by John Sharpe
"The Americans say either you are with us or you
are with the terrorists. That is something God should say."
- Adnan Omran, Syrian
Minister of Information
Readers are (as usual) thanked for
their patience in waiting for Part III of the WTC-attacks Special
Bulletin. Nothing revolutionary here, but perhaps our brief (though
perhaps not sufficiently so!) discussion of "Islam vs. the West" will go
some ways toward bringing some clarity and common sense into an aspect
of the Sept. 11 events which has wholly lacked both of those qualities
since then.
We hear a lot about "Islam vs. the
West." What is most disturbing is that the same mantra comes at us from
all sides, and is repeated by sources both suspect and credible. Bin
Laden has, not surprisingly, called for a general assault by his Muslim
followers on "Jews and Crusaders" which translates, in simplistic terms,
into a cry for war with "the West." The American and Israeli press (both
predominantly Jewish) has, of course, called for an all-out war against
those who challenge "Western values" and attack Western-style "freedom
and democracy." And within Catholic circles, some "conservative," some
"traditional," the claim is made that we are experiencing the start of a
third-millennium "rise of Islam," which, of course, must be stopped by
"the West."
The problem is that each of these
perspectives lacks either a basic foundation in the Truth or a
consideration of the full picture. Bin Laden’s call to attack the West
lacks a supernatural geo-political perspective because it is concerned
ONLY with defending the rights, albeit in some cases legitimate, of
Muslim states. The media perspective is faulty because it equates the
West with the Enlightenment, secularism, and materialism. And the
analysis put forward by some Catholic parties is flawed not so much in
itself as in what it leaves out of consideration – Judeo-Masonry.
By Way of Introduction
Commentary on the geopolitical
situation of 2001 can be neither complete nor sufficient if it fails to
take into account the Jewish Nation. The temporal power that the Jews
have achieved since, picking a somewhat arbitrary date, 1789, is both
pervasive and relatively unchallenged. Some readers will doubtless call
this extremism, anti-Semitism, and, God-forbid, some strange brand of
Nazi fanaticism. On the contrary. It is simply a fact. The forces of
high finance, government, and the media have been in largely Jewish
hands for some time now; we should therefore expect that the direction
in which the world is guided by those forces (or at least in which those
forces attempt to guide the world) largely corresponds to a generally
Jewish aim.
Bear in mind as well that none of
this is to rule out profound and sometimes violent disagreements between
members of the numerous factions of Judaism, nor is it to forget that
"world Judaism" and "world Jewry" are not at all the same things, given
the fact that depending upon who is asked, what makes someone Jewish is
anything from their religious persuasion, to their ethnicity, to their
nationality, to the religion or ethnicity of their maternal parent.
Nevertheless, the relative unity of
this "Jewish aim" is apparent, verifiable and factual. The aim is clear
from the famous and yet rather disturbing statement found in the Jewish
World of February 9, 1883: "The great ideal of Judaism is …that the
whole world should be imbued with Jewish teachings, and that in a
universal Brotherhood of nations – a greater Judaism in fact – all the
separate races and religions shall disappear." It is as clear from the
fascinating statement found in Antisemitism, by the French Jew Bernard
Lazare "The nineteenth century witnessed the last effort on the part of
the Christian state to retain its dominance. Antisemitism represents one
phase of the struggle between the feudal state, based upon unity of
belief, and the opposite notion of a neutral and secular state, upon
which the greater number of political entities are at present based. The
Jew is the living testimony of the disappearance of that state which had
its foundations in theological principles…the entrance of the Jew into
society marked the destruction of the State, meaning by State, the
Christian State." A century later it is no less clear, and we see it in
the pride and sarcasm with which Leon Wieseltier, writing for the New
Republic in March of 2000, recounts for us the destruction of the
essential principle of Christian law and Christian government – which he
terms the Church’s "holy alliance with the state&quo>
< by the politics of
his co-religionists: "…it is worth recalling that it was modern
politics, liberal politics, secular politics…that dissolved this unholy
association of religion and power." As Fr. Fahey so eloquently put it in
The Mystical Body of Christ and the Modern World, commenting on the
Jewish World article above-cited, the Jewish program "is a challenge to
the Catholic Church to a duel to the death." And on the natural plane
the Jewish program seems to be winning.
It is with this fact as background
that the events of and following 9-11 should be viewed. And it is an
essential background for our own interpretation of the claims made by
various and sundry parties that we are witnessing, or perhaps should
witness, another war between Islam and the West.
Let’s take the claims of each of
those parties in turn.
I. Bin Laden’s War
The media has drawn our explicit
attention to the fact that bin Laden is attempting the PR stunt of the
millennium: turning U.S. retaliation for terrorist acts into a
provocation of the entire Islamic world. Is he really? Or is are his
speeches and statements to be expected, bearing in mind two facts: 1) he
is perhaps, based upon his rhetoric, an honest, albeit ruthless,
Mohammedan who, unfortunately for us, is willing to translate what he
believes into unconditional action, and 2) he is NOT a Catholic who is
able to see the world through a supernatural light; his vision is,
rather, darkened by Islam, which as an obvious consequence divides for
him the world of right and wrong, justice and injustice, good and bad,
into the simple and straightforward categories of Muslim and infidel.
It is important for us to bear in
mind, as we listen to the snippets of bin Laden’s rhetoric that are
allowed to sift through the media filters, these two absolutely
essential facts about the man behind the long beard and camouflage vest.
For his demands are not as irrational and "militant" as we are led to
believe, regardless of how they MIGHT be enforced. Note that we say
"might" because it is the U.S. that has decided that bin Laden
orchestrated the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. To our knowledge
at this point, none of this evidence has been shared with anyone in an
international legal forum (such as the International Criminal Court,
which seems so attractive to the world community when the criminal has
committed a crime against a nation other than the U.S.), nor has it been
convincingly demonstrated to the public just who or what was in fact
responsible for the attacks. Not to mention that we are of the firm
suspicion that the U.S. Government and/or the Mossad (the Israeli secret
service) are not altogether innocent of some degree of complicity (we’ll
never know what degree) in these tragedies.
Don’t fall into the trap of taking
this as an apology for bin Laden the man and his alleged methods. God
forbid. We don’t know him, and what we do know of him is filtered
through the communications empires of our avowed enemies, as is what we
know about Milosevic, Hussein, and others. He may be a fanatic. He may
believe in things that others consider unpalatable. But in the
sensitive, PC third millennium, those things are not crimes, or at least
aren’t supposed to be if you belong to the right victim-group. ACTING on
them may be, but that’s a different subject altogether.
Regardless, assuming that bin Laden
did direct the massacre of those in the WCT and the Pentagon at the time
of the attacks, is it accurate to assume that his goal was to slaughter
as many non-Muslims as possible in an attempt to settle a
several-hundred-year-old score with the Christian West? Would it make
sense to say that he represents the incarnate plague of the West now
that Communism has disappeared (sic) and Islam is coming back to life?
The thought doesn’t stand up to
scrutiny, neither in light of the facts nor in light of common sense.
Taking common sense first, would he not have done better poisoning NYC’s
water supply? Would it not have been more efficient to incinerate a
stadium full of 100,000 infidel sports fans? More economical to spread
anthrax in the D.C. Metro? No, the WTC and the Pentagon were targets for
their political significance as symbols…but of what?
More scrutiny. A building, two
buildings, for that matter, are not necessarily symbols of antagonism
towards Islam. But the Pentagon is certainly a symbol of U.S. foreign
policy and of all of the military actions carried out in the name of the
U.S. government. And the WTC is certainly a symbol of the center of
International Finance (after all, it’s not the U.S. Trade Center), which
we can be sure bin Laden associates in his mind with Zionist and
American Jewry – and he really wouldn’t be wrong in doing so, anyway.
His aim (assuming it was both HIS action and HIS aim) was to strike at
the heart of what he sees as evil in the world – the oppressive,
interventionist foreign policy of the U.S. which has made, for him, a
disaster of the Middle East, and the sponsorship of that policy by
political and financial Zionism, headquartered in Tel Aviv.
Our common-sense analysis gels
strikingly well with actual statements that bin Laden has made. His
rhetoric is, of course, peppered with reference to Allah and Mohammed,
as we might expect. After all, he’s a Muslim, and as someone who does
not abide by the modern notion of the separation of religion and
politics, he has no compunction about invoking his god in a diatribe
about what’s wrong with the world. When the west was really the West, we
used to do the same thing. But just because he invokes Allah and his
prophet doesn’t mean that he’s advocating the slaughter of all
non-Muslims or declaring war on the infidel simply because of their
infidelity, regardless of how convenient it is for him to be accused of
so advocating. Rather, he mentions specific grievances for which he
demands specific remedies. And regardless of what kind of inhuman,
desperate acts he is allegedly willing to carry out in order to obtain
redress, it is in the interest of the safety of this country’s citizens
as well as in the interest of justice to examine his demands and perhaps
even fix some of what’s broken – not because bin Laden says so, but
perhaps just because it’s the right thing to do.
Indiscriminate killing of civilians,
as in the cases of Hiroshima, Dresden, Iraq, Serbia, etc., is
unjustifiable. Because bin Laden points it out (or even allegedly does
it) doesn’t change that fact. America’s military presence in Saudi
Arabia is, to proud Arabs (with whom those with some sense of natural
justice can sympathize), a sick political joke – because of the
"convenient" circumstances that brought it about (it is fairly common
knowledge that President Bush (Sr.) dispatched Ambassador April Glaspie
to visit Saddam Hussein with a letter and a "wink and a nod" telling the
Iraqi leader that it was OK to invade his smaller neighbor, which
precipitated the Gulf War and supposedly necessitated our stationing of
troops there). The answer? We should simply come home, leaving our
military to defend our nation and not everyone else’s. Bin Laden
pointing THAT out doesn’t change THAT fact either. And the one-sided
policy of the State Department toward the Israeli occupation of
Palestine is hardly worth comment. Bin Laden is right on that score.
References to these classic examples
– the American occupation of Saudi Arabia, the blind eye toward Israeli
atrocities, and the starvation of half a million Iraqis – are what
routinely make up the substance of bin Laden’s and the Taliban’s
statements, which range from an interview that he gave to ABC back in
1998,
to his recent statement on Oct 7, as well as the Taliban government’s
statement of 24 Sep. For those who would suggest that these statements
are merely "excuses" for them to call for a general Muslim crusade
against the "West," we would say: "read the texts." References to Islam
by both bin Laden and the Taliban are incidental to their real
complaints – mere rhetorical window dressing. The most openly religious
statement of his Oct. 7th broadcast reads, "…These incidents
divided the entire world into two regions - one of faith where there is
no hypocrisy and another of infidelity, from which we hope God will
protect us." An expression of Muslim faith? Sure. A call for jihad? Not
unless it’s a secret code that none of his audience will pick up except
for fellow militants. The rest of all of his public statements is a list
of straightforward grievances and demands: get out of Saudi Arabia, and
stop supporting Israel; neither of which can rationally be equated with
a call for the extermination of all non-Muslims. The religious content
of the Taliban’s statement is of the same vein. It demands that the U.S.
"release Islam, which it has taken hostage in a spiritual form…A good
example of Islam as a hostage is the present situation which they (the
Americans) have created in Afghanistan. They want the end of the Islamic
order; they want to create disorder, and they want a pro-American
government." Regardless of the fact that the Taliban is an Islamic
government and sees "order" in Muslim context, the demand that they make
is a demand for freedom – freedom to run their own internal affairs.
That such a demand is construed as a call for jihad against the west is
illustrative not of Islam’s militancy but rather of what the masters of
the media can gain by such an assertion (more on that later).
This is not to say that Islam is not
a threat to the Christian West, what little of it is left. Nor is it to
say that the Taliban has created a warm and inviting atmosphere in
Afghanistan (though who could object to forbidding TV and the
internet?). Nor is it to say that a coherent and integral Islam does not
pose a danger to Catholicism, with its doctrinal (if erroneous) purity,
its vigor, and its intolerance for any religious persuasion other than
its own. But those attributes of Islam are, these days, dangers more to
the Christian missionary who proposes to convert the Afghan to
Catholicism, and in an indirect (yet serious) way they are a danger to
all Western societies that have immigration policies that are so lax
that even Muslim anti-pluralists are welcome in pluralist society, thus
paving the way for the spread of Islam through propaganda and
procreation rather than the scimitar and the crescent. On this head we
would do well to bear in mind the statement made by an influential
Muslim at an official meeting on Islamic-Christian dialogue: "Thanks to
your democratic laws, we will invade you; thanks to our religious laws,
we will dominate you." But this is a far cry from conceding that a
fervent Muslim demanding the religious and temporal liberation of his
coreligionists and countrymen from real injustices is tantamount to him
demanding an Islamic, military conquest of Belgrade. Besides, NATO took
care of that on behalf of the KLA back in April of ‘99. That such action
did little to appease bin Laden lends credence to the suggestion that
he’s not looking for U.S. intervention on behalf of Islam but rather an
end to said intervention altogether, along with the defeat of Israel
which without the U.S. military and the American State Dept. would not
exist.
II. Which West?
Various and sundry neo-cons,
peaceniks turned hawks, and unapologetic lobbyists for Israel are in a
bit of a predicament these days. They defend Pluralism because,
essentially, it ensures that the West won’t ever again ("never again!")
become Christendom. Islamic immigration furthers that aim. Yet they
demand the destruction of "radical Islam" because it isn’t pluralist,
and because it represents a credible threat to Israel. But in order to
facilitate the destruction of radical Islam they must either demand that
the West rise again to confront its Islamic enemy, or, more subtly and
far less accurately, they must paint the so-called sponsors of militant
Islam as terrorists who are "enemies of freedom and democracy" and who
oppose "our Western (read Tel Aviv’s and New York’s) way of life," and
who must be routed by the WW-II-esque forces of Democracy and
liberation.
The question then becomes, which West
is it that the media masters and political figureheads continuously
refer to? Certainly not the Crusading West of Pope Urban II and St.
Louis IX, neither of whom were particularly pluralist in temperament.
No, if the "west" is to defend itself from the enemies of "its way of
life" if must be the west created by intrigue, wars, and financial
manipulation, manipulated by the Rothchilds and the Roosevelts, and
inspired with anti-Christian philosophy, masquerading as Enlightenment.
A west which promised us freedom from fascist terror, but which gave us
freedom from Truth and freedom from real values, and which gave to
capitalist tyrants and Bolshivek sympathizers unrestricted freedom of
conquest.
My how the tables have turned. 500 to
1000 years ago the Catholic World, at times on the verge of near
extinction, defended itself from militant Islam which the Turks brought
from the East and were nearly successful in implanting into the heart of
the West. That was an Islam which certain Jews were happy to aid in an
effort to disrupt and ultimately demolish Christendom. Walsh gives us a
glimpse of several of these in his masterful Philip II, including Joseph
Nasi, Jewish banker of Constantinople who pushed for the Turkish attack
upon Christian forces which culminated in the Battle of Lepanto, and
Joseph Mendez, Nasi’s successor as unofficial leader of world Jewry in
the 16th century, whose scheming continuously supported an
alliance of the Turks with England in order to ensure Spanish defeat,
and ultimately did so at the hands of Elizabeth I of England.
Today Islam is a side-note to a
larger cry for national sovereignty and freedom in Iraq and Palestine,
and in many of the Arab nations generally – a cry which is
inconveniently accompanied with a reminder of just who it is that is
depriving these nations of their independence. And thus the agents of
the ever-expanding pro-Zionist "global" world in which we are all to
live have no choice but to marshal the forces of the non-Catholic,
materialist west, whipping them into a white-hot frenzy over "western
freedom and democracy," to launch them on yet another crusade – this
time a crusade to defeat those who have wished for the destruction of
the Zionist west, rather than the Catholic one.
The spin masters of the "west" are at
great pains to show that its enemy is not "Islam." But there is an
inconvenient coincidence that the spin-masters continue to try to avoid,
disavow, or "interpret" out of existence. That fact is this: with the
exception of the Legion Bulletin and a few other independent Crusaders,
the only publicly-identifiable religious group in the world which
routinely denounces Zionist oppression, at the hands of either the US or
Israel, is the Islamic world, whether it be the "radical" fringe or the
"moderate" Arab states. Thus the political struggle takes on religious
overtones almost by accident, as the Muslims rally not around bin
Laden’s alleged call to exterminate the infidel but to liberate
Palestine.
As we noted above in our quick look
at bin Laden’s speech, this call is often colored with Muslim rhetoric.
Hardly a surprise.
1. Bin Laden’s and the Taliban’s
conception of right and wrong, justice and injustice, good and bad, is
essentially tied to his religion. (Ours used to be too.) Expecting him
to denounce injustice without a religious overtone is typical only of a
secularist perspective.
2. Most of the Arabs who find what
bin Laden says to be compelling are Muslims as well. Their conception of
justice, as well, is necessarily Islamic. And they are sufficiently
outrage by what they see to be a complete white-wash by the
international community of Israeli and American terrorism that they are
interested more in what bin Laden says is wrong with the world than
troubling their consciences over whether or not civilians can be
legitimately killed in a struggle against militant Zionism. Which brings
us to…
3. Most of the Arabs in #2 find
Israel itself obnoxious at best, tyrannical and genocidal at worst. They
are, therefore Israel’s enemies. And if apologists for Israel want to
eliminate Israel’s enemies, they are confronting all of the individuals
and governments in #2.
All of this amounts to a fairly
coherent denunciation by the Establishment of – if not an outright war
with – one identifiable group: call it the Arab world, or Islam,
whatever; the fact is that these are Muslims who, besides being
adherents of an absolutist religion, are conscious of natural rights and
justice, and are simply a public nuisance – an eyesore – for Uncle Sam
and Zion.
Meanwhile, to convince us that the
multicultural, multi-religious, mushy, distinction-free world is in
tip-top shape, united behind Geo. Bush and Ariel Sharon in its fight
against the enemies of civilization, a mind-numbing mental balancing act
is required. We are told that "moderate" and "rational" Arabs will
distance themselves from bin Laden and Co.’s fanatical rhetoric, and
that a coalition of well-intentioned opponents of terrorism is formed
and healthy. Meanwhile, the moderate Arab world is NOT rejoicing on cue
over the U.S. attacks, and it finds bin Laden’s statements only TOO
truthful. The moderate Arab world that isn’t towing the party line thus
becomes what we all secretly know but cannot say – a public,
more-or-less consistent and coherent opponent of Israel and its servant,
the US of A. But these "moderate" Arab states cannot be collectively
denounced as a single enemy of Israel, religiously and politically
united, because to do so would not only blow the coalition to bits but
it would look awfully like a declared war on a coherent anti-Zionist
ideology which oftentimes expresses itself in Islamic terms…a semblance
which must be avoided at all costs. Walking the line between "pluralist
orthodoxy" on the one hand and the overt elimination of the enemies of
world Jewry on the other is an intellectual and ideological stunt which
challenges all but the most well-trained Talmudists.
A PR Campaign of Massive
Proportions
The full-court Press is on to ensure
that the world knows the truth about the attacks on the WTC, the U.S.
response, and the reaction that both provoked. Friedman, in a usual
stroke of brilliance in a September 21 OpEd in the JYT (or, rather, the
NYT – sorry), suggests that Arab criticism of Israel and tacit
endorsement of bin Laden’s criticisms of the geopolitical situation is
merely cover for the dirty laundry of the Arab regimes:
"…these Arab regimes, feeling
defensive about their Islamic crackdowns, allowed their own press and
intellectuals total freedom to attack America and Israel, as a way of
deflecting criticism from themselves."
Hmm. Freedom of the press and of
academia. But isn’t…oh, never mind.
The result of these scandalous
freedoms?
"…a generation of Muslims and Arabs
have been raised on such distorted views of America that despite the
fact that America gives Egypt $2 billion a year, despite the fact that
America fought for the freedom of Muslims in Kuwait, Bosnia and Kosovo,
and despite the fact that Bill Clinton met with Yasir Arafat more than
with any other foreign leader, America has been vilified as the biggest
enemy of Islam."
Perhaps the fact is that these
critics of Israel and America see right through the American support of
puppets and playthings like Mubarak and Arafat who are supposed to be
obedient chess pieces in the U.S. management of Middle-East politics.
And that they see through the "liberation" of Kosovo for the attempt
that it was merely to demolish Serbia and bring Milosevic before the ICC
– and that American support of the Marxist/terrorist KLA was fickle and
superficial, as our complete reversal in Macedonia has proven. No, the
thinking Muslims and Arabs are under no misconceptions when it comes to
American friendship and American commitment to writing the wrongs of
Middle East politics. After all, how does the elimination of Milosevic
and aid to Egypt remotely affect the occupation of Palestine and the
starvation of Iraq’s civilian population? Only Friedman and his ilk
would expect it to pacify righteous anger…an anger that is no less
legitimate merely because it is often seen by the Arabs in the religious
context of Islam vs. its enemies.
Safire is even more to the point that
his moderate comrade in his October 8 NYT tirade. Though he concedes the
limited and specific nature of bin Laden’s aim, "…his terms for our
surrender: the removal of Jews from Palestine and the end of America's
interference with Iraq," he equates those aims with all brands of Middle
Eastern fanaticism, (not the least of which is the liberation of
Palestine and the preservation of sovereignty in Iraq!): "…because the
interests of Middle Eastern terrorists are clearly the same, no longer
can the world separate his Al Qaeda cult, the terrorists of Hamas and
Hezbollah and the P.L.O. warring on Israel, and the center of world
terror in Baghdad run by Saddam Hussein."
Then comes the masterstroke of
disinformation, even after he suggests (believe it if you can) that the
U.S. destroy the "Taliban radio towers broadcasting hate and step up our
local-language broadcasts of anti-fanatic truths(!)"; he equates the
ending of Israeli occupation of Palestine with opposition to democracy
and human rights (obviously Safire hasn’t read his Israel Shahak, his
Israel Shamir, or his Jack Bernstein!): "The stated purposes of the
terror network are (1) to drive any manifestation of democracy and human
rights, such as Israel, out of the Middle East and (2) to free the
avatar of totalitarian savagery, Saddam Hussein, from Western sanctions.
These are not mere street-acclaimed goals adopted to gain fundamentalist
adherents; these are steps to gain weapons of mass destruction by which
to intimidate and dominate the world." Perhaps a Rabbi could explain for
us how advocating the liberation of Palestine is actually opposing human
rights, and how releasing Iraq from sanctions is akin to domination of
the world. Safire gives Hussein a little too much credit perhaps? Or is
the aim to turn legitimate grievances into "fanaticism" such that the
only legitimate aim is the brotherhood of a "greater Judaism" and a
rebuilt Temple?
The Jews are even less subtle, if it
can be imagined. In the October 10, 2001, Jerusalem Post Internet
Edition ("Israel vs bin Laden in information war" by Herb Keinon),
forwarded to us by one of the Zundelsite’s Z-Grams, the lines in the
sand are drawn very clearly: "The attacks on the US were not the result
of any specific US policy, but rather because of what the US represents.
The attacks are part of the war that fundamentalist, undemocratic forces
have declared on the enlightened, democratic world." Again, a
masterstroke of propaganda (they’ve had a lot of practice): the sinister
machinations of those advocating the right of return for people expelled
from their homes in the West Bank are termed "undemocratic forces,"
while the forces of enlightenment are riding forth on a crusade for
justice and freedom by making the big rocks of Afghanistan into little
rocks. Note the skillful evasion of a reference to any confrontation
between the Islamic world (which does have its place in the politically
correct smorgasbord, as long as it’s in the context of immigration and
tolerance for all the world’s religions) and the Zionist world (which
doesn’t exist – there are merely forces of "democracy").
Lest some of us have a hard time
swallowing the notion that the good guys are simply democrats helping
the world maintain its freedom, and the plots of Israel are irrelevant,
there is Norman Podhoretz to the rescue! In his smashing OpEd in the
Wall Street Journal, we are told that "just as the fervent wish of the
Arab world to wipe the Jewish state off the map derives not from
anything Israel has done or failed to do, but rather from its existence
alone, so we are hated not because of our policies but because of who
and what we are."
That makes perfect sense both in
light of what we are told America stands for – freedom (…does the phrase
"I hate freedom" have any real meaning?? Is the notion even remotely
credible???), and in light of the fact that America just coasts along
minding its own business, casually and upon-request-only helping the
impoverished and oppressed nations of the world. Of course. It makes
perfect sense.
Not Everyone’s Buying It
The Muslims, or, rather (sorry), the
Arabs, are not. The most glaring problem with the whole fantastic
scenario is that there is an incessant clamor from the East about just
what Israel and its American client are up to. In a display of a
surprising lack of cooperativeness, the Arab world does NOT cry out with
one voice for the slaughter of the infidel. "Soldiers of Allah sally
forth to do your duty in extermination of the American infidel" is NOT a
cry that is routinely heard from Muslim governments and academic
institutions.
No, the protests and professorial
comments and political communiqués are all fairly intelligent, rational
critiques of America and Israel and their politics abroad. And that
unfortunate rational candor gives the lie to both heads of the
two-headed Zionist myth: 1) the Arab world IS more or less united
ideologically (at least in terms of ends, conceding the heated debate
over means), and the great political divide between bin Laden’s politics
and Egyptian/Saudi politics doesn’t really exist; and 2) those in favor
of the U.S. getting a rather humiliating wake-up call and/or opposing
the obliteration of Afghanistan rarely call for an end to democracy or
the elimination of freedom – rather, they voice their specific and
limited views rationally and calmly – a strange phenomena for alleged
"fanatical opponents" of "our way of life."
What is certainly most disturbing to
the good guys is how even the clean bad guys talk. It would be one thing
if it were just the radicals in the street; but it’s not. It’s the
politicians, the professors, the businessmen. There is a strange
consistency between the demonstrations in the street and the silence of
Middle Eastern governments.
The street scene was sketched
ever-so-briefly by a VOA wire on 12 October:
"…Several thousand Palestinians
staged anti-American demonstrations in the West Bank Friday, including
in Ramallah and Nablus. Many chanted their support for Osama bin Laden
and vented their anger against U.S. President George W. Bush, describing
him as the "father of terrorism."
"…Tens of thousands of protesters,
including some government ministers, took to the streets in Iran. In
Tehran, marchers carried placards denouncing the U.S. action as
fororism. Others declared their willingness to join a jihad (war
against imperialistic terrorism) against the United States and its
allies. The Iranian government has denounced terrorism, but is also
critical of the American action.
"…There was heavy police presence in
Cairo as about 5,000 people demonstrated after Friday prayers at the
city's Al-Azhar mosque. In Lebanon, several thousand people took to the
streets in the northern city of Tripoli to denounce what they called the
U.S."aggression."
"…In Saudi Arabia, prayers were held
in support of Afghans and to denounce the "enemies of Islam," but they
made no direct mention of the U.S. and British attacks. In the Syrian
capital, Damascus, an imam denounced terrorism, but said that terrorism
cannot be fought by waging wars that destroy cities and kill women and
children.
"The Associated Press reports that in
one mosque in Baghdad, the imam and worshippers broke down in tears. The
imam spoke of a crusade against Muslims, led by America. He also accused
the United States and Britain of playing games as they destroy cities
and kill people."
Strangely enough, these evil,
undemocratic, repressive regimes have governments which are remarkably
in tune with the sentiments of the people. An 8 October NYT article by
Fawaz A. Gerges gives an indication of the political sentiments of the
Arab "upper class" strikingly similar to those protesting:
"The Bush administration has
made…extraordinary efforts to show that the war that began Sept. 11 will
not be…a battle between Islam and the rest of the world…
"…a conference in Beirut on how Arabs
and Muslims should respond to the campaign against terrorism. Present
were leading political activists and politicians representing the broad
spectrum of public opinion in the Muslim world. Despite the efforts of
President George W. Bush to allay the fears of Arabs and Muslims by
stressing that the United States will wage a relentless war on terrorism
and its state sponsors, not on Islam and its adherents, the American
message seemed to have fallen on deaf ears. Liberals, leftists and Arab
nationalists sounded as suspicious of American war aims as the
representative from Hezbollah.
"Most participants claimed that the
United States aims at far more than destroying Osama bin Laden's Al
Qaeda organization and toppling the Taliban regime. These
representatives of the Muslim world were almost unanimously suspicious
of America's intentions, believing that the United States has an
overarching strategy which includes control of the oil and gas resources
in Central Asia, encroachment on Chinese and Russian spheres of
influence, destruction of the Iraqi regime, and consolidation of
America's grip on the oil-producing Persian Gulf regimes…
"Many Muslims suspected the Bush
administration of hoping to exploit this tragedy to settle old scores
and assert American hegemony in the world…
"Compounding the discrepancy between
American and Middle Eastern perspectives is a genuine skepticism about
the culpability of Muslims in the terror attacks. Engrained suspicions
raised by Muslim opinion makers reflect deeply held sentiments among the
general public.
"Many Middle Easterners with whom I
spoke advanced conspiracy theories to explain what had happened. A
Christian director of a Western bank in Beirut claimed that only
‘international Zionism possessed the means and the will to undertake
this hideous act.’ These nonsensical (sic!) views are held by both the
man on the street and some in the intelligentsia…
"Those individuals who did accept the
culpability of the Arab perpetrators usually drew a comparison between
the terror attacks on America and shortsighted, unjust American policies
that have alienated and antagonized most of the rising social classes in
the region. In short, they believed America has reaped what it sowed…
"Most of the participants, who
represent the pulse of mainstream Muslim public opinion, strongly
cautioned their governments against joining the American coalition on
terrorism and warned that people would oppose any sustained military
assault on a Muslim country, including Afghanistan."
And in the corridors of power the
sentiment is still much the same; where it cannot be expressed there is
in its place a deafening (for the Zionists) silence (from a 9 October
NYT article by Neil MacFarquhar):
"…Saudi Arabia, for example, said
nothing. After its weekly cabinet meeting, the government issued a
statement that ignored the situation, but praised the United States for
focusing renewed interest on the Palestinian question.
"‘The cabinet voiced hope that
efforts must be increased to end the blockade on the Palestinian people
and to stop the killing they are being subjected to by Israeli forces so
that a Palestinian state may be established with Jerusalem as its
capital,’ the statement said.
"…The mood in some private
conversations was dark, with some Saudis expressing resentment that the
United States was training so much firepower on a battered country in
the hopes of getting one man. ‘It's a huge imbalance of power,’ said a
university professor, asking not to be identified because of the
government's clear distaste for the issue. ‘They won't achieve anything
with such an act except making people more furious.’
"In Egypt, President Hosni Mubarak,
another leader walking the tightrope between his American backers and a
sullen population, stayed mum…
[Until later on, when he was quick to
explain to editors and senior journalists of the Egyptian press,
according to an AP wire from Oct. 14, in "recalling his talks with
British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Thursday…: ‘My message was clear.
We should not let Sharon kill and destroy, and that's why you see that
there are attacks against me in the Western press accusing me of
dictatorship.
"‘The true dictatorship is in Israel,
where the verdicts of the judiciary are not implemented and human rights
do not exist,’ Mubarak said…"]
Meanwhile…
"The lone official comment came from
Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher, whose comments at a gathering at the
American University in Cairo appeared aimed at both appeasing Washington
and the streets. ‘Egypt stands in solidarity with the United States in
the fight against terrorism,’ he said, adding later, ‘But the Afghan
people have suffered enough and deserve not to be subjected to more
suffering.’
"There were small demonstrations at
several universities. At Al Azhar University, students chanted, ‘There
is no god but God, and Bush is the enemy of God.’ The repeated
statements that the United States was not seeking a war on Islam or
against the Afghan people did not seem to be penetrating very far. Oman
also allowed a rare demonstration, with several hundred students from
the Colleges of Islamic Law and Administration Science marching in the
capital, Muscat, chanting anti-American slogans.
"Jordan has banned demonstrations for
much of this year because of boiling sentiments over violence in the
Palestinian territories, but the reaction there was also one of inter.
‘Such acts are blind because the U.S. does not have any specific or
strategic targets,’ said Mahmoud Kharabsheh, an independent member of
Parliament, dismayed about the lack of published evidence against Osama
bin Laden and the Taliban. ‘If the U.S. possessed concrete evidence, it
would have disclosed it to the world in order to convince them that they
are the perpetrators. But what happened is only a cover for a crusader
attempt to conquer the Arab and Islamic world.’
"…Syrians condemned the United States
for not taking stronger issue with violence perpetrated by Israel and
also for not seeking greater international approval. ‘Such operations
should have been launched under the umbrella of the United Nations,’
said Muhammad Aziz Shukri, a professor of International Law at Damascus
University."
A Hollow Ring
In light of this rather convincing
demonstration of Arab resolve, the assurances from Z.O.G. officials that
the U.S. and its allies are not at war with the Islamic world are hardly
convincing, in that the Islamic world represents a fairly coherent
opposition to the JWO (sorry…rather, the NWO) and therefore falls under
the umbrella of those targeted as "fanatical enemies of civilization."
Tony Blair’s feeble attempt to shift the focus to the fact that "Decent
Muslims, millions of them in European countries, have condemned these
acts of terrorism in New York and elsewhere in America with every bit as
much force as any of the rest of us" (NYT Oct 9 by Alan Cowell) is
irrelevant; what the Arabs are on about is not the use of terror as a
weapon, but the underlying injustices that encourage the would-be
terrorists. Blair has conveniently skirted that issue, and no doubt will
continue to do so. His handlers have no intention whatsoever of letting
him address the issue, because the war for civilization is not a war for
universal civilization but for "enlightened," capitalist
anti-civilization.
Meanwhile, the hypocrisy of the U.S.
State Department’s attempt to forge an "anti-terror coalition…embracing
‘all civilizations,’ not just the West,"(from the 15 Sept. NYT) is
manifest most especially in its policy toward Syria. Let the following
article tell the full story (from the NYT, October 9, 2001 by Douglas
Jehl).
"If policy were as simple as
rhetoric, the United States and Syria might be at war.
"…As a matter of policy, Syria
harbors groups that have been identified as violent and have been
accused of terrorist acts…
"The groups serve as an arm of
opposition both to Israel and to Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader,
whom Syria and many of the groups it shelters have long opposed.
"The events of Sept. 11 seem not to
have changed the balance in Syria. Ahmed Jibril, leader of the Popular
Front for the Liberation of Palestine, General Command, perhaps the most
violent Palestinian faction based in Syria, says he is not uneasy, nor
is he sorry about what happened in New York and Washington. It was time,
he said, that Americans learned a lesson. The Syrian government has done
nothing to restrain him, even in light of the terrorist attacks on the
United States.
"In an interview Mr. Jibril, now 63,
said, ‘I don't feel sad at what happened in New York and Washington.’
‘The American administration used to say that there are certain rogue
states. You used to be proud of your democracy, and you visit the polls
and you feel proud of your democracy. But if you would make ballot boxes
in all the countries of the world and ask the people to name who are the
rogue countries in the world, you would find that almost a majority
would name the United States as the first rogue state.’
"Officially, Syria defends Mr. Jibril,
and others like him. Even unofficially, there is no sense here that a
government so well acquainted with what the United States calls
terrorism is inclined to change its spots.
‘The Americans say either you are
with us or you are with the terrorists,’ said Adnan Omran, the
information minister. ‘That is something God should say.’
"In public statements in recent days,
the Syrian government has said it regrets the attacks on American
civilians. It has said it is willing to join others in the antiterror
fight.
"But senior Syrian officials,
including the foreign minister, Farouk al- Sharaa, have called in turn
for other countries to halt what they have called Israel's use of
terrorism in putting pressure on its neighbors.
"Syrian officials say the United
States has made no specific requests for cooperation since Sept. 11. If
Americans are preoccupied now with terrorism, Syrian officials say, it
would be wise to look to the conflict between Israel and the
Palestinians, which many in the Middle East regard as a spark in the
current crisis.
‘Fighting terrorism has to know its
roots and causes,’ Mr. Sharaa told reporters here the other day.
"…There has been no indication that
Syria or the groups harbored here had any role in the attacks on the
United States. Most of the groups in Syria that the United States calls
terrorist have said their target is Israel, not American citizens.
"Other groups who have headquarters
here, including Hamas and the Palestinian branch of Islamic Jihad, have
been similarly aloof, if not unapologetic. Neither Hezbollah nor Hamas
was included in a recent executive order from President Bush citing
sponsors of terrorism with international reach. The decision caused some
controversy among branches of government.
"Maher al-Taher, a senior official of
the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, said ‘Syria knows we
are fighting for a just cause, and Syria knows the difference between
terrorism and resistance.’ Mr. Taher, whose group broke off from Mr.
Jibril's years ago, added, "We hope that the American stand is like the
Syrian one.’
"To the Syrian government, as well as
for these groups, the distinction is vital. While the United States
labels them terrorists, the groups housed in Syria regard themselves as
freedom fighters, with a target, Israel, that both the groups and their
hosts regard as legitimate."
And there’s the rub. This patchwork
coalition will not long last while it accepts the cooperation of, and
thus fails to condemn, a nation which puts its political money where its
mouth is by tacitly supporting the militant enemies of Israel. But no
hypocrisy is too much when we are attempting to achieve the impossible:
hold together a pluralist international coalition of Arab states in an
effort to defeat an organization that fights, albeit with unlawful and
reprehensible means, for a goal which many of the coalition-member
states fully support. Running the world sure is a tricky business.
Usual Candor
Leave it to the neocon Amen corner to
inject some clarity into the discussion. The real aims of the Isreali
masters of the State and Defense Departments can always be seen lurking
behind the scenes in the editorial offices of the neocon press.
Recently, Mr. Kristol and about 40 other neo-con notables published an
open letter to President Bush. They "fully support [his] call for ‘a
broad and sustained campaign’..." – emphasis on "broad." Their targets
include Iraq, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria (ah yes, there it is!) should
they "refuse to comply," as well as the Palestinian Authority. The Wall
Street Journal further expands their target list to include "Syria,
Sudan, Libya, and Algeria," not to mention "parts of Egypt." National
Review, between breathless entreaties to "End Iraq," also advocates
"Ending a few recalcitrant terrorist-friendly regimes in the Middle
East," while Kristol’s own Weekly Standard targets "any group or
government inclined to support or sustain [terrorists] in the future."
What we are looking at clearly – at
last – is the attempted destruction of Israel’s enemies and the
silencing of organizations and regimes that speak a little too much
truth about modern-day Palestine for their own good.
III. What the Catholics Are Saying
As is the unfortunate case within the
Catholic Church today, various and sundry disordered and confused voices
attempt to speak for what was once the united and authoritative voice of
hundreds of millions of Faithful. Since the promulgation of the document
Dignitatis Humane at the Second Vatican Council (which purported to make
the religiously pluralist state the norm of society, as being most
consistent with man’s nature (sic)) marked the Church’s sanction of the
awful experiment known as modern civilization, She has been largely
absent from the scene of serious, enlightened, politically savvy
commentary on the world situation. She has, horrible dictu, become
little more than a nicely robed fan club for everything modern (and the
robes aren’t even that nice any more). As a result the commentary from
Roman authorities on the events since 9-11 falls somewhat short of
enlightening.
The Pope, John Paul II, of scandalous
Koran-kissing fame, was reported by his Secretary of State to have
immediately expressed his hope that "this incredible and desperate act
would lead everyone to reflect on the anti-human, anti-Christian nature
of violence, of all violence, which leads to nothing." His hope was
furthermore that "the Lord [would] give peace to tormented humanity at
the beginning of this third millennium, which we hope will be a
millennium of peace and not hatred." So much for PAX CHRISTI IN REGNO
CHRISTI. And what of the underlying causes of the unspeakable horrors?
Evidently they too were unspeakable.
Meanwhile, we have the usual
assurances from the authorities committed to inter-religious dialogue
that "This is not a religious war." Thus indicated Bishop Anthony
Theodore Lobo of Islamabad-Rawalpindi according to a Zenit dispatch of
October 12, 2001. "Now more than ever, we must seek dialogue between the
religions and look into the causes of injustice that fuel violence and
terrorism," he continued. Now, this is either NOT a religious war,
making religious dialogue largely irrelevant or at least unnecessary, or
it IS a religious war, making that dialogue more essential and timely
that ever. If he was referring to Judaism and Islam, he might have a
case. A discussion about the racist policies mandated by the Talmud for
non-Israeli citizens in Palestine might be good place to start. But we
cannot help but suspect that he was uttering a meaningless platitude; or
worse – he was suggesting that somehow the Christian West must redouble
its efforts to be at peace with the Islamic world. If he stopped to
listen to Arab/Muslim grievances, which we have glanced at in some
detail above, he might get the sense that it is not the Christians who
should be on the hook for making peace with the Muslims.
The following day, a detailed Zenit
wire report of October 13, 2001 busies itself with a lengthy
consideration of whether or not bin Laden’s "ideology" is representative
of Islam or merely of fanaticism. But the consideration fails miserably
to take into account bin Laden & Co.’s stated goals. There may indeed be
a very interesting internal Islamic debate over whether suicide and/or
attacks on non-combatants is justified in warfare, but can the entire
"ideology" of bin Laden be reduced to this one question? The question of
MEANS (lawful ones vs. unlawful and unconscionable ones) is very
different from the question of ENDS. But the question of ends is left
out of focus entirely: the "ideology of Osama bin Laden´s followers ‘is
no more intrinsically linked to Islam or Islamic civilisation than Pearl
Harbour was to Buddhism, or Northern Irish terrorists are to
Christianity.’" The implications are to be expected: 1) bin Laden’s
ideology is obviously a simple and straightforward defense of/advocation
of attacks on non-combatant civilians, no more, no less – a fact which
conveniently obviates the need for us to dwell on the uncomfortable
demands he makes of the U.S. and Israel, and 2) the program of
inter-religious dialogue can be preserved, since it is a question of a
dialogue between Christianity and a peace-loving, reasonable, "moderate"
Islam.
The same reductionism applies in
reverse when the object of the attacks is considered. In an interview
with self-styled moralist George Weigel, from the same wire, the
interviewee states that "The perpetrators of these acts of mass murder
understood themselves to be involved in a war – against the United
States and, more broadly, the West." Obviously the West is incarnate in
the Pentagon and the WTC. Furthermore, Weigel evidently expects us to
believe that there is a West left to attack, and thus one left to
defend. But what world order is being defended as we pound away at
Afghanistan? Will the nations of Europe and America spontaneously
recover their Faith after bin Laden is blown to bits by a smart bomb?
The Catholic "this-is-Islam-vs.-the-West" apologists would have us
believe so.
The Conservatives Are Just as Bad
There is a camp of these apologists
mixed in among very traditional Catholic circles, as well, and it’s a
mixture which we here at the Legion view with the utmost of suspicion.
Suspicion because the fervent, sincere, traditional Catholics are the
ones who are supposed to possess the divine light of Faith with which to
interpret the sings of the times in light of the great struggle between
God and Satan, between the Light and the Darkness, between Good and
Evil. As Fr Fahey says at the outset of his long volume The Mystical
Body of Christ in the Modern World: "The events of our age, as of every
age, are, in the last analysis, the results of man’s acceptance or
rejection of the Divine Plan for ordered human life. They are,
therefore, the consequences of the application to action of the ideas of
what is order and what is disorder, which have been held by different
minds. Accordingly, the appreciation of these events and of their
consequences for the future must be based on what we Catholics know by
faith about the order of the world…"
We would expect, therefore, a fairly
profound and accurate analysis from any body professing the
"traditional" faith.
Leading the pack of those within
traditional Catholic circles who see America’s New War as the defense of
the West from militant Islam is the American TFP (Tradition, Family, and
Property). Their comment on recent events reads:
"Militant Islam believes it has a
chance to strike a blow at the remaining edifice of Christian
civilization…"
"The terrorist attacks on New York
and the Pentagon have escalated the conflict. They have proven to
militant Islam that it has the outreach to have a profound historical
impact that could just possibly win…
"We must face up to the fact that
this is…an attack on the Christian world at a time when it has been
weakened to an almost unimaginable degree by secularism and moral decay.
But our world is still worth fighting for. Its foundation is sound and
one could even say holy. It is what remains to stand on after centuries
of internal and external assaults. It is time then to face reality,
consider uncomfortable facts, and prepare for a long, directed struggle.
This is not merely a "policing action," but perhaps a clash of
civilizations."
A few very simple observations
suffice to detail our profound disagreement with such a stance.
1. The current and historical mortal
enemy of Christian civilization is Judeo-Masonry. There can be no doubt
about this fact from an analysis history, both recent, and that which
dates from the time of Our Lord. Islam is a sideshow, albeit a powerful
and vigorous one, to the main drama. It has been a tool of Jewry and may
in fact be so in this case.
2. There is nothing to suggest that
bin Laden, assuming he is the guilty party – or whoever is responsible
for the attacks of 9-11 – considered the attacks to be an assault on the
West, insofar as it is the uniquely Christian West.
3. As we’ve said here before, even
the most superficial analysis of the targets of the attacks would
suggest that the U.S.-dominated world political and financial order was
the object of attack. Hardly strongholds of Christianity.
4. In truth, there is no longer a
Christian West to attack. To suggest that the US of A is the last
bastion of Christian civilization is a sad mockery of the truth. It has
been a greater Israel for many years; the rise of Hollywood, Wall
Street, the Fed, and Roosevelt’s State and Treasury departments assured
that.
Now, it’s one thing to be wrong; it’s
another thing to be misleading. The TFP’s analysis of the situation may
very well be factually incorrect but made with the best of intentions.
So be it.
On the other hand, such a conclusion
is so far off the mark that we may be permitted a hint of suspicion.
1. The Jews are saying the same thing
that the TFP is saying. The Jerusalem Post called this an attack on
"enlightened civilization," and the New York Times of September 15th
opines that these attacks were symptoms of a larger "hatred of the
United States and Western culture [which] is seeping into a broader
spectrum of the world's disaffected populations." Anytime the Jews are
defending the "west," it is a west that Christians should think twice
about defending…and should in fact be positively afraid of.
2. Equating the US of A with the
Christian West, aside from being erroneous, is a propaganda stunt of
disturbing proportions. The US has never been a bastion of Christendom,
given its pluralist society and its religiously neutral constitution.
Implying that America is the last outpost of Catholic Europe blurs
dangerously the essential, and otherwise obvious, distinctions between
the "West’s" traditional defense of personal property and the US’s
scandalous promotion of unrestrained capitalism as the only alternative
to the Communist menace; the distinction between the "West’s"
traditional defense of natural rights and freedoms with the US’s
obstinate elevation of the rights of man above the rights of God. And it
implies that the Statue of Liberty deserves a place alongside the statue
of Our Lady as a legitimate defender of Christendom, despite the
former’s status as a symbol of the Revolutionary deification of man and
his will.
3. The thought that the U.S.
government is mounting a defense of Christianity and Christian culture
is mind-boggling. The President, his cabinet, our "lawmakers"; one and
all have assured us that this "crusade" is a crusade for freedom,
democracy, and tolerance. Can it be imagined for a moment that Geo. Bush
has anything in his mind remotely close to the "armed defense of the
Christian West?" When the coming battle is pitched as an eradication of
evil, that evil is hardly militant opposition to Christianity. If
anything, the evil to be eliminated is exactly the contrary: militant
opposition to Israel and the materialist, enlightenment ideology it has
inspired.
Even if It Were True
The "West" has been so decimated by
multiculturalism, religious pluralism, and materialism that it could not
mount a credible defense of itself against Islam even if it tried.
Leaving aside its sheer military power, the defense of the West would
require a coherent ethic, a vision, a grasp of the Truth in order to
sustain a campaign against an enemy with a comparably powerful vision
and doctrine. The west has long ago abandoned any commitment to such a
doctrine, in the name of freedom.
The ideological obsession with
tolerance and freedom (the particular virtue which the Taliban lacks!)
is at an all-time high, and somehow it is posited as the antidote to the
events of 9-11. "The ideal of liberty at the core of America´s greatness
–" intoned the Archbishop of Canterbury in London on Sept. 15, "the
liberty symbolised by that statue emerging unscathed from the pall of
devastation – was founded on a noble community of values in which we are
proud to share. Values like tolerance and compassion, justice and mercy.
Values at the heart of the Christian faith and also of other faiths."
The archbishop’s tolerance (sic), however, is a tolerance of anything
and everything, without regard to right or wrong, true or false, good or
evil; it is hardly a source of strength and cultural vigor required to
confront a militant Islam, should such a confrontation ever become
necessary.
Practically speaking, the example set
by American society is both as hypocritical and as useless in the
supposed confrontation with Islam that is headed our way. Government
officials were falling all over themselves immediately after 9-11 to
remind Americans that "Vigilante attacks and threats against
Arab-Americans will not be tolerated," insisting that such behavior goes
against the "very principles and the quality of freedom on which our
nation was founded" (cnn.com, 17 Sept.). Stress over the 9-11 attacks
was melted away in the multi-religious and obviously NOT Christian
ceremonies which popped up all over the land: "...At the same time,
there have been a growing number of interfaith religious services
bringing together Christians, Jews, Muslims and others. The events have
been intended to emphasize spiritual common ground within religiously
pluralistic America, and there have been more of them than at previous
times of international crisis" (NYT 14 Sep 01). And the nation’s
commitment to the defense of Christianity can be no better illustrated
than in the demand put forth by the ACLU at the beginning of October
that Breen Elementary School in Rocklin, CA, remove a "God Bless
America" sign; they contended that "the words broadcast ‘a hurtful,
divisive message’" (By Ryan McCarthy, The Sacramento Bee, October, 6,
2001). The school’s eloquent defense of the sign bodes well for
America’s Christian resolve in defending itself from the coming Muslim
hordes: "It's simply not a religious expression," said Phillip Trujillo,
a lawyer representing the Rocklin Unified School District. "It’s instead
a patriotic expression." Ah yes. Patriotic. What a magnificent defense
of the Faith of our crusading ancestors!
Of course, dear Mr. Trujillo
shouldn’t be blamed. He’s a victim of history. The United States’
a-religious foundation made compromise with militant Islam quite easy,
as far back as 1796.
"As the government of the United
States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion
– as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion
or tranquility of Musselmen – and as the said States never have entered
into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is
declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions
shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the
two countries."
(Article 11, Treaty of Peace and
Friendship, signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796 (3 Ramada I, A. H. 1211),
and at Algiers January 3, 1797 (4 Rajab, A. H. 1211). Original in
Arabic. Submitted to the Senate May 29, 1797. (Message of May 26, 1797.)
Resolution of advice and consent June 7, 1797. Ratified by the United
States June 10, 1797. Translation: Barlow,
that which was submitted to the Senate (American
State Papers, Foreign Relations, II, 18-19) and which is printed in the
Statutes at Large and in treaty collections generally; it is that
English text which in the United States has always been deemed the text
of the treaty.)
