program to locals, and a hostel providing modest accommodation to Jews from Israel on business trips in India. On November 26, 2008, two Islamist terrorists seized the building and several residents were held hostage. The following day, the house was stormed by Indian Army commandos. After a long battle that lasted several hours the terrorists were killed, but before they died they executed Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg and his wife Rivka Holtzberg, who was six months pregnant.
What is significant in this tragedy is not the death of a Rabbi or his pregnant wife. In Israel and many Western capitals where Jews were taken hostage, a large volume of well-documented records exist of similar brutal attacks targeting Jewish religious figures and their family members. What is of significant importance in the Chabad House butchery is the radio transmissions intercepted by the Indian Intelligence community, detailing conversations involving the two Islamist attackers and their handlers in Pakistan. Prior to and during the attack Pakistani handlers pointed out to the attackers that “… the heavenly rewards for taking the lives of Jews are worth 50 times those of non-Jews.” The same passages taken from The Hadith were recited again and again to the attackers:
Hadith number 5200 in Sahih Muslim
Ibn ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with them, reported:
Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: You will fight against the Jews and you will kill them until even a stone will say: Come here, Muslim, there is a Jew hiding himself behind me; kill him.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 191
Narrated Anas bin Malik
The Prophet said, “Nobody who dies and finds good from Allah (in the Hereafter) would wish to come back to this world even if he were given the whole world and whatever is in it, except the martyr who, on seeing the superiority of martyrdom, would like to come back to the world and get killed again in Allah’s cause.
Beyond any reasonable doubt, the intercepts collected by the Indian Intelligence community indicate clearly the level of hatred every pious Islamist harbours for Jews. Whether he ever met a Jew, or had any form of contact with Judaism is irrelevant. If the Prophet of Islam, based on instructions conveyed by Allah, says the Jew is the worst enemy of the believer, then every Islamist on this planet has a sacred duty to kill the Jew.
I am not going to bore readers with more statistical figures about the atrocities the soldiers of Allah committed in Israel and the end results of their suicide attacks on innocent civilians, to emphasize the reality that what Islam has been doing since 9/11 (and even earlier in the case of Israel) is waging a “Holy War”. Instead I will provide a statement by the founder of Hamas, Sheik Ahmed Yassin, who proudly pointed out to the international press on more than one occasion that “There’s a war going on not just against Israeli occupation but against all secular governments including the Palestinian authority because there is no such thing as a secular state in Islam” . Sheikh Yassin’s Friday’s sermons carried always in different forms and colours the venomous rhetoric that “Reconciliation with the Jews is a crime… and Israel must disappear from the map… We chose this road, and will end with martyrdom or victory.”
Despite statements by radical Islamic movements that secularism and Islam are anathema, the useful idiots of Canada and other secular democracies are still entertaining the delusional thought that the West has a moral obligation to accommodate the intolerance and contempt Islam harbours for the entire Judeo-Christian tradition that gave birth to Western secular democracies. Hegel was absolutely correct when he insisted that “What experience and history teach us is this-that people and governments have never learnt anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.” Had the useful idiots of Canada learnt anything from history, they would have scrutinized the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the concerted efforts it invested in obliterating the secular Left within a very short period of time, and last but not least the fact that today it is acquiring the atomic bomb and thus preparing for the climactic end of history, when evil will be violently eradicated with the destruction of the State of Israel and all the democracies that have sustained its survival since 1948.
The Islamic revolution in Iran may not be a good example for the “useful idiots” of Canada, since one of the key traits of “Useful Idiots” is historical amnesia — any event that did not happen within the last five years is totally forgotten. Let us shed some light on more recent revolutions where secular idiots from all walks of life joined forces with Islamist parties to overthrow dictators such as Colonel Gaddafi of Libya.
What did Mr. Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, the chairman of the National Transitional Council and de facto president of Libya, do when the Libyan popular uprising ended with the execution of Colonel Gaddafi? He gathered a substantial number of foreign journalists to break the good news — Libyan constitution and laws in the future will be based on Sharia. By presidential decree he lifted without consulting any political party the ban imposed on polygamy under the Gaddafi regime. By announcing that future bank regulations will ban the charging of interest, he stabbed the Western democracies — who brought him to power through sustained air strikes on Gaddafi’s strongholds — in the back. The new rules will align with sharia requirements that will apply evenly to Libyan banks and foreign/western financial institutions. Why so much gratitude to the West? Mr. Abdul-Jalil argued: “Interest creates disease and hatred among people.”
It should be very obvious for the useful idiots of the West that what occurred in Libya, and will occur very shortly in Egypt where elections are currently being held, is not democracy but the ultimate triumph of the will of Allah and the just laws reflecting his wisdom in the Islamic Sharia. The time has also come for the useful idiots of the West to remember the key fact that when an Islamist says he is dedicated to democracy he is not dedicated to democracy as a set of values integrated into the political fabric of a society. His dedication is to the process of democracy, where the power of numbers or majority is used to impose an Islamist political agenda on the entire country, to eradicate opposition, and suffocate any voice of dissent within an Islamic State; in other words to impose “Islamic Totalitarianism”.
The troubles that Islam has with democracy as a set of secular values stem from the warped belief most Muslims cherish, that the Great Architect of the Universe, Allah, made Islam the “Perfect Deen” (Arabic word for religion). The Lord reassured the desert bandit Mohammad after his “Farewell Pilgrimage” (last one before his death), “This day I have perfected your deen for you and have completed My blessing on you, and have chosen Islam for you as your deen”. (The Koran 5:3) This obsession with the perfect status of the Muslim religion undermines a fundamental reality all Western democracies believe and strongly support — democracy is not perfect. We pass laws that reflect the consent and the values of the governed. We monitor their impact on society. We review the laws after a certain number of years, we introduce more refinements if need be, but we never insist that we have the “perfect” formula for every grievance society is facing. We have a strong belief in science, where improvement is often based on questioning and doubting the limits of the known. We challenge the barriers imposed on us by religious or cultural traditions, and thus we are prompted to doubt— a process that eventually paves the way for the proper understanding and gathering of evidence necessary to decide whether some blindly accepted customs are obsolete or still indispensable parts of existing norms and behaviours.
All health care professionals working in the field of psychiatry endorse unreservedly the notion that the evil of slaughtering innocent civilians in a suicide attack on a wedding party, a school, a bus etc. is not committed by individuals who feel uncertain about their righteousness, or have the courage to question their motives. All the Islamic evil we have encountered on this planet since 9/11 has been committed by fanatics convinced that they are without sin, since they were born into a “perfect religion”, where there are no requirements to scrutinize the words of the desert bandit named Mohammad, who gave every “Muslim True Believer” the sacred right to use a fearsome destructiveness against any person who dares to question the Islamic claim and monopoly of “perfection”.
In the annals of psychiatry a huge amount of scientific evidence indicates that it is easier to cope with the pain inflicted on others in the name of Allah than face the excruciating agony of self-scrutiny. Psychiatrists know well that every image of self-perfection promoted by Islam is supported by layers and layers of sophisticated lies designed to sustain the image (not substance) of moral purity, and this is where one is sometimes forced to admire an illiterate who became a genius in building an empire based on the evils of lies and perversity.
But the useful idiots of the West still insist that Islam, as established by the noble emperor Mohammad, is a glorious religion where only those who have an utmost “purity of heart” can see the true dimension of its glory. Those Islamophobes who insist that the emperor is naked have a heart tainted by fear, clearly preventing them from joining the collective madness that has elevated a dark cult called Islam into a glorious religion. To all the “useful idiots” of the West I say: “insulating consciousness and escaping individual moral responsibility by hiding behind the instructions of Allah is an abrogation of our capacity for moral judgment, and any effort to conceal this truth, actively or passively, is a contribution to the ultimate triumph of evil and the total destruction of the West”.
Previous posts by Sergei Bourachaga:
17 comments:
This is an excellent analysis.
Sadly most of these “useful idiots” are so intoxicated with their own intellectual cool-aide, that they won’t even look at facts that contradict their incestuous mindsets.
Look at western feminists. They can’t even bring themselves to condemn polygamy or the burka.
This article should be distributed wide and far.
Bob Smith
http://islamsfatalflaw.blogspot.com/
While it is important to clarify that there is in fact a war being waged against Western civilization by the forces of Islam, it is not necessarily useful to resort to denigrations of Islam in its entirety.
The fact is that denigrating Muhammad cannot have any effect in mitigating the violence of Muslims by making them question their belief that infidels deserve to be killed. Nor does the suggestion that all the evils committed in the name of Islam are the fault of one man (long dead) really help those most committed to the ideals of individual accountability to fight wholeheartedly against Muslims.
It is, in a word, not a useful point to make even if it turns out to be true. A far more useful view (and partly this is because the what remains of the verifiable historical record of Islam suggests it) is that Islam became corrupted soon after Muhammad's death in the wake of the succession struggles that elevated sectarian warfare to a preeminent value in Islam and ensured that the most powerful figures were more tested in warfare than in virtuous living.
There are three main components to this charge. First, the Qura of Muhammad's revelations--which he had commanded should not be written down lest they become scripture--were in danger of being lost as the reciters (not 'readers' as recent dictionaries would suggest) were killed in widespread fighting. This led to the compilation of the early Korans, of which there were initially several competing versions. These Korans were created under the direction of successful warlords and reflected alterations which bolstered the authority one derived in Islam as a result of successful violence.
Second, the alteration of the hadiths which had already begun as a result of the succession crisis (to bolster one or the other claim) was accelerated to insert into Muhammad's life 'retconned' justifications for the actions of those who had gained their status through internecine warfare (often very ugly in its details) rather than moral teaching. I think that it is a reasonable charge to assert that at least some of this revision actually restored to the Hadith elements that Muhammad had wanted suppressed. But it is not entirely plausible that the warlords in control of this process were strict to confine their alteration of the hadiths to making them more accurate.
Third, the evolution of the Sunna based on the eventual selection (by warfare) of the Koran and the collected hadiths (unlike the selection of the Koran, which was a process of exclusion and elimination of 'false' Korans, the collection of the hadiths gathered up many stories from disparate sources). This was a later process that firmly encoded and entrenched the morality illustrated in the revised Koran and hadiths, serving as a justification for continual violence.
This narrative does not necessarily absolve Muhammad of all or any particular acts of treachery, violence, deceit, lasciviousness, or other moral failure which are recorded in the hadiths. It simply means that much of what is 'known' about Muhammad was probably the invention of men who wished to justify their seizure of power through means that were almost entirely foul. That Muhammad's actual life and teachings provided at least some elements consonant with the lack of scruples exhibited by those claiming to follow him is probable. But that the Koran (which is a direct violation of Muhammad's commands regarding his revelations) and hadiths were not altered to justify those who attained stature in the period after Muhammad's death is impossible.
Continued...
There is a significant advantage to this narrative (aside from its archeologically demonstrable truth). It provides a serious avenue for attacks on the faith of the "fundamentalist" Muslim, because whatever his feelings about Muhammad, he (and in this case I use the gendered pronoun intentionally) cannot really have confidence that the Koran and hadiths he was taught paint a true picture of Muhammad without further investigation into the history of Islam (which will inevitably confirm that there is serious cause for doubt). And if the Koran and the hadiths are false, the authority of the Sunna based on them falls apart.
Furthermore, it provides a useful mental tool to the committed defender of Western values such as individual responsibility in hardening their resolve against those who choose to adhere to the Koranic Sunna rather than question its origins. Typically one does not consider the faith into which a person is born as a choice...but if there are different ways of interpreting and practicing that faith then the particular strain is a choice, one for which individuals who choose unquestioning allegiance to a doctrine supporting violent Jihad can be held accountable.
In a sense, this is a divide and conquer strategy. The goal is not to get 'moderate' Muslims to meaningfully opposed Koranic Islam, but only to freeze them in uncertainty as to whether Koranic Islam is worthy of being defended as part of Islam despite its various atrocities.
And of course, this strategy, the questioning of the authenticity of the Koran and hadiths, is precisely what Koranic Islam fears above all else. That is why Immans are constantly denouncing the idea that there is any such thing as 'moderate' Islam, and make it a capital offense to critically examine the historicity of the hadiths, or to recall that the root of the word is "recitation" rather than "reading".
When your enemy insists on a certain specific interpretation of history, it is well to question his motives. Islam as a historical phenomenon is not what the Jihadists would have us believe. There is room for reasonable doubt, and that doubt can be exploited to both cut off the supply of aspiring 'martyrs' and make it easier to punish those who embrace that idea by making it a choice.
Will this strategy of dividing Islam be sufficient of itself? No. Dividing the enemy is best combined with a serious commitment to fight against the more dangerous part of his forces. Given the success of Jihadist Islam in suppressing reformist Islam over the centuries, it is unrealistic to expect that the reformists can ever win by their own devices.
But it is also important to realize that the moral principles of Western civilization require opening this division in Islam before resorting to conquest. Those who most throughly embrace the values of personal responsibility and choice cannot wholeheartedly support the forcible eradication of an ideology if there is not a clear alternative to it.
Koranic Islam must be violently eradicated. The Chinese could do it without hesitation (but they won't until after it has become clear that Islam has done all the damage it can to the West), because they do not have any scruples about individual freedom. Western civilization does have such scruples...and must keep them if it is to remain true to itself.
Chiu Chun-Ling.
The values of Islam are much the same as the values of Communism.
They both rely on the excellent idea of "equality for all". Except of course that Islam doesn't actually treat all equally. Nor did Communism come to that. The idea was there but the execution was not. They BOTH fail to take account of human endeavour and beliefs and dreams. Both ultimately fail.
The followers of the religion of peace are quite happy to kill other muslims if those do not conform to THEIR view of Islam. Seen in Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, Afganistan, Indonesia and elsewhere.
Circa 1984 I drove through the then Communist Czechoslovakia. The poverty was appalling. Even in the centre of Prague food shop shelves were all but empty and there were queues for everything except tourist shops.
I did encounter a Russian military column. THEY never bothered me but likely bothered the citizens.
Islam states actually generate even worse poverty. There is NO place for Islam in the west. They simply don't fit in the main.
I do not think the values of Islam are much like those of communism at all.
Islam is a supremacist religio-fascism.
Under communism all are equal - at least in theory.
Under Islam, Muslims are considered superior to The People of The Book (Jews and Christians) and the Rest of The Infidels are lower than the Serfs of Tsarist Russia.
Islam is the worst form of Apartheid that has ever existed in history.
One point that needs clarification, I think. When I speak of fighting Jihad, and defeating Koranic Islam, I'm not talking about simply restricting the importation of it (while leaving mass immigration alone).
Nations have a responsibility to their citizens (the people who built the nation in the first place) to preserve their legitimate claims on the capital invested to create and maintain the nation. Mass immigration of culturally alien people is a betrayal of that national duty, even if the people being imported aren't overtly hostile.
Now the foundational values of some countries are quite broad, and the foundations of others are more suited to Islam than to Western values. I think that Islamic nations should remain open to Islamic immigration (particularly with respect to "Palestinians", who are only in the situation they're in because the surrounding Islamic Arab nations tried and failed to exterminate the Jews of Israel). That they are not is telling.
So I favor completely shutting down mass immigration of people whose native culture is entirely alien (even if not hostile) and shutting off all ordinary immigration completely during times of overt war. And until Koranic Islam is eradicated from the entire globe, including the Islamic nations, the nations of the West are at war. This war can be fought defensively if the Western nations do not feel confident in their ability to take the offensive. But the choice of whether or not to be at war is not open as long as global Jihad is pursued openly. When someone wages war against your nation, you are at war until you surrender or win.
Chiu Chun-Ling.
An excellent article which should be mandatory reading for ALL public officials/authorities.
Bob Smith.... I have come to the conclusion via years of research that the best way to have those who refuse to acknowlege their own naivety when it comes to Islam, and Islam's fellow travellers who champion Islam for their own personal ideal's, is for every Western nation to resurrect the old laws of sedition and treason which have been allowed to collect far too much dust for far too long.
A published Traitors list of all those who are deliberately undermining our nations would be a good start in our fight back, which would force most of those who have so far been able to elude any criticism, to re-think their involvement in promoting multiculturalism and advancing Islam's agenda.
The survivial of the West demands such a list!
And I say to the useful idiots:
When you too are finally devoured by the monster you fed, do me one favor: send me a postcard from the belly of the beast so I know what it is to be eaten alive!
The U.S. Constitution defines treason quite narrowly, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
The exclusion of repudiation of the authority of the current government as being treasonous was deliberate (The Declaration of Independence had been just such a repudiation). According to this view, it was the troops of the crown that engaged in treason by initiating military attacks (thus "levying War") against the colonies whereas the Colonial revolution was a response to this (whereas in the older view, the Declaration of Independence was treason and thus the resistance--whether forcible or passive--to efforts to put down such insurrection were also treasonous).
This point is relevant because, in the main, traditional definitions of treason that existed in Europe would still make repudiation of the authority of the current rulers one of the primary qualifications for being considered a traitor (regardless of alliance with enemies of the people of the nation). Overcoming this is a tricky task, certainly it is appropriate to identify as traitors both those who enter Western nations to wage war against them from the inside and those who deliberately divert the resources intended for the defense and welfare of the people to these infiltrators. Unfortunately, there could be danger in opening up the label of traitor too quickly without restricting its meaning first.
Creating a strong constitutional right to free speech would be an important step in the direction of protecting such speech from being considered treasonous. After establishing very firmly that criticism of the policies of government and the behavior of officials is not treason, then there is room to open up the question of punishing organizations which wage war against the nation from within or misappropriation of resources to support such organizations can be considered treason.
But calling "Treason!" before you have clearly defined what can and cannot be considered treasonous is very dangerous.
Chiu Chun-Ling.
Chiu Chun-Ling....I acknowledge your points raised regarding the act of Treason, and wish to point out, that regardless of the semantics in describing such an act, my reason for shouting Traitor to those who are undermining our civilization either wittingly, or unwittingly, is to call out those who are engaged in such activities and to force them to re-assess the actions they may be engaged in.
And if anything, the definition of Treason - in today's modern world of gizmos and doodads that facilitate superquick communications - would need to be expanded rather than narrowed so as to include those organizations and individuals who would escape any criticizm, or punishment, under the old definitions.
Treason is a crime still listed as such in my home state and federally, and while the definition of such a crime is very narrow indeed as based on English Law, the implications of being arrainged in a court of law for the offence of Treason would still make most offenders tremble at the prospect.
And that is my intention.
"Today, the most famous offenders of the eighteenth-century English treason laws are the American revolutionaries." Reason enough to consider whether perhaps the laws need more careful attention before being applied.
"The Treason Felony Act 1848 makes it an offence to deprive or depose the Queen from her established constitutional position - and to publish any writing or printing advocating such change." Again, a point that touches on the freedom of political advocacy.
Once you succeed in opening up the courts to trials for treason, you will find that the totalitarianists are more than adept at bending the laws on the subject to their own end. Until you have securely foreclosed the advocacy of political reform being called treason, you had best not start leveling the charge in a serious way.
Chiu Chun-Ling.
Chiu...On your own logic then, people should remain free to undermine their own culture and society as they see fit regardless of how the majority population of the same culture may feel about that?
What you are suggesting is that due to your own perception that the Left are very adept at twisting laws to suit their own ends, as any good lawyer is able to twist the law for his client's benefit, we should leave off pursuing their treacherous agenda for fear they will turn any updated law regarding the Act of Treason against us, so by that reckoning we should just give up now?
You also refer to an Act of Rebellion against recognized tyranny, which according to my Macquarie Encyclopedic Dictionary, is an act of resistance against authority or control. The Act of Treason, while differing little in its definition as compared to the Act of Rebellion, nevertheless highlights violation of allegiance to the sovereign, or state, as its core definition.
The Left no longer engage in 'debate' about their agenda and now use epithets to shut down the 'dissenters' who can see where their agenda is heading. We who oppose their agenda have run out of 'ammo' in this ideological fight and are losing to their deceit, albeit ever so slowly. Our arsenal of logic has now been depleted and we must gain the upper hand by employing 'lawfare' against the Left in the same way they employ 'lawfare' against us.
And resurrecting the Act of Treason is a good place to start!
People should be free to speak out against their own cultural institutions. That does not extend to taking actions which directly subvert the laws. There is a difference between saying that the police should be required to shave their heads (for some reason or other) and going out and forcibly subjecting any cops you find to a razor. I should think that the difference should be obvious to a reasonable person.
More to the point, if you ensure that people are free to speak their minds, then the state (which currently is siding with the Jihad) cannot shut people up and make it a crime to run on a platform of, say, restoring the rule of law. It is precisely this kind of legislated viewpoint discrimination that makes it possible for a nominally democratic society to be constantly ruled by people who do not share the majority view, while suppressing that view so that it does not appear to be in the majority.
I'm not suggesting that you give up on pursuing traitors, I'm suggesting that you armor yourself against that potent accusation by ensuring that criticism of the current government and its policies cannot be considered treason.
"The Act of Treason, while differing little in its definition as compared to the Act of Rebellion, nevertheless highlights violation of allegiance to the sovereign, or state, as its core definition." It is just such ambiguous definitions that you must foreclose before resorting to attempting prosecution for treason.
Here in America, we're facing a similar difficulty. A law is in the process of being passed, nominally for the purpose of fighting Islamic terrorism, which allows the military to be used to round up suspected terrorists and detain them indefinitely without trial or any legal recourse at all. And what constitutes valid cause for being a suspected terrorist? Well, certainly being Muslim or associating with known Jihadists isn't anywhere in this bill or in the current DHS definitions of who might be a terrorist. Instead it's things like expressing concern about illegal immigration, or opposition to homosexual marriage, or storing more than a week's worth of food, or saying that the government shouldn't be permitted to violate the Constitution.
In short, we're screwed worse than you. Consider this a warning from the future...do not be so eager to unleash this beast till you have at least made some effort to prevent it from being turned back against you.
Chiu Chun-Ling.
Chiu...Everything that is available to both sides of this ideological war is being used by the left against us. To argue that expanding and modernizing the Act of Treason into simple laymans terms which should also encompass the many 'activities' that the Left seem to have a predilection for in undermining their own culture, and may also provide them with futher ammunition with which to attack us, is in my opinion, and based on how 'lawfare' is being currently employed against the dissenter, is shallow.
The old definition of the Treason Act has never been upgraded to include the many possibilities that big government offers to those who possess the authority and the means, and consider the rule of law and constitutional government as being anathema to their ideological goals.
History has shown that 'reasonable' men dared draft a document that had never been previously contemplated by any civilization that preceded them, and that it was 'unreasonable' men who caused the loss of the American colonies.
Going by that standard, is the current Obama Administration made up of 'reasonable' men and women? Is their undermining and subversion of constitutional government simply an act of 'reasonable' people who consider the constitution as an outdated document therefore subject to being trivialized and trodden on?
Or is something more unlawful, deceitful and criminal occurring that requires stern measures with which to counter the out of control immoral and treacherous behaviour of those who should know better and choose not to?
To argue that the definition of Treason is akin to a Pandora's Box can also be akin to arguing how hot the fires of Hell may be. It's a moot point, and will always remain so. But, to hold back on what must be used for fear of having the same law being thrown back at the thrower, is to me at least, too timid a point to contemplate.
It is well known that in any battle, fire must be fought with fire, as it would be to the arguers disadvantage to raise a point of how hot should the fire be. The Left abide by the doctrine of 'whatever it takes' and we should also be adopting that mantra, because we are losing this ideological war which must be won if we wish to counter the rise of Islam.
There are Traitors in our midst who need to be called out for what they are. I believe it is past time that we take to defining the 'debate' and arguing the finer points about the Act of Treason while the Traitors actively undermine us, is simply an act of folly!
To the Blog Administrators;
Thankyou for allowing this debate to occur.
You seem to be missing an essential point about the Left and Muslims relying on bending the laws.
Not all laws are easily bent. A law that can be equally applied to everyone, as opposed to a law that necessarily (or by design) makes some people unequal before the law, does not need to bend and thus can be made unbendable.
Islam and the Left depend absolutely on enshrining principles that make people unequal before the law. Freedom of speech, if consistently applied, is anathema to both. It is true that the Left made some advances in abusing freedom of speech in their efforts to revise the culture of the West, but it only worked as long as those seeking to uphold traditional values were reluctant to speak freely themselves.
When both sides advance their best arguments in the public sphere, the political Left and Islam will always lose, because their arguments are obviously stupid. It is only when the totalitarians are free to propagandize without any effective opposition being permitted that they are able to make their case appear persuasive (and then largely because people know that they will be punished for disagreeing, not because they are intellectually swayed).
The existing laws and traditions of treason in England and Europe, on the other hand, are explicitly designed to make people unequal before the law. Thus they cannot be applied equally without being bent one way or the other, that is not their nature. Such laws are essential to the totalitarian whether Islamist or Communist or Progressive, and they will always have a ready strategy to bend them to their favor.
Chiu Chun-Ling.
Chiu...it is you that misses the point. As you have already stated, whenever the Left and Islam are prepared to openly and publicly debate their agenda they will lose.
And for that reason, there is no longer any public debate that would expose the Left and Islam's agenda. That is precisely why the Left and Islam are attacking our right to freedom of expression, and that is precisely why the Left and Islam shout out the epithets they do to those who criticize their agenda, if those who criticize cannot be brought before a Kangaroo Court.
They are not interested in debate or publicly exposing their agenda, and in short, they are not interested in the rule of law as it stands, only in how they wish to interpret it. And that is why Treason must be shouted from the highest battlements!
Most of us wish to dwell in some place where the rule of law will be recognized by all. History shows however, that not all desire to be ruled by the letter of the law or abide by simple standards that keeps everyone in check. That is why there is an Act of Treason and that is why we must now consider falling back onto that Act.
I believe I have outlined my concerns regarding the non-prosecution of those, who quite obviously, are engaged in acts of subversion, treachery and outright treason. Even to an untrained in legal matters eye, there are public figures who make no bones about their allegiences to anything other than the country they were born and brought up in.
The twisting of the rule of law and denigration of national sovereignity and patriotism, has gone on for far too long and must be curtailed and then nullified if we are to continue to live in ordered societies where everyone is subject to the rule of law.
And there is only one law that guarantees those who would undermine their culture and their Western heritage, so as to enable the coming about of their own ideal society which allows to thwart them in their sabotage, and that law is Treason!
I now leave this debate as I believe both sides have been adequately argued and should now rest in the forum of public opinion.
My appreciation to the blog administrators for permitting this debate.
I'm not sure why the Left's unwillingness to engage in open and free debate should be a reason to abandon the defense of your right to pursue it. If you revive treason as a charge before ensuring that it cannot apply to speech critical of the government, you will find yourselves branded traitors...and will have no effective defense against the charge.
The totalitarians can count on their fellow-travelers already in control of the courts and the police to ensure that the charges laid against them do not progress...I do not believe that you enjoy this advantage.
I would say, "pursue it and see what happens", but I am mindful that there is more at stake. You will subject every person speaking out against the government to the charge of treason, not just yourself. But I can hardly stop you if that is what you want to do.
Chiu Chun-Ling.
Post a Comment