The ACORNisation of the Middle East

Previously, The Wandering White has covered Western support for the Ikhwan-Iran “Arab Spring” jihad, here and here.

An interesting analysis has appeared, written by the American geopolitical prodigy Ryan Mauro, in which he suggests that (like many Marxists before him), American President Barack Hussein Obama (a.k.a. Barry “Red Barry” Sotero) is now a convert to neoconservatism.  Here is an excerpt:

Everyone was so focused on the part of President Obama’s Middle East speech about a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders that his transformation into a democracy-spreading, regime-changing neocon was missed. He proclaimed the goal of American foreign policy in the Middle East is “to promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to democracy.” Those are more polite words for incremental regime changes of all the undemocratic governments.

The beginning of President Obama’s term was marked by a concerted effort to convince the Iranian regime that the U.S. does not seek its removal. An “outstretched hand” was offered to rogue states and funding was cut to organizations undermining the Iranian regime. The Obama administration reversed course over time, especially since the advent of the Arab Spring. Human rights was always vocally supported, but not in such a loud fashion. Now, policy is being overhauled to make promoting freedom its central component. What a George W. Bush thing to do.

The Obama administration first began warming up to regime change in Iran, even if it did not have a strong strategy to accomplish it. The Green Revolution forced President Obama to begin altering his language and in September, Secretary of State Clinton let it be known that she desires regime change.

“I can only hope that there will be some effort inside Iran, by responsible civil and religious leaders, to take hold of the apparatus of the state,” she said. She denied that she was calling for regime change, but it is obvious that is what she meant. The lack of a coherent strategy in support of this objective can be criticized, but it’s apparent that this is the hope of the administration and some small actions have been taken to help the Iranian protesters.

The Obama administration then supported regime change in Egypt after it became clear that President Mubarak was on his way out. Vice President Biden initially said Mubarak should not step down and that he is not a dictator, but this soon changed as the strength of the revolution was realized.

Up next was Libya. The Obama administration called on Muammar Gaddafi to give up power, but began a confusing policy by not making this an objective of the military campaign. The stated goal was to prevent Gaddafi from bloodily massacring the rebels in Benghazi at the very last moment and to stop the attacks on civilians. President Obama continues to speak in support of Gaddafi’s removal, but says military resources will not be used for this purpose. This is a policy of regime change, even if its implementation sends mixed signals.

Yemen followed. The U.S. initially refrained from coming against President Saleh, but the resilience of the uprising and the ongoing violence exercised by his forces resulted in a similar reversal in policy. The U.S. began workingbehind the scenes with the Gulf Cooperation Council to push Saleh to step down to no avail. President Obama is now calling for his resignation. Saleh’s rhetoric has taken an anti-American turn and his forces are permitting al-Qaeda to advance. On Sunday, his loyalists trapped ambassadors from the U.S. and Europe inside the embassy of the United Arab Emirates. Clashes between his supporters and opponents are escalating after he bailed on another agreement. These developments make it certain that the U.S. policy of regime change towards Yemen will sharpen.

U.S. policy towards Syria is now just shy of regime change. Secretary of Defense Gates initially responded to the revolution by saying the military should “empower a revolution” as was done in Egypt. He denied calling for regime change, just as Clinton did earlier in regards to Iran, but that’s exactly what he did. In President Obama’s speech last week, he said: “President Assad now has a choice: he can lead that [democratic] transition, or get out of the way.” The official U.S. stance is that Assad still has time left to change his ways but the “window is narrowing.”

In the case of Bahrain, President Obama did not call for regime change but he did call for reform. This reflects the top-down approach towards democratic transition (and therefore, regime change) that he will exercise towards governments whose quick collapse is feared. Obama’s approach towards creating a democratic Middle East may differ from Bush’s, but the goal is the same and just as grandiose and idealistic.

[...]

Under the influence of the “human rights” snake oil saleswoman Samantha Power – wife of the “animal rights” snake oil salesman Cass Sunstein –, President Obama has – without the permission of the Congress – committed American troops to a NATO invasion of Libya in an act of unprovoked aggression that serves the interests of the Ikhwan-Iran Axis.

Now, he is on the verge of “supporting regime change” in Syria, which has taken in a steady stream of Christian refugees from American-occupied Iraq.  And Westerners study in Syria routinely, as is no longer possible in “newly liberated” Egypt.  At the same time, Obama is fighting the neocons’ wars of national liberation in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as fighting the decidedly Leftist Mrs. Sunstein’s war in Libya.

However, we should recall that President Obama taught “critical race theory” at the University of Chicago, and that he spent his career as a Gramscian community organiser in the tradition of Saul Alinsky. Gramscians see nothing wrong with democracy, as long as it leads to what they call “counter-hegemony” (i.e., control of society by an all-embracing anti-capitalist united front).  Further, neo-Gramscianism extends this view to foreign policy. Thus, it is “good” to empower the Ikhwan-Iran Axis, the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), and the New Black Panther Party, because they are all anti-capitalist, and can be counted upon to supposedly “liberate the oppressed” from the imaginary ”neoliberal hegemony“ of the Trilateral Commission.

Getting rid of Obama and the Royals is not enough, as no foreseeable development will save us from the sixty-eighters who dominate our way of living and thinking.  The KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov was right when, thirty years ago, he warned the John Birch Society that many Americans had long since been brainwashed by the Soviets through a programme of demoralisation, and that it was in the ’60s that the first generation of brainwashed children reached maturity and went haywire, due to a lack of systematic patriotic education.  England appears to have undergone a similar process.

President Bush II dreamt of a “free”, “democratic” (i.e., pro-Western) Middle East.  President Obama likely dreams of a Middle East dominated by proles, and empowering the Ikhwan-Iran Axis is a means to that end.  Superficially, Presidents Bush and Obama both appear to be neocons, but the motivations driving their neocon-like support for jihadist rebels are radically different.

1st July, 2011 Update: 

Srdja Trifkovic wrote in Libya: A Non-Hostile War:

[...]

A hundred days into the war, the justification for the Libyan intervention remains unclear. The UN Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized military action “to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack.” A week into the operation the White House strongly denied that regime change is part of its mission in Libya. Six days later, on March 28, Obama declared that the intervention was necessary so that “democratic impulses” are not “eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship.” So it was about spreading democracy, after all—but in the same address the President denied this by saying that “broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.”

Within days, however, American cruise missiles were launched against Gaddafy’s compounds with the obvious intention of killing him and thus deciding the issue in favor of the rebels. The objective of removing him from power, once openly acknowledged, soon became non-negotiable. “Would this be an example of a President misleading the nation into an (illegal) war?  Or did the goal of the war radically change oh-so-unexpectedly a mere few weeks after it began?”  wondered Glenn Greenwald in Salon.com on June 25. “Everyone can make up their own mind about which is more likely.”

Many members of Congress did just that on June 24 by rejecting the poisoned chalice in the form of a misnamed “de-funding” bill. In fact that bill would have stopped spending for some war purposes, but explicitly authorized it for others.  That is why dozens of anti-Libya-war members in both parties voted against the “de-funding” bill. Had it passed, the White House legal alchemists would have used it to claim that the Congressional approval of some funds for the Libyan operation was tantamount to its effective authorization of the war itself. As Greenwald points out, the outcome was no victory for Obama:

After all, the Clinton administration—after the House failed in 1999 to authorize bombing for the Kosovo war—continued the bombing anyway by claiming the House had ‘implicitly’ authorized that war by appropriating some funds for it, and Obama White House lawyers would have almost certainly made the same exploitative claim here.  As Ron Paul—echoing the spokesperson for House progressives—said in explaining his NO vote on ‘de-funding’, the bill “masquerades as a limitation of funds for the president’s war on Libya but is in fact an authorization for that very war… instead of ending the war against Libya, this bill would legalize nearly everything the President is currently doing there.”

A particularly galling reason for what the President is doing there was cited by the outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates: intervention in Libya “was considered a vital interest by some of our closest allies… that have come to our support and assistance in Afghanistan.” In other words, America was obliged to attack Libya not because that country threatened U.S. security but because the politicians in Paris and London decided that it would be a good idea—and America owed them one for helping out in Kandahar. By the same token, the U.S. Air Force should be on standby whenever one or another American ally from the Coalition_of_the_Willing is in need of some aerial firepower.

[...]

 

When the English Monarchy Turned Marxist

Previously, The Wandering White has covered the moral decline of the British state.

By Sean Gabb on 29th April, 2011:

Monarchy, Nation-States, And The Failed Reign of “Elizabeth The Useless”

[...]

Why is the English Monarchy is [sic] at once so important to England—I prefer this honest tribal term to the now-obsolescent “Britain”—and recently so disappointing?

Many Americans no doubt looked at all the bowing and kissing and walking backwards, and thought how lucky they were to live in a republic—especially in one where anyone at all, it seems, is able to become head of state. Perhaps they are right.

I, however, have always been very glad to be an Englishman. Among much else, being English brings complete moral security and no need ever to apologize or even explain.

It is the function of the Monarchy both to express and to sustain England’s national identity and all that stands with it. The Monarchy reminds us that our nation is not some recent arrival in the world, and that the threads of continuity between ourselves and our distant forebears—what Abraham Lincoln called “the mystic chords of memory”—have not been broken. England and its monarchy exist today, and five hundred years ago, and a thousand years ago, and one thousand five hundred years ago. And, as we go further back, they vanish together, with no sense that they ever began at all, into the forests of Northern Europe.

But what makes the Monarchy nowadays so disappointing is that Her Present Majesty—“Elizabeth the Useless”—has, during the fifty nine years of her reign, been an absolute failure at discharging any of her positive functions.

Her negative functions she has discharged well enough. To do these, however, she has simply needed to occupy the right place in her family tree and know how to smile and wave whenever she appears before us. If, like the Emperor of Japan, she never said or did anything in public, she would still express our national identity.

But she really has never lifted a finger to sustain that identity. She could have done much to slow the transformation of England into a sinister laughing stock. She might well have stopped it. Instead, even before she became a shambling old woman, Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God Queen, Defender of the Faith, chose to sit by and watch.

Let me explain. By law, the Queen is our head of state, and Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and Commander in Chief of all the armed forces. She appoints all the bishops and judges, and all the ministers and civil servants. She declares war, and all treaties are signed on her behalf. The only thing she cannot do is make laws by her own authority and impose taxes. To do either of these, she needs the consent of Parliament.

On the other hand, she can also veto any parliamentary bill she dislikes—and her veto cannot be overridden by any weighted majority vote of Parliament.

These are the theoretical powers of an English Monarch. During the past three centuries, though, the convention first emerged and then hardened, that all these powers should be exercised in practice by a Prime Minister who is leader of the majority party in the House of Commons.

He may be called First Minister of the Crown. He may have to explain himself every week to the Monarch. Where things like Royal Weddings are concerned, he mostly keeps out of sight. But, as leader of the majority party in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister draws his real legitimacy from the people. No Monarch has dismissed a Prime Minister, or tried to keep one in office, since the 1830s. No Monarch has rejected a parliamentary bill since 1708.

Because it is unwritten, and because its various conventions are in continual flux, the English Constitution can be rather opaque to foreign observers. Some of these fail to understand the nature of convention, and assume that the Queen of England is an absolute monarch—though more genteel than the King of Saudi Arabia. Others see the conventions as the only reality, and regard England as an odd sort of republic.

Both are wrong. Our Constitution is based on an implied contract between people and Monarch. This is that, in public, we regard whoever wears the Crown as the Lord’s Anointed. In return, the Monarch acts on the advice of a Prime Minister, who is accountable to us.

But this implied contract has one important limiting term. It holds only so long as politics is other than a cartel of tyrants and traitors. But just such a cartel is exactly what has emerged in Britain as the 1960s radical generation completed its Gramscian “Long March through the institutions”, as I have documented in my pamphlet Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back (free PDF download here).  And once the politicians make themselves, as a class, irremovable, and once they begin to abolish the rights of the people, it is the duty of the Monarch to step in and rebalance the Constitution.

The need for this duty to be performed has been apparent since at least 1972, when we were lied into the European Union. The Conservatives did not fight the 1970 general election on any promise that they would take us in. When they did take us in, and when Labour kept us in, we were told that it was nothing more than a trade agreement. It turned out very soon to be a device for the politicians to exercise unaccountable power. The Queen could and should have acted then, beginning by insisting on a General Election after the terms of Britain’s entry were settled.

There have been many times since when she should have acted. At all times, she could have sacked the Government and dissolved Parliament without provoking riots in the street.

But so far as I can tell, the Queen has acted only twice in my lifetime to force changes of policy—typically, on behalf of the emerging Politically Correct consensus. In 1979, she bullied Margaret Thatcher to go back on her election promise not to hand Rhodesia over to a bunch of black Marxists. In 1987, she bullied Margaret Thatcher again to give in to calls for sanctions against South Africa.

And that was it. She is somewhere on record as having said that she regards herself more as Head of the Commonwealth than as Queen of England.Certainly, she has never paid any regard to the rights of her English subjects.

I said that the Queen has not discharged her positive functions. It is actually worse than this. By discharging her negative functions, she has allowed many people to overlook the structures of absolute and unaccountable power that have grown up during her reign. She has fronted a revolution to dispossess us of our country and of our rights within it.

This does not, in itself, make a republic desirable. Americans may be very pleased with an electoral system that has given them so many interesting and even entertaining heads of state. But, from an English point of view, American history is something more enjoyably observed than suffered.

Doubtless, if a Government of National Recovery ever found itself opposed by the Monarch, it might be necessary to consider some change. Such a government would have only one chance to save the country, and nothing could be allowed to stand in its way. But this should only be an extreme last resort.

Symbolic functions aside, the practical advantage of having a monarchy is that the head of state is chosen by the accident of birth and not by some corrupted system of election; and that the head of state is likely to show a longer term, more proprietorial interest in the country than someone who haslied his way to one or two terms of office.  (This is the essential argument of the German libertarian Hans-Herman Hoppe’s book Democracy: The God that Failed.) We got Elizabeth II by a most unhappy accident of birth.

Indeed, Britain was behind the destruction of Rhodesia, and the Crown apparently preferred the black Marxist Robert Mugabe to the independent-minded Briton Ian Smith.  Shall we be surprised that Mr. Mugabe’s ambassador, Gabriel Machinga, was invited to the Royal wedding?

A.J.A. Peck, an Oxford-educated Rhodesian politician of the United Federal Party who later ran as an independent against Ian Smith’s Rhodesian National Front, explained in his book Rhodesia Accuses:

But of once thing I am positive: The ordinary white Rhodesian’s belief in the dishonesty, the lack of integrity, of successive British governments together with his total distrust of these governments, have been as much a contributing factor to the Rhodesian Unilateral Declaration of Independence as any policies of Mr. Smith himself.

Similarly, Britain contributed significantly to the decline of the white South African government in the 1980s.  In both instances, Elizabeth II is at fault.  In fact, Elizabeth II made the South-African-Jewish anti-apartheid, anti-Rhodesian parliamentarian Helen Suzman an honourary Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire in 1989, when apartheid was still in force.

We know Prince Charles is a pro-Islamic, radical-environmentalist twit, and it is doubtful Prince William is any better than his father or than his grandmother.

Let us pray for England.

The Soviet Republic of Great Britain

The British state now refuses to tolerate any opinion contrary to the official dogma that homosexuality is morally equal to heterosexuality.  In the service of this dictat, the state would deny needy children good homes that may, if queried, denounce the homosexual lifestyle.

By Stephen Bates in The Guardian on 28th February, 2011:

Anti-gay Christian couple lose foster care case

Court rules against Christian couple who claimed their beliefs on homosexuality should not prevent them becoming foster carers

A Pentecostal Christian couple have lost their high court claim that they were discriminated against by a local authority because they insisted on their right to tell young foster children that homosexuality is morally wrong.

Eunice and Owen Johns, who are in their sixties and have fostered children in the past, claimed they were being discriminated against by Derby city council because of their Christian beliefs, after they told a social worker they could not tell a child a “homosexual lifestyle” was acceptable. The couple had hoped to foster five- to 10-year-olds.

The case was the latest to be brought by conservative evangelicals, led by the Christian Legal Centre, over their supporters’ right to discriminate specifically against gay people and not be bound by equality regulations. All the cases have so far been lost.

In a sharply worded judgment, Lord Justice Munby and Justice Beatson dismissed the couple’s lawyer’s claims as “a travesty of reality”.

“No one is asserting that Christians (or, for that matter, Jews or Muslims) are not ‘fit and proper’ persons to foster or adopt. No one is seeking to de-legitimise Christianity or any other faith or belief. On the contrary, it is fundamental to our law and our way of life that everyone is equal before the law and equal as a human being … entitled to dignity and respect. We are, however, entitled to take judicial notice of the fact that, whereas the sharia is still understood in many places as making homosexuality a capital offence, … the Church of England permits its clergy, so long as they remain celibate, to enter into civil partnerships. We live in this country in a democratic and pluralistic society, in a secular state not a theocracy.”

Outside the court, Eunice Johns said: “We are extremely distressed at what the judges have ruled. All we wanted was to offer a loving home to a child in need, but because we are Christians with mainstream Christian views on sexual ethics, we are apparently unsuitable.

“We are prepared to love and accept any child. All we were not willing to do was to tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a good thing. We feel excluded and that there is no place for us in society.”

The CLC’s lawyer, Andrea Minichiello Williams, said: “How can judges get away with this? The law has been increasingly interpreted by judges in a way which favours homosexual rights over freedom of conscience. Britain is now leading Europe in intolerance to religious belief.”

The judges in their ruling said they were not ruling against beliefs but against the discriminatory effects of those beliefs and that one set of beliefs could not take precedence in a pluralist society.

Derby city council said it had never taken a view on the Johns’ application, adding: “It would be inappropriate for the council to approve foster carers who cannot meet minimum standards. It would be difficult and impractical to match children with Mr and Mrs Johns if they feel that strongly.”

Lord Justice Munby and Justice Beatson refused to tolerate thoughts differing from those of the pro-homosexual (celibacy is in fact not so much as requested of Anglican priests in their “civil partnerships”), pro-jihadist Church of England.   Clearly, the Soviet Union was anti-homosexual; nevertheless, the parallel with the soft totalitarian inclinations of our government is unmistakable.

By Hal G. P. Colebatch in The Australian on 21st April, 2009:

Thought police muscle up in Britain

Britain appears to be evolving into the first modern soft totalitarian state. As a sometime teacher of political science and international law, I do not use the term totalitarian loosely.

There are no concentration camps or gulags but there are thought police with unprecedented powers to dictate ways of thinking and sniff out heresy, and there can be harsh punishments for dissent.

Nikolai Bukharin claimed one of the Bolshevik Revolution’s principal tasks was “to alter people’s actual psychology”. Britain is not Bolshevik, but a campaign to alter people’s psychology and create a new Homo britannicus is under way without even a fig leaf of disguise.

The Government is pushing ahead with legislation that will criminalise politically incorrect jokes, with a maximum punishment of up to seven years’ prison. The House of Lords tried to insert a free-speech amendment, but Justice Secretary Jack Straw knocked it out. It was Straw who previously called for a redefinition of Englishness and suggested the “global baggage of empire” was linked to soccer violence by “racist and xenophobic white males”. He claimed the English “propensity for violence” was used to subjugate Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and that the English as a race were “potentially very aggressive”.

In the past 10 years I have collected reports of many instances of draconian punishments, including the arrest and criminal prosecution of children, for thought-crimes and offences against political correctness.

Countryside Restoration Trust chairman and columnist Robin Page said at a rally against the Government’s anti-hunting laws in Gloucestershire in 2002: “If you are a black vegetarian Muslim asylum-seeking one-legged lesbian lorry driver, I want the same rights as you.” Page was arrested, and after four months he received a letter saying no charges would be pressed, but that: “If further evidence comes to our attention whereby your involvement is implicated, we will seek to initiate proceedings.” It took him five years to clear his name.

Page was at least an adult. In September 2006, a 14-year-old schoolgirl, Codie Stott, asked a teacher if she could sit with another group to do a science project as all the girls with her spoke only Urdu. The teacher’s first response, according to Stott, was to scream at her: “It’s racist, you’re going to get done by the police!” Upset and terrified, the schoolgirl went outside to calm down. The teacher called the police and a few days later, presumably after officialdom had thought the matter over, she was arrested and taken to a police station, where she was fingerprinted and photographed. According to her mother, she was placed in a bare cell for 3 1/2 hours. She was questioned on suspicion of committing a racial public order offence and then released without charge. The school was said to be investigating what further action to take, not against the teacher, but against Stott. Headmaster Anthony Edkins reportedly said: “An allegation of a serious nature was made concerning a racially motivated remark. We aim to ensure a caring and tolerant attitude towards pupils of all ethnic backgrounds and will not stand for racism in any form.”

A 10-year-old child was arrested and brought before a judge, for having allegedly called an 11-year-old boya ”Paki” and “bin Laden” during a playground argument at a primary school (the other boy had called him a skunk and a Teletubby). When it reached the court the case had cost taxpayers pound stg. 25,000. The accused was so distressed that he had stopped attending school. The judge, Jonathan Finestein, said: “Have we really got to the stage where we are prosecuting 10-year-old boys because of political correctness? There are major crimes out there and the police don’t bother to prosecute. This is nonsense.”

Finestein was fiercely attacked by teaching union leaders, as in those witch-hunt trials where any who spoke in defence of an accused or pointed to defects in the prosecution were immediately targeted as witches and candidates for burning.

Hate-crime police investigated Basil Brush, a puppet fox on children’s television, who had made a joke about Gypsies. The BBC confessed that Brush had behaved inappropriately and assured police that the episode would be banned.

A bishop was warned by the police for not having done enough to “celebrate diversity”, the enforcing of which is now apparently a police function. A Christian home for retired clergy and religious workers lost a grant because it would not reveal to official snoopers how many of the residents were homosexual. That they had never been asked was taken as evidence of homophobia.

Muslim parents who objected to young children being given books advocating same-sex marriage and adoption at one school last year had their wishes respected and the offending material withdrawn. This year, Muslim and Christian parents at another school objecting to the same material have not only had their objections ignored but have been threatened with prosecution if they withdraw their children.

There have been innumerable cases in recent months of people in schools, hospitals and other institutions losing their jobs because of various religious scruples, often, as in the East Germany of yore, not shouted fanatically from the rooftops but betrayed in private conversations and reported to authorities. The crime of one nurse was to offer to pray for a patient, who did not complain but merely mentioned the matter to another nurse. A primary school receptionist, Jennie Cain, whose five-year-old daughter was told off for talking about Jesus in class, faces the sack for seeking support from her church. A private email from her to other members of the church asking for prayers fell into the hands of school authorities.

Permissiveness as well as draconianism can be deployed to destroy socially accepted norms and values. The Royal Navy, for instance, has installed a satanist chapel in a warship to accommodate the proclivities of a satanist crew member. “What would Nelson have said?” is a British newspaper cliche about navy scandals, but in this case seems a legitimate question. Satanist paraphernalia is also supplied to prison inmates who need it.

This campaign seems to come from unelected or quasi-governmental bodies controlling various institutions, which are more or less unanswerable to electors, more than it does directly from the Government, although the Government helps drive it and condones it in a fudged and deniable manner.

Any one of these incidents might be dismissed as an aberration, but taken together – and I have only mentioned a tiny sample; more are reported almost every day – they add up to a pretty clear picture.

We must be reactionary, not conservative.  To be conservative is to preserve the British police state, with all its cultural-Marxist crimes of thought and speech. 

Britain is now on the verge of becoming uninhabitable for those who do not wish to be slaves of the socialist mafia.

Diversity Update: Young White Girls Bought and Sold By Muslims in Britain

The problem of internal trafficking in white girls, some as young as twelve, by syndicates of Iraqi men throughout the UK has been recognised by the British authorities for years. 

Now the problem of Pakis trafficking in young white female sex slaves turns out to be endemic in Britain, and perhaps to be present in the States as well.  Something well-established in the Dar al-Islam has, thus, come to the West through the dictates of mass Third World immigration and ethnic diversity.

By Melanie Phillips in The Daily Mail on 10th January, 2011:

Not for the first time, Jack Straw has ignited a firestorm of controversy by expressing serious concerns about behaviour within the British Muslim community.

Mr Straw, whose Blackburn constituency is heavily populated by Muslims, spoke out after two British men of Pakistani descent were jailed last week for a series of rapes and sexual assaults on vulnerable young girls, whom they also groomed for sex with other gangs members or their relatives. 

This was far from a one-off case. Police operations going back to 1996 have revealed a disturbingly similar pattern of collective abuse involving small groups of Muslim men committing a particular type of sexual crime.

This has typically involved abducting, raping or otherwise sexually attacking hundreds of mainly white girls aged 11 to 16, as well as enslaving them through alcohol and drugs and grooming them for sex.

Mr Straw said the reason was that some British Pakistani men regarded emotionally ‘vulnerable’ white girls as ‘easy meat’ whom they trapped through plying them with gifts and drugs.

[...]

One Muslim man was reported as saying that white girls are targeted by such men because ‘if they did it to a Muslim girl, they’d be shot’.

White girls also tend to be seen as sluts. Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, a national Muslim youth organisation, says: ‘These people think that white girls have fewer morals and are less valuable than our girls.’ 

[...]

For in this debauched British society, highly-sexualised behaviour by even pre-teens is ignored, excused, condoned or encouraged.

Who can be surprised that young white girls willingly go with these sexual predators who pick them up when so many stagger in and out of pubs and nightclubs in a drunken haze wearing clothes that leave little to the imagination and boasting of ‘blow jobs’ or how many guys they have ‘shagged’?

[...]

The disgust felt by some Muslim youths at such sexually promiscuous girls can then feed into a more general hatred and hostility towards Britain and the West. Such youths form themselves into gangs bound by a common feeling of being outsiders united by a profound hostility to the society into which they were born.

But because they are indeed also part of British society, and have therefore been exposed to an education system which gives them precious little education about Britain and even less moral ­guidance, such youths often descend into the same pit of drugs, alcohol and sex as their ‘unbeliever’ peers.

Yet they come from backgrounds where, all too often, women have second-class status — a world in which some particularly extreme communities have a mindset that divides them into either virginal slaves to their husbands or prostitutes.

The resulting conflict set up in the minds of these British Muslim boys sometimes creates a disgust that turns upon the ‘slags’ and ‘slappers’.

Or — far more lethally — it leads to a self-disgust which makes them vulnerable to the message that they can purify themselves by destroying the society that has led them into such evil and ungodly ways.

It is remarkable that, even though the obscenity of rape and the inviolable rights of women over their bodies are among the shibboleths of the age, feminists and other liberals are almost totally silent when Muslims violate these sacred codes.

Muslim women are often treated abominably within their communities. But to their suffering, feminists and other right-on liberals are almost totally silent. The only sound from that lobby is the cry of ‘racist’ or ‘bigot’ hurled at anyone who dares protest at such religious slavery.

Some Muslim sexual predators may now be behind bars. Others, according to the police, may still be very much at large.

But it is multicultural, reverse-racist, sickeningly hypocritical Britain which is actually in the dock.

Of course, Muslim men will rape and sell any kafir woman.  It is that way in Kosovo, and it is that way in Britain as part of the perpetual celebration of diversity and The Other that our communal life has become. 

Now it appears that this charmingly quaint aspect of the Orient may have reached America, the homeland of multiculturalism:

Girl, 13, says she fled home to avoid a forced marriage in Pakistan

Authorities searching for Jessie Marie Bender, 13, of Hesperia found her Wednesday at an Apple Valley motel. She told them that her family had planned to take her to Pakistan, where they were going to marry her off.

Standing in front of TV cameras at a Hesperia gas station Monday, the distraught mother of a missing teenager made an urgent plea.

“If you are holding my daughter, please let her go,” Melissa Bender said. “Please, I beg you to let my daughter go. She’s just 13 years old.”

Jessie Marie Bender had been missing a week. Her mother told authorities she feared the girl had run away with a Chicago man she met on Facebook. Following the family’s initial report, the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department launched a massive search in the High Desert town for the girl, bringing in agents from the FBI, the U.S. Marshals Service, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Chicago police.

On Wednesday afternoon, detectives found the girl at an Apple Valley motel. She was hiding there, authorities said, with the help of an uncle who said she was running away from a forced marriage in Pakistan.

Investigators are now trying to find out whether such a marriage was being planned, said sheriff’s spokeswoman Roxanne Walker. But they know that the girl left home because she was scared.

“Jessie was afraid to go to Pakistan with her mom,” Walker said. “She was concerned about the situation, and she didn’t want to go.”

Melissa Bender, holding the door to her home slightly ajar, told a reporter Thursday that a forced marriage was not being planned. In a voice just above a whisper she said the family had planned a trip to Pakistan in February to visit the family of her 6-year-old daughter’s father.

“I just wanted my daughter to see it and experience it,” Bender said.

She said that she and her significant other, Mohammad Khan, a Pakistani man, passed lie detector tests and that she didn’t expect any charges would be filed against her.

“We’re all just very happy Jessie has been found,” she said. “I thank the community for all their help.”

When Jessie first disappeared Feb. 22, her mother told detectives that her daughter might have run away because she did not want to go on a two-month family trip to Pakistan, authorities said. A few days later Melissa Bender told them about the Facebook relationship.

Neighbors said a team of investigators showed up at the home earlier this week and searched inside and out.

“They shut down the cul-de-sac,” said Ryan Halstrum, 23, who was inside his home when investigators arrived. “They wouldn’t let anyone go through.”

After combing through cellphone records and computer data and interviewing Jessie’s friends and relatives, sheriff’s detectives found no evidence that her disappearance was related to her correspondence on Facebook and determined that the family’s initial reports were false.

“The evidence in the investigation never revealed any of that,” Walker said.

Jessie Bender and three siblings are now in protective custody. The investigation into the case is ongoing, and a report will be forwarded to the district attorney when it’s complete, Walker said.

Rape is part of jihad.  Kafir men who import Muslim men into the Dar al-Harb are asking for their female relatives to be raped.   Kafir women who import Muslim men into the Dar al-Harb are asking to be raped.  

Our leaders will have to decide if they want to side with the Brits they love to hate against the Muslims they love to coddle.

The Suicidal West

The Daily Telegraph reports that the suicidal West is planning to overthrow the murderous – but anti-Khomeinic, non-Salafist – Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi using the justification that it fears he may use mustard gas to stay in power against rioters, many of them from enemy tribes, now displaying flags with crescents and stars as they march against him with the support of the Islamic Republic of Iran and of Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual guide:

Libya: West ready to use force against Col Gaddafi amid chemical weapon fears

David Cameron and other Western leaders are on the brink of ordering military action against Col Muammar Gaddafi amid fears that the Libyan dictator could use chemical weapons against his own people.

The Prime Minister disclosed that he would not rule out “the use of military assets” as Britain “must not tolerate this regime using military forces against its own people”. Britain and America are also thought to be considering arming rebel forces in Libya.

Adding to growing concern about the crumbling regime’s ability to commit last desperate acts of mass murder, British sources have disclosed that Libya still has stocks of mustard gas chemicals.

Mr Cameron told MPs that Britain and its allies were considering using fighter jets to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, patrolling and shooting down Libyan aircraft ordered to attack protesters.

The Pentagon announced that the Americans had begun “repositioning forces” around Libya to provide “flexibility”. The French also announced that they would back a possible military intervention with Nato partners.

The warnings were sounded after Gaddafi was accused of ordering Libyan aircraft to attack a radio station being used by rebels in the city of Benghazi. An arms depot being used by anti-government forces was also blown up in the town of Ajdabiya, 100 miles further south.

Meanwhile, Gaddafi appears to be following in Mubarak’s footsteps:

Libya towns fall to rebels as world moves to isolate Gaddafi

Libyan protestors have overrun several strongholds of Col Muammar Gaddafi in the western part of the country.

* Witness reports jet gunned down near Misrata and crew captured

* Geneva-German foreign minister proposes moratorium on all financial transfers to Libya for 60 days

* Libyan loyalists evicted from towns of al-Zawiyah and Nalut

Gaddafi loyalists had been evicted from Nalut, 145 miles west of Tripoli. “The city has been liberated since February 19. It has been run by a revolutionary committee named by the town’s communities,” said Shaban Abu Sitta, a local lawyer and member of a revolutionary committee.

Just a few years ago, multiculturalist Labour demagogue Tony Blair, whose sister-in-law Lauren Booth converted to Mohammedanism and has worn a hijab since her “holy experience” visiting the Islamic Republic of Iran, and whose wife – the prominent barrister Cheri Booth QC – has a fascinating habit of defending jihadists, was giving NATO secrets to Gaddafi and training his special forces (as well as struggling to secure the release of the Lockerbie bomber, something David Cameron has rightly, if cynically, decried):

Libya: Tony Blair agreed to train Gaddafi’s special forces in ‘deal in the desert’

Tony Blair used his final foreign trip as prime minister to sign a confidential deal with Muammar Gaddafi to train Libyan special forces and supply him with Nato secrets.

A copy of the accord obtained by The Daily Telegraph shows that the two leaders agreed to co-operate on defence matters in a range of areas, including exchanging information about defence structures and technology.

It was signed during the former Labour prime minister’s “Blair-well” tour of Africa in May 2007, in Gaddafi’s tent in the Libyan desert.

Included in the document was an agreement on “co-operation in the training of specialised military units, special forces and border security units”. They also signed up to “exchanges of information on Nato and EU military and civil security organisations”. The document was personally signed by Mr Blair and Gaddafi.

A passing reference to it was contained in a joint communiqué between the two countries, which was issued at the time and posted on the Foreign Office website before being removed a few weeks ago.

Meanwhile, Wikileaks reports (Hat Tip: Council of Conservative Citizens) that a prominent Jewish multiculturalist, the United States Ambassador to France and Monaco, Charles H. Rivkin, is hoping to pressure the French government into politically mobilising the violent and rapidly multiplying Maghrebi and black Mohammedans in France with the advice of President Sarkozy’s Commissioner for Equal Opportunities, Yazid Sabeg:

SUBJECT: EMBASSY PARIS - MINORITY ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY

REF: A. SECSTATE 127215
¶B. PARIS 1714

Classified By: Ambassador Charles H. Rivkin, Reasons 1.4(b),(d).

¶1. (C/NF) SUMMARY: In keeping with France’s unique history
and circumstances, Embassy Paris has created a Minority
Engagement Strategy that encompasses, among other groups, the
French Muslim population and responds to the goals outlined
in reftel A. Our aim is to engage the French population at
all levels in order to amplify France’s efforts to realize
its own egalitarian ideals, thereby advancing U.S. national
interests. While France is justifiably proud of its leading
role in conceiving democratic ideals and championing human
rights and the rule of law, French institutions have not
proven themselves flexible enough to adjust to an
increasingly heterodox demography. We believe that if
France, over the long run, does not successfully increase
opportunity and provide genuine political representation for
its minority populations, France could become a weaker, more
divided country, perhaps more crisis-prone and
inward-looking, and consequently a less capable ally. To
support French efforts to provide equal opportunity for
minority populations, we will engage in positive discourse;
set a strong example; implement an aggressive youth outreach
strategy; encourage moderate voices; propagate best
practices; and deepen our understanding of the underlying
causes of inequality in France. We will also integrate the
efforts of various Embassy sections, target influential
leaders among our primary audiences, and evaluate both
tangible and intangible indicators of the success of our
strategy. END SUMMARY.

——————————————— —–
BACKGROUND: THE CRISIS OF REPRESENTATION IN FRANCE
——————————————— —–

¶2. (C/NF) France has long championed human rights and the
rule of law, both at home and abroad, and justifiably
perceives itself as a historic leader among democratic
nations. This history and self-perception will serve us well
as we implement the strategy outlined here, in which we press
France toward a fuller application of the democratic values
it espouses. This strategy is necessary because French
institutions have not proven themselves flexible enough to
adjust to the country’s increasingly heterodox demography.
Very few minorities hold leadership positions in France’s
public institutions. As President Sarkozy’s own Diversity
Czar Yazid Sabeg told Ambassador Rivkin in December, the
National Assembly “serves as a mirror of the crisis of
representation in France” (reftel B). The National Assembly,
among its 577 deputies, has a single black member from
metropolitan France (excluding its island territories), but
does not have any elected representatives of Muslim or Arab
extraction, though this minority group alone represents
approximately 10 percent of the population. The Senate has
two Muslim Senators (out of 343), but no black
representatives and only a few Senators hail from other
ethnic or religious minorities. Sabeg also noted that none
of France’s approximately 180 Ambassadors is black, and only
one is of North African descent. Despite Sarkozy’s
appointment of leaders such as Rachida Dati, Fidela Amara and
Rama Yade, minorities continue to confront a very thick glass
ceiling in France’s public institutions. The French media
remains overwhelmingly white, with only modest increases in
minority representation on camera for major news broadcasts.
Among French elite educational institutions, we are only
aware that Sciences Po has taken serious steps to integrate.
While slightly better represented in private organizations,
minorities in France lead very few corporations and
foundations. Thus the reality of French public life defies
the nation’s egalitarian ideals. In-group, elitist politics
still characterize French public institutions, while extreme
right, xenophobic policies hold appeal for a small (but
occasionally influential) minority. Post will continue to
explore other underlying causes of the social, political and
economic barriers impeding the advancement of minorities in
France (see Tactic 6, below).

¶3. (C/NF) France suffers consequences when its leading
institutions fail to reflect the composition of its
population. We believe France has not benefited fully from
the energy, drive, and ideas of its minorities. Despite some
French claims to serve as a model of assimilation and
meritocracy, undeniable inequities tarnish France’s global
image and diminish its influence abroad. In our view, a
sustained failure to increase opportunity and provide genuine
political representation for its minority populations could
render France a weaker, more divided country. The
geopolitical consequences of France’s weakness and division
will adversely affect U.S. interests, as we need strong
partners in the heart of Europe to help us promote democratic
values. Moreover, social exclusion has domestic consequences
for France, including the alienation of some segments of the
population, which can in turn adversely affect our own
efforts to fight global networks of violent extremists. A
thriving, inclusive French polity will help advance our
interests in expanding democracy and increasing stability
worldwide.

——————————-
A STRATEGY FOR FRANCE: OUR AIMS
——————————-

¶4. (C/NF) The overarching goal of our minority outreach
strategy is to engage the French population at all levels in
order to help France to realize its own egalitarian ideals.
Our strategy has three broad target audiences in mind: (1)
the majority, especially the elites; (2) minorities, with a
focus on their leaders; (3) and the general population.
Employing the seven tactics described below, we aim (1) to
increase awareness among France’s elites of the benefits of
expanding opportunity and the costs of maintaining the status
quo; (2) to improve the skills and grow the confidence of
minority leaders who seek to increase their influence; (3)
and to communicate to the general population in France that
we particularly admire the diversity and dynamism of its
population, while emphasizing the advantages of profiting
from those qualities by expanding opportunities for all.

————————————–
TACTIC 1: ENGAGE IN POSITIVE DISCOURSE
————————————–

¶5. (C/NF) First, we will focus our discourse on the issue of
equal opportunity. When we give public addresses about the
community of democracies, we will emphasize, among the
qualities of democracy, the right to be different, protection
of minority rights, the value of equal opportunity, and the
importance of genuine political representation. In private
meetings, we will deliberately direct questions about equal
opportunity in France to high-level, non-minority French
leaders. Rather than retreating from discussions involving
two sacred cows in France — the concepts of “secularism” and
“communitarianism” — we will engage French leaders directly
about the role that their terminology and intellectual
frameworks could play in creating (or diminishing) equality
of opportunity in France. We will endeavor to convey the
costs to France of the under-representation of minorities,
highlighting the benefits we have accumulated, over time, by
working hard to chip away at the various impediments faced by
American minorities. We will, of course, continue to adopt a
humble attitude regarding our own situation in the U.S., but
nevertheless will stress the innumerable benefits accruing
from a proactive approach to broad social inclusion,
complementing our French partners on any positive steps they
take. In addition, we will continue and intensify our work
with French museums and educators to reform the history
curriculum taught in French schools, so that it takes into
account the role and perspectives of minorities in French
history.

——————————
TACTIC 2: SET A STRONG EXAMPLE
——————————

¶6. (C/NF) Second, we will employ the tool of example. We
will continue and expand our efforts to bring minority
leaders from the U.S. to France, working with these American
leaders to convey an honest sense of their experience to
French minority and non-minority leaders alike. When we send
French leaders to America, we will include, as often as
possible, a component of their trip that focuses on equal
opportunity. In the Embassy, we will continue to invite a
broad spectrum of French society to our events, and avoid, as
appropriate, hosting white-only events, or minority-only
events. We will be inclusive, working in this way to break
down barriers, facilitate communication, and expand networks.
By bringing together groups who would not otherwise interact
together, the Embassy will continue to use its cachet to
create networking opportunities that cut through traditional
cultural and social barriers in France.

——————————————
TACTIC 3: LAUNCH AGGRESSIVE YOUTH OUTREACH
——————————————

¶7. (C/NF) Third, we will continue and expand our youth
outreach efforts in order to communicate about our shared
values with young French audiences of all socio-cultural
backgrounds. Leading the charge on this effort, the
Ambassador’s inter-agency Youth Outreach Initiative aims to
engender a positive dynamic among French youth that leads to
greater support for U.S. objectives and values. Some

PARIS 00000058 003 OF 004

elements of our Youth Outreach Initiative have particular
importance for minorities, including:

– Drawing heavily on new media, we aim first to build trust
and gain understanding among French youth from diverse
backgrounds.

– While reinforcing mutual trust and understanding, we seek
to help France’s next generation improve their capacity to
lead in their communities, while also conveying the
importance of transcending the bounds of their own
communities in order to make a broader, national impact.

– To achieve these aims, we will build on the expansive
Public Diplomacy programs already in place at post, and
develop creative, additional means to influence the youth of
France, employing new media, corporate partnerships,
nationwide competitions, targeted outreach events, especially
invited U.S. guests.

– We will also develop new tools to identify, learn from,
and influence future French leaders.

– As we expand training and exchange opportunities for the
youth of France, we will continue to make absolutely certain
that the exchanges we support are inclusive.

– We will build on existing youth networks in France, and
create new ones in cyberspace, connecting France’s future
leaders to each other in a forum whose values we help to
shape — values of inclusion, mutual respect, and open
dialogue.

———————————-
TACTC 4: ENCOURAGE MODERATE VOICES
———————————-

¶8. (C/NF) Fourth, we will encourage moderate voices of
tolerance to express themselves with courage and conviction.
Building on our work with two prominent websites geared
toward young French-speaking Muslims — oumma.fr and
saphirnews.com — we will support, train, and engage media
and political activists who share our values. As we continue
to meet with moderate leaders of minority groups, we will
also expand our efforts to facilitate grass roots inter-faith
exchanges. We will share in France, with faith communities
and with the Ministry of the Interior, the most effective
techniques for teaching tolerance currently employed in
American mosques, synagogues, churches, and other religious
institutions. We will engage directly with the Ministry of
Interior to compare U.S. and French approaches to supporting
minority leaders who seek moderation and mutual
understanding, while also comparing our responses to those
who seek to sow hatred and discord.

———————————
TACTC 5: PROPAGATE BEST PRACTICES
———————————

¶9. (C/NF) Fifth, we will continue our project of sharing
best practices with young leaders in all fields, including
young political leaders of all moderate parties so that they
have the toolkits and mentoring to move ahead. We will
create or support training and exchange programs that teach
the enduring value of broad inclusion to schools, civil
society groups, bloggers, political advisors, and local
politicians. Through outreach programs, Embassy officers
from all sections will interact and communicate to these same
groups our best practices in creating equal opportunities for
all Americans. We will also provide tools for teaching
tolerance to the network of over 1,000 American university
students who teach English in French schools every year.

——————————————— —-
TACTIC 6: DEEPEN OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROBLEM
——————————————— —-

¶10. (C/NF) Sixth, through focused contact work, reporting
and analysis, we will deepen the USG understanding of the
underlying causes of inequality and discrimination in France.
We will break new ground by examining how the very structure
of some French institutions may limit minority representation
in elected office and the high ranks of the civil service.
Examining significant developments in depth, such as the
debate on national identity (reftel B), we plan to track
trends and, ideally, predict change in the status of
minorities in France, estimating how this change will impact
U.S. interests. As our awareness expands and deepens, we
will adjust, accordingly, the minority outreach strategy
described here.

——————————————— ——–

PARIS 00000058 004 OF 004

TACTIC 7: INTEGRATE, TARGET, AND EVALUATE OUR EFFORTS
——————————————— ——–

¶11. (C/NF) Finally, a Minority Working Group will integrate
the discourse, actions, and analysis of relevant sections and
agencies in the Embassy. This group, working in tandem with
the Youth Outreach Initiative, will identify and target
influential leaders and groups among our primary audiences.
It will also evaluate our impact over the course of the year,
by examining both tangible and intangible indicators of
success. Tangible changes include a measurable increase in
the number of minorities leading and participating in public
and private organizations, including elite educational
institutions; growth in the number of constructive efforts by
minority leaders to organize political support both within
and beyond their own minority communities; new, proactive
policies to enhance social inclusion adopted by non-minority
political leaders; expansion of inter-communal and
inter-faith exchanges at the local level; decrease in popular
support for xenophobic political parties and platforms.
While we could never claim credit for these positive
developments, we will focus our efforts in carrying out
activities, described above, that prod, urge and stimulate
movement in the right direction. In addition, we will track
intangible measures of success — a growing sense of
belonging, for example, among young French minorities, and a
burgeoning hope that they, too, can represent their country
at home, and abroad, even one day at the pinnacle of French
public life, as president of the Republic.
RIVKIN

Notice how the revolutionary multiculturalists in the US government justify deeply rooted French arrogance and socialism — even in secret – while saying that Africans in France must be mobilised and empowered by the Obama Administration like the blacks amongst whom Obama agitated as a Marxian “community organiser” in Chicago.   Also note the fanatical goal of “decreasing xenophobic political parties and platforms”, even though France is solidly socialist, and the assumption that Africans should not be expected to support white leaders.

The so-called US ”national interest” is defined by Ambassador Rivkin as “spreading democratic values” — or is it President Obama’s black nationalism and personal sympathy for the Mohammedanism of his childhood that we see in Ambassador Rivkin’s  visions of an African-Mohammedan President of France? — and fighting “networks of violent extremists”, which are precisely what the Obama Administration will work to make mainstream in France  — whether out of malice or out of incompetence — as they seek to “encourage moderate voices”.

All this meddling is ostensibly occurring for France’s benefit as well as for America’s.  In reality, it benefits neither party, and America and France have not been allies at least since De Gaulle, who sought to align a French-led “Europe from Dublin to Vladivostok” with the Arab world against the United States and Israel, until Eurabia as we know it today materialised.  (Interestingly, Israel had been a steadfast ally of France, most recently in 1956 together with Britain in the Suez Crisis.  The Eisenhower Administration sided with the USSR against us.  Dwight D. Eisenhower personally advocated putting all the world’s nuclear weapons under the control of the UN, something with which the young Ronald Reagan found himself in agreement.   Reagan never gave up his liberal delusion that nuclear weapons were a threat rather than a stabilising force; he believed merely that the Soviet Union had to be destroyed before perpetual peace would come.)

Let us hope for Europe’s sake that the French will not succumb to American pressure this time.

10th March, 2011 Update:  France is the first nation stupid enough to recognise the jihadist National Libyan Council as the official government of Libya.

17th March, 2011 Update:  Britain and France pushed to hold a UN Security Council vote calling for use of force against Gaddafi.  Russia and China, traditional Gaddafi allies, appear to be reluctant to go along with the plan, while the Arab League seems to be supportive.  Action against Gaddafi ”could include France, Britain, possibly the United States and one or more Arab states”.

18th March, 2011 Update:

By Ken Timmerman in Newsmax on 17th March, 2011:

Gadhafi Eyes Oil as Loyalists Rout Rebels

Moammar Gadhafi loyalists released video footage showing they had captured the key crossroads city of Ajdabiya from rebels on Thursday, and vowed to move toward the rebel stronghold Bengazi, some 95 miles to the north.

The Libyan government has relied heavily on paid mercenaries from neighboring countries and Lebanon’s Hezbollah to spearhead the fighting, according to sources close to the rebel headquarters in Bengazi.

In Tripoli, Gadhafi’s son Seif al Islam, who has become the Libyan strongman’s spokesman in recent weeks, said the fighting would be over “in 48 hours.”

Gadhafi met with the ambassadors of China, Russia and India on Sunday, and offered to invite them to take over oil installations vacated by Western oil companies, according to the government news agency, JANA.

“We are ready to bring in India and Chinese companies to replace Western companies,” Gadhafi said.

The president of the Libyan oil company, former prime minister Shukri Ghanem, said that Libya was only producing around 500,000 barrils of oil per day, down from 1.6 million b/d before the fighting began in mid-February.

Last week, five llyushin 76 military cargo jets flew military gear to Libya from Russia and unloaded it at the far side of the international airport in Tripoli, according to sources close to rebel forces on the ground.

“There are signs [Gadhafi] is seeking additional armaments right now,” British Prime Minister David Cameron told parliament on Tuesday.

Cameron said the British government was willing to consider imposing a no-fly zone on Libya even without a U.N. Security council resolution, which Russia and China have been blocking until now.

“Every day Gadhafi is brutalizing his own people,” Cameron said. “Time is of the essence.”

Libyan Sukhoi-24 fighter bombers pounded rebel positions during fierce fighting for control of Ajdabiya on Tuesday. The absence of a no-fly zone also has allowed Gadhafi to fly his personal jet, a French-built Dassault Falcon, back and forth to Belarus on suspected sanctions-busting missions, according to Hugh Griffiths, an arms-trafficking analyst with the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, SIPRI.

Griffiths says that Libya has been flying in weapons from Belarus. The rebels claim that Gadhafi has brought in special forces troops from Ukraine to seal the border with Egypt, so the rebels can’t escape as loyalist troops launch the final assault on the rebels at Benghazi.ymy

A Western source in telephone contact with former Libyan air force personnel on the ground at the Tripoli airport, said that two Il-76 flown by Syrian pilots landed five days ago, bringing Hezbollah fighters from Lebanon.

The rebels say that Hezbollah fighters, dressed as civilians, infiltrated Ajdabiya 24 hours before the attack against the rebels by Gadhafi’s forces on Tuesday, and have been slaughtering rebel fighters who didn’t manage to flee before the town fell to the loyalists.

“It’s going to be a bloodbath,” the Western source said his contacts on the ground were telling him.

Syrian president Bashar al-Assad “gave orders to his intelligence to assist Gadhafi’s services via information and any other means,” Middle East expert Walid Phares tells Newsmax. “Damascus allowed a number of pilots trained to fly Migs and Soviet Built attack helicopter to be hired as mercenaries for Gadhafi.”

In a celebratory late-night speech on Tuesday from his Bab Azizia palace in Tripoli, Gadhafi claimed only 150 people had been killed in the fighting.

“What happened is a few rats and dogs infiltrated our society and got some weapons,” he said. “We consider these to be limited incidents.”

20th March, 2011 Update:

From Reuters on 20th March, 2011:

China calls for stability in Libya after attacks

(Reuters) – China wants stability restored to Libya as soon as possible, the foreign ministry said in a statement on Sunday after Western forces launched strikes against Muammar Gaddafi’s troops. Expressing regret about the attacks, the Chinese foreign ministry said that it hoped the conflict would not escalate and lead to greater loss of civilian life.

China had the chance to veto last week’s United Nations Security Council resolution that authorized “all necessary measures,” a term for military action, to protect civilians against Gaddafi’s forces. Instead, it joined Russia, Germany, India and Brazil in abstaining.

China has been trying to balance its worries about allowing military action with the demands of Arab and other governments angered by Gaddafi’s unyielding response to uprisings demanding an end to his rule.

“China has noticed the latest developments in Libya and it expresses regret about the military attacks,” the foreign ministry said in a statement on its website.

“We hope that Libya can recover stability as soon as possible and that an escalation of military conflict leading to more civilian deaths can be avoided,” it added.

China’s comments came just hours after French planes fired the first shots in what is the biggest international military intervention in the Arab world since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Western forces hit targets along the Libyan coast. Libyan state television said 48 people had been killed and 150 wounded in the air strikes.

Throughout the recent tumult across the Middle East and North Africa, China has sought to avoid becoming deeply enmeshed and has little appetite for turning the regional upheaval into a point of confrontation with the United States.

Libya is considering offering oil block contracts directly to China, India and other nations it sees as friends in its month-long conflict with rebels, Libya’s top oil official said on Saturday.

By Alex Bellamy in The Australian on 21st March, 2011:

We can’t dodge the hard part stabilising Libya [sic]

A NERVOUS silence fell on the UN Security Council shortly after 6pm last Thursday. Its Chinese chairman asked members who opposed the passage of Resolution 1973 on Libya to raise their hands.  A single nod from the Chinese or Russians would have stopped international efforts to protect the people of Libya from Muammar Gaddafi’s henchmen in their tracks. “Oh man . . .” somebody in the chamber could be heard to say. None of the assembled ambassadors raised their hands.

Russia, China and India, three notorious champions of state sovereignty and non-intervention, abstained. Nigeria, South Africa, Gabon, Lebanon and Colombia joined the West in supporting the resolution.

What this means for Libya remains to be seen but Resolution 1973 marks an important step forward in the battle to rid the world of mass atrocities. The question is no longer whether the world should act to stop mass atrocities but how best to do so.

The council has sent a clear signal of its commitment to the responsibility to protect principle (or R2P) that states governments have a duty to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. When they fail to do this, R2P demands the international community, acting through the Security Council, protect threatened populations. This is no academic abstraction: it was agreed in 2005 by all UN member states and endorsed by the Security Council.

This is not the first time the international community has used R2P. The council’s hesitant response to Darfur was considerably strengthened after the adoption of R2P in 2005: the president of Sudan was indicted for crimes against humanity and the UN helped deploy one of the largest peace operations there.

African mediators were guided by R2P in their successful effort to stop the post-election violence in Kenya in 2008.

In Guinea and south Sudan the principle has contributed to the prevention of mass killing.

What, then, is special about Resolution 1973?

Besides the remarkable fact that the council was responding to Arab demands for military intervention – unthinkable just a month ago – those who criticise the council’s foot dragging should remember this is the first time it has authorised force against a functioning government to protect civilians.

In Somalia and Rwanda, the council authorised force only once it judged there was no functioning government to consult.

Diplomats thought it virtually impossible to persuade the council to authorise force for humanitarian purposes without the consent of the target state.

It was commonly assumed that at least two of the veto-wielding permanent members (China and Russia) and several other non-Western members would never concede that functioning states lose their right to non-interference when they abuse their own populations.

With the council often deadlocked, groups of states were sometimes forced to act without UN authorisation, as in Kosovo, and bear all the associated political and material costs. Not this time. Building an international consensus on military intervention involves complex and painstaking diplomacy. The Arab League’s call for a no-fly zone was a game-changer.

Some Arab governments were no doubt motivated by dislike of Gaddafi and a desire to divert attention from their own troubles. But only the most jaundiced would dismiss entirely the role of humanitarian concern.

African support was important but not surprising.

The African Union led the way on R2P: its charter, agreed in 2000, gives the organisation a right of humanitarian intervention in Africa.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon played a pivotal role. Advised by the UN’s new Genocide Prevention and R2P office, which warned of an imminent threat of crimes against humanity in the first days of the crisis, Ban urged the council to act.

This put the issue firmly on the agenda, paving the way for Resolution 1970 imposing sanctions and referring Libya to the International Criminal Court.

Strident advocacy by Britain, France and Australia, and the Obama administration’s cool-headed diplomacy, forged a wide consensus on limited military intervention. Indonesia was one of those persuaded.

Why didn’t China cast its veto? China has endorsed R2P more than once but that doesn’t mean it agrees with the West on how to act in the face of crises.

Chinese views about how to respond to major crises are influenced by the opinions of relevant regional organisations.

Diplomats knew that if the Arab League and the African Union were prepared to back the military option in Libya, China would not block it.

This is precisely what China told the council after the passage of Resolution 1973.

For its part, having accepted the need for a second resolution and tabling its own draft calling for a ceasefire, Russia was boxed in politically and unwilling to stand alone against the resolution.

Whether 1973 marks a decisive shift for the better or a new cautionary tale about the limits of humanitarian war depends on what happens next.

If the measures adopted succeed, not only will Libya be transformed but tyranny everywhere will be put on notice.

Difficult operational questions abound. These require hard-nosed thinking. Delivering on 1973 requires good strategy and adequate resources.

The resolution’s supporters must show the will to deliver. Having championed the cause so admirably, Australia cannot now leave the hard work to others.

Note that relatively capitalist Germany abstained from voting on UN Resolution 1973, along with the Sino-Russian-led BRICs nations (though not South Africa, due to her connections with George Soros and R2P) while socialist France is siding with the “enlightened” free world in their quest to give the African Union, the Arab League, and the National Libyan Council the means to carry out Qaradawi’s fatwa against the relatively secular Gaddafi.

28th March, 2011 Update:

From KeyWiki, on George Soros’s involvement in the events in Libya:

In March of 2011, the US, UK and France aligned themselves with the UN to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya. Supposedly this was to protect the rebel forces trying to overthrow Moammar Gadhafi. Whether the US will admit it or not, this would necessitate the dethroning of Gadhafi (who is currently worth about 40 billion dollars and is one of the wealthiest men in the world) or he would have to be eliminated, re: killed. This then clears the path for the Muslim Brotherhood to seize control just as they are doing in Egypt and in other places throughout the Middle East. It would appear that the US has chosen the ‘wrong’ side of this fight either intentionally or by incompetence. Barack Obama violated the Constitution of the United States by not consulting Congress before committing an act of war on another nation that did not pose an imminent threat to the US. He claims it is not an act of war, but bombing another country and restricting their ‘fly zone’ is the very definition of an act of war. It is also a violation of the War Powers Act. He simply went to the United Nations and proceeded as he saw fit. In the US, this is widely viewed as an impeachable offense.

It has been noted that [George] Soros is one of the key people behind the Libya military move. He was a key adviser to Obama on the issue. This may be related to the fact that Gadhafi originally agreed to forming an “open society” in Libya and then reneged on that promise.

From American Thinker:

When we engage militarily in other nations, civilian casualties are inevitable, especially since terrorists hide among civilian populations. There is one influential group that has been in the forefront of efforts to promote the idea that the international community is obligated to take measures (including military ones) to protect civilians. That group is the Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect. Lo and behold! George Soros’ Open Society Institute is one of the two foundations that bankroll this advocacy group (the other, the John D. and Catherine MacArthur Foundation – a group that has, over the years, become known not just for its Genius Awards but also for its funding of left-leaning groups. It is headed by a former State Department official and we know how many of those diplomats think).

The Soros-funded global group that promotes Responsibility to Protect is closely tied to Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights.^[30]

From WND:

The joint U.S. and international air strikes targeting Libya are widely regarded as a test of Responsibility to Protect – which is a set of principles, now backed by the United Nations, based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege, but a responsibility.

According to the principle, any state’s sovereignty can be overrun, including with the use of military force, if the international community decides it must act to halt what it determines to be genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity or ethnic cleansing.

The founder of the Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect is Gareth Evans. He is also a board member. Board members of the group include former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, former Ireland President Mary Robinson and South African activist Desmond Tutu. Robinson and Tutu have recently made solidarity visits to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip as members of a group called The Elders, which includes former President Jimmy Carter.

More from WND:

Soros himself outlined the fundamentals of Responsibility to Protect in a 2004 Foreign Policy magazine article entitled “The People’s Sovereignty: How a New Twist on an Old Idea Can Protect the World’s Most Vulnerable Populations.”

In the article, Soros said “true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.”

“If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified,” Soros wrote. “By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states’ borders to protect the rights of citizens.

“In particular, the principle of the people’s sovereignty can help solve two modern challenges: the obstacles to delivering aid effectively to sovereign states, and the obstacles to global collective action dealing with states experiencing internal conflict.”

Soros’ Open Society Institute is one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect. Government sponsors include Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Rwanda and the U.K.

Apparently, the best thing the world can do is to assassinate Soros and his heir apparent – his son Alexander – before they destroy everyone but Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Who Better Understands the Relationship Between Democracy and Islam: Al-Qaradawi or Cameron?

By Nicholas Watt in The Guardian on 22nd February, 2011:

David Cameron’s Middle East vision sees him retreat from the Bushes

Prime minister’s speech in Kuwait dismissed ‘realist’ school and neocon approaches favoured by former US presidents

[...]

In his speech at the national assembly in Kuwait, the prime minister laid to rest Britain’s Camel Corps school of diplomacy. The “realist” school, symbolised on the world stage by Bush Sr, held that the west should hold its nose and support despots in the Middle East in the interests of stability.

Cameron dismissed this approach. He said it leads to a prejudice bordering on racism, which believes [sic] that Arabs and Muslims cannot manage democracy.

Bush Jr [...] also reacted against the “realist” thinking by embracing the neocons. They believed the US should not be afraid to spread universal values of democracy around the world, preferably in hostile states such as Iraq.

This approach famously prompted neocons to declare that US troops would be greeted in Iraq with flowers on the streets. Democracy would then flourish.

Cameron rejected this approach too. In his speech he reiterated his phrase of the moment that he is not a “naive neocon” who believes that democracy can be dropped from an aeroplane. The future prime minister caused great offence in the US when he first outlined this approach, which he called liberal conservatism, on the fifth anniversary of 9/11 in 2006. It was a direct rebuke of the Bush Jr approach.

The Cameron speech also marked a reaction against Tony Blair’s “liberal interventionism”. First outlined in his Chicago speech in 1999, the Blair philosophy said that it was right to challenge sovereign governments if a series of conditions are met.

Cameron’s approach is, by contrast, classically Conservative. He says it is right to encourage democracy in the Middle East. But he says this should be done in an evolutionary way in which the “building blocks” of democracy, such as an independent judiciary and free media, are laid in a careful and painstaking process.

[...]

Meanwhile, “democratic reform” appears to be proceeding apace.  Also from The Guardian (Hat Tip: Jihad Watch):

A prominent Egyptian cleric, Yusuf al-Qaradawi [...] made a public statement tonight that any Libyan soldier who has the opportunity should shoot and kill the Libyan leader [Muammar Gaddafi]. 

Al-Qaradawi might be familiar to many in Britain. The government was criticised back in 2008 by moderate Muslim groups after it banned him from entering Britain and branded him an extremist.

Qaradawi (above), who was banned from entering the United States, had previously visited the UK in 2004 at the invitation of the London mayor, Ken Livingstone, sparking protests from Jewish groups and gay people, who regard him as anti-Semitic and homophobic.

However, he is also arguably the most influential Sunni Muslim cleric in the world and has regularly spoken in the past in support of democracy.

As the spiritual guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaradawi is without question the most influential cleric in the Sunni Muslim world.  No “moderate Muslim groups” would ever criticise the government for refusing him entry, since he not only advocates terrorism, but the conquering of Rome and the conversion of all Europeans to Islam.  

As for accusations that he is “anti-Semitic” or “homophobic”, should either of these attitudes be suprising in a Salafist?   Regarding his supposed support for “democracy” – better defined as ”mob rule” –, Al-Qaradawi is smart enough to realise what David Cameron apparently cannot: that, unlike most Christians today in regions affected by the Enlightenment, Muslims generally take their religion very seriously – and that mob rule in the Muslim world is practically synonymous with sharia and the obligation to engage in jihad against all non-Muslims.

In this case, while Gaddafi is no friend of the West (e.g., the Lockerbie atrocity, his alliances with Marxists, his recent extortion of the Swiss government), the possible successor governments in Libya and elsewhere in the Muslim world — probably replacing more secular ones at the behest of Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood — would be worse for us.

The Rise of the Europhilic “Eurosceptics”

By Jeremy Warner in The Daily Telegraph on 17th February, 2011:

Why Angela Merkel and David Cameron see eye to eye

[...]

On the face of it, David Cameron and Angela Merkel make the most unlikely of bedfellows: one a convinced eurosceptic, the other a fully paid-up member of the European project.

[...]

 

Rightly or wrongly, there is general acceptance in the Tory hierarchy that Britain’s economic interest is best supported by a stable euro, not its break-up. As a consequence, we’ve seen UK participation in the Irish bailout. Undoubtedly, there would be pressure to extend that support to other countries where British banks have a high exposure, should they be threatened.

 

What sorts of “Eurosceptics” are these traitors who align what was once Her Majesty’s Realm with one of the nations that has been at the heart of the United Europe ever since Hitler first made it a reality and the Americans perpetuated it with George Kennan’s accursed Marshall Plan?  Why is it preferable to align with an aggressively Cultural Bolshevist Germany than with an aggressively militaristic Germany?

Perhaps David Cameron should simply declare that it wasn’t worthwhile to fight WWII after all.  Why did no one listen to Enoch Powell? Why are we Brits allowing ze Germans and the stupid Americans to detach Kosovo from Serbia with no more pride or strength than any other lot of Eurabian dhimmis?

Clearly, the durbar has been replaced with adventures in Sindia and Lesbianandgayland.

Charlotte, NC Nigra Patrick D. Cannon Lynches AmRen Conference

From WCNC on 31st January, 2011:

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – The editor of the American Renaissance magazine stood in front of the Government Center in uptown to ask two Charlotte city council members for an apology.

The AR had reserved more than 100 rooms for two nights at the Sheraton Charlotte Airport Hotel off of Interstate 85. The AR wanted to hold its semi-annual conference at the hotel. Last week the hotel canceled the group’s reservations and refunded its deposits.

Jared Taylor said he wants apologies from City Council member Warren Turner and Mayor Pro-tem Patrick Cannon because they worked to keep his group from holding its convention in Charlotte.

“I’m shocked I’m astonished the idea that an elected city council member, the second highest in this city should try to out pressure or imply pressure to chase business away just because he disagree with us,” Taylor said. “Really, really, that’s bad behavior.”

When we spoke with Cannon, he said he did not send out an e-mail that was against the group coming to Charlotte. He added that he personally did not have enough time to contact all the hotels in the area. And he was just keeping some of his constituents informed.

NewsChannel 36 did obtain a copy of the email sent from Cannon’s personal account and it reads:

Subject: Re: Southern Anti-Racist Network

I have all hotels, motels, and gotels on notice and they seem to be cooperating well still. An attempt was made for accommodations at another hotel but based on what I ask to take place they were denied again. It’s my thought that they will still try over and over even if they end up in Cabarras County or Rock Hill. I will keep the level of intelligence up as best I can.

The AR says it does not have a hotel for its convention next weekend.

Indeed, due to Patrick D. Cannon’s machinations, the American Renaissance Conference of 2011 has been cancelled (although it was to be streamed on the Internet television channel of the National Policy Institute); let us pray the neo-Confederates will lynch this uppety nigra with his balls in his mouth.

Further, Nicholas Stix explains:

The Wikipedia entry for American Renaissance completely misrepresents the illegal banning of this year’s American Renaissance conference by the City of Charlotte. Nowhere will one learn that local media outlets, including the Charlotte Observer and News Channel 36/WCNC, published an alleged e-mail from Charlotte City Council Mayor Pro Tem Patrick D. Cannon, in which he admitted that he had ordered the Sheraton Charlotte Airport Hotel to break its contract with American Renaissance, and had ordered other local hotels also to refuse to do business with the organization. Instead, the passage depicts the hotel as having “promptly kicked the conference out of the hotel,” as soon as “activists” alerted it. No mention at all is made of Patrick Cannon.

Unless someone can persuade Wikipedia’s white useful idiots to stop “saving” this socialist horror of a website, nothing can stop the Wikipediasation of the American judiciary, which will in turn only further fatuously anti-white trends already present in the so-called “jurisprudence” of mockeries of the SCOTUS such as the spic supremacist Sonia Sotomayor and the Yid-Marxists Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg (a card-carrying member of the ACLJew), and Elena Kagan (a native of Manhattan’s notoriously Judaeo-Marxian Upper West Side).

The Deaf-Mute Blindmen of the Western Democracies Support the Muslim Brotherhood in Their Egyptian Revolution

The so-called “democratic” fools who dominate what used to be the West have now grown so addled that they will support literally anything calling itself a “democracy movement”, even if it is obviously their deadly enemy aiming to replace their ally — in this particular case Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak — with sharia, hence with jihad.

Out with dictatorship, in with human rights and liberal democracy – this is the so-called “thinking” of the neocons, who support the overthrow of the National Democratic Party.

Similarly, they supported the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, shoving it down the throats of George W. Bush and Benjamin Netanyahu.  Now they are hysterical because the lack of a strong Sunni presence in Baghdad (i.e., the Ba’athists) has enabled the rise of Iran, thereby quite predictably endangering the neocons’ beloved “Little Satan”.

American President Barack Hussein Obama’s administration now supports “orderly transition” in Egypt — which means the destruction of America’s second-highest-funded ally (after Israel), and in essence a continuation of the Carter Administration’s support for the Islamic Revolution in Iran.  (Quite naturally, the mullahs now support the “democracy” protests.)

It is likely that Obama’s personal motivation for supporting the overthrow of Mubarak is to some extent his own sympathy for the overt Marxism-Leninism of many of the American groups supporting the Egyptian uprising, as well as his personal sympathy for the Marxist-Leninist nature of some of the Egyptian protesters themselves.

Obama is clearly sympathetic to Arab jihadists (if not to Persian or white ones) as well as to Marxists, being a black nationalist who was reared a Muslim, and the likelihood of his having great personal sympathy for the Egyptian mobs’ goals cannot be overestimated.

In addition, Obama’s own attachment to post-colonialism and Third Worldism leads him and his entourage to champion the most anti-American forces around the world as the true voices of the disenfranchised, toiling Third World masses.  As of now, they are merely objects on which Western forces act; Obama and his fellow post-American Leftists believe they can teach the Arabs to be independent of this baneful imperialism.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has adopted the same policy, as the post-modern European mind is entranced with post-colonialism.  Meanwhile, Brit PM David Cameron is using the Egypt protests as evidence that “Western values and Islam can be entirely compatible”.

In reality, the West could not have emerged with her fleeting victory against Marxism-Leninism had it not been for the many military dictatorships supported by the United States in Latin America in the 1970′s and 1980′s as part of her containment regime.

Of course, all this is ancient history; what matters now is sponsoring as many Islamic revolutions and secessions as possible, though of course Christian secession from a Communist or Islamic state — as with Katanga or East Timor — is simply insufferable.

It goes without saying that a Muslim Brotherhood success in Egypt will lead to jihadist uprisings in Jordan and Saudi Arabia, where the Muslim Brotherhood are popular, and that it will weaken American allies in Iraq.

11th February, 2011 Update:  It may be that the neocon Daniel Pipes – who, unlike many neocons, opposes the reconstruction of Iraq, de-Christianisation of the West, open borders, Muslim immigration to the West, and immediate free elections in the Dar al-Islam (since he, however absurdly, believes that turning the stone-throwing, IED-building  jihadists into liberal democrats is a long-term process, as opposed to a clear impossibility) – was correct when he wrote that the Egyptian military, not the Muslim Brotherhood, would come out on top in the current mess.

Indeed, according to Vice President Omar Suleiman, President Mubarak has now resigned, leaving the military in power.  It remains to be seen if protests will continue at the urging of Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood, and what sorts of laws the military will enact:  Sharia is extremely popular with Egyptians, even more so than with Iranians or with Turks.

13th February, 2011 Update:  From the Israeli military intelligence website DEBKAfile:

[...]

The Israeli Defense Forces are trained and equipped to confront Iran and fight on the mountainous terrain of Lebanon and Syria. After signing peace with Egypt in 1979, Israel scrapped the combat brigades trained for desert warfare, whose last battle was fought in the 1973 war, and stopped treating the Egyptian army as a target of military intelligence. Israel’s high command consequently knows little or nothing about any field commanders who might lead units if they were to be deployed in Sinai.

Israel’s policy-makers and military strategists are meanwhile acting on two basic assumptions:

1.  Egypt’s new military rulers will not be keen to lose the US $1.3 billion military aid package or their access to state of the art technology, and the Obama administration will make continued assistance conditional on upholding the peace treaty with Israel.

DEBKAfile’s military and Washington sources are not absolutely sure President Obama will lay down this condition or that, if he does, the Egyptian army will accept it. Even if the peace relations are left in place during the regime’s first uncertain two or three months in Cairo, it is by no means certain they will survive thereafter.
 

The new rulers may be influenced by oil-rich Saudi Arabia’s latest policy turn. As DEBKAfile reported exclusively Thursday, Feb. 10, King Abdullah was so incensed by Washington’s abandonment of his friend and ally Hosni Mubarak that he ordered the kingdom’s diplomatic and military ties with Iran upgraded and strengthened. It is anyone’s guess today whether the generals in Cairo opt for Washington or decide to patch up Mubarak’s quarrel with the ayatollahs instead.

Riyadh can easily afford to make up for the loss of American aid to Egypt. Abdullah made that same offer to Mubarak if he stood fast against American pressure for his resignation, promising him a Saudi dollar for American dollar.
2.  Israel is counting on Gen. Omar Suleiman – overlord of Egypt’s intelligence branches and for eight days, Mubarak’s Vice President – to keep faith after many years of close cooperation in safeguarding the peace relationship. Suleiman is one of the top three members of the High Army Council now ruling Egypt, alongside Defense Minister Field Marshal Mohammed Tantawi and Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Sami Al-Anan.
DEBKAfile: Israel may be barking up the wrong tree. When Suleiman was elevated to VP, Jerusalem hoped he would come out of the Egyptian uprising as the coming man. Friday, Mubarak’s resignation left him stripped of his new title.

His footing in the top army command council is far from certain. It is to be expected that once firmly in power, the top generals will start jockeying for the top spot. Suleiman and Tantawi have long been rivals and Mubarak often stepped in to resolve their arguments, usually in the former’s favor which the latter won’t forget.  Since Tantawi is no fan of Israel, Suleiman may decide to promote his own chances by avoiding being seen as overly pro-Israeli or pro-American. Jerusalem may therefore find a closed door when seeking him out.

This is bound to happen soon because of the chaotic free-for-all launched in Sinai while all eyes were on Cairo.

Indeed while a military coup was in progress in the Egyptian capital, Iran, Hamas and Al Qaeda’s Middle East networks were fully engaged in violently reducing the Egyptian presence outside the southern Sharm el-Sheik pocket and beginning a process of annexation to the Gaza Strip starting in North Sinai. This is part of Iran’s new strategy, seized on during the upsets in Cairo, to expand the Hamas state and shift the crux of Palestinian governance from Ramallah to Gaza City.

While this was going on, Hamas and Al Qaeda terrorists along with drug and human traffickers were free to infiltrate Israel, using the flow of thousands of illegal job-seekers smuggled across the lawless Sinai border.

Even the limited control Suleiman asserted over this traffic has gone.

The Netanyahu government in Jerusalem must therefore think fast and make quick decisions about Sinai. Will the military regime in Cairo take action to bring Sinai under control? Or will Israel be reduced to sending drones or special forces across the border for covert action to cut down the threats building up to its security?

[...]

15th February, 2011:  According to the Iranian-born journalist Amir Taheri, writing on President Mubarak’s legacy to Egypt in Mr. Taheri’s 12th February, 2011 NY Post article Curse of the Mummy, the Muslim Brotherhood have penetrated the Egyptian police and military with the help of the Mubarak government since the early 1990s:

In early 1990s, to counterbalance pro-democracy groups, Mubarak started wooing Islamists including the Muslim Brotherhood.

State-owned media gave much airtime to religious propaganda. Government money helped build thousands of new mosques and financed hundreds of Koranic schools and theological colleges. Though technically illegal, The Muslim Brotherhood was allowed to extend its tentacles throughout society, including the armed forces and police. In the previous general election, the “outlawed” Brotherhood was assigned 80 seats in the parliament.

The Mubarak era saw the most intensive effort of Islamicization Egypt had experienced in centuries.

Not surprisingly, as the pro-democracy movement started calling for change, the Brotherhood opened negotiations with Mubarak to save the mummified system of which suited hem both.

The uprising that drove Mubarak away was, at least in part, an attempt by Egyptians to get away from the suffocating religious mummy created by the Rais (president).

Thus, the prior distinction made on this blog between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian military may be wrong.

28th March, 2011 Update:

It appears George Soros’s Open Society Institute is behind the riots, and that it supports the Muslim Brotherhood.  From KeyWiki:

Many are asking who started the riots in Egypt around Jan. 25, 2011, including Walid Phares on Fox News. Phares stated that he believed it was bloggers on Facebook who began the riots.

In April of 2010, a weekly magazine aiming to link Arab bloggers with politicians, the elderly and the elite was launched in Egypt. The weekly Wasla – or “The Link” – is being heralded as a first for the Arab world, with plans for articles by bloggers as a way of giving them a wider readership.

Wasla is published by the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information and is financially supported by the Open Society Institute created by none other than George Soros.^[25]

In the 1st edition of Wasla, the cover featured Mohamed ElBaradei. ElBaradei is Wasla’s chosen candidate and he is also supported by the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran. George Soros and ElBaradei both sit on the Board of Trustees for the International Crisis Group. Radio talk show host Michael Savage lays out in detail the ICG’s ties to the current Islamic uprising in Egypt.^[26] In a June 2008 report entitled, “Egypt’s Muslim Brothers Confrontation or Integration,” ICG urges the Egyptian regime to allow the Muslim Brotherhood to participate in political life.^[27]

Soros’ Open Society also funded the main opposition voice in Tunisia, Radio Kalima, which championed the riots there that led to the ouster of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali.

More from WND:

In September, Soros’ group was looking to expand its operations in Egypt by hiring a new project manager for its Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, which is run in partnership with the Open Society Justice Initiative. The group is seeking to develop a national network of legal empowerment actors for referral of public-interest law cases. Such organizations in the past have helped represent Muslim Brotherhood leaders seeking election or more authority in the country.

Soros made public statements that he supported the uprising in Egypt. He also tacitly supports the Muslim Brotherhood.

From WND:

In a Washington Post editorial entitled, “Why Obama Has to Get Egypt Right,” Soros recognized that if free elections were held in Egypt, “the Brotherhood is bound to emerge as a major political force, though it is far from assured of a majority.”

He stated the U.S. has “much to gain by moving out in front and siding with the public demand for dignity and democracy” in Egypt.

He claimed the “Muslim Brotherhood‘s cooperation with Mohamed ElBaradei … is a hopeful sign that it intends to play a constructive role in a democratic political system.”

Soros did not mention his ties to ElBaradei.

Soros did, however, single out Israel as “the main stumbling block” in paving the way toward transition in the Middle East.

“In reality, Israel has as much to gain from the spread of democracy in the Middle East as the United States has. But Israel is unlikely to recognize its own best interests because the change is too sudden and carries too many risks,” he wrote.

And there is more concerning Soros being behind lobbying efforts for Egypt on Capitol Hill. From Gulag Bound:^[28]

In attempting to explain how lobbyists get U.S. foreign aid for Egypt, journalist Pratap Chatterjee of the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress writes that Tony Podesta, “the brother of a former White House chief of staff,” joined with Toby Moffett, a former Democratic Congressman, and Bob Livingston, a former Republican Congressman, to create a lobbying organization, the PLM Group, to represent Egypt in Washington.

Tony Podesta is the brother of John Podesta. He is Chatterjee’s boss at the Center for American Progress.

More from Gulag Bound:

Politico reported that Tony and John Podesta started Podesta Associates in the late 1980s and that it was later renamed the Podesta Group. So John Podesta was in on this money-making scheme from the start. Soros subsequently asked John Podesta to run the Center for American Progress, whose foreign policy expert, Brian Katulis, has been arguing on MSNBC that the U.S. ought to pull the plug on the Hosni Mubarak government in Egypt and deal with the Muslim Brotherhood.

In other words, the Podesta brothers are on both sides of this international crisis.

…

Politico has since reported that the lobbyists in the Podesta Group and the Livingston Group had lobbied on the issue of a Senate resolution calling for free elections in Egypt. The story didn’t mention that a former Politico editor, John Ward Anderson, now works for the Podesta Group.

Dr. Revilo P. Oliver on Liberalism and the Plight of Western Man

There has been something wrong with the West since before all the Pakis, Jews, Leftists, wogs, feminists, poofs, and other moral degenerates appeared. 

According to the late Professor Revilo Pendleton Oliver:

“LIBERALISM” IS A succedaneous religion that was devised late in the Eighteenth Century and it originally included a vague deism. Like the Christianity from which it sprang, it split into various sects and heresies, such as Jacobinism, Fourierism, Owenism, Fabian Socialism, Marxism, and the like. The doctrine of the “Liberal” cults is essentially Christianity divested of its belief in supernatural beings, but retaining its social superstitions, which were originally derived from, and necessarily depend on, the supposed wishes of a god. This “Liberalism,” the residue of Christianity, is, despite the fervor with which its votaries hold their faith, merely a logical absurdity, a series of deductions from a premise that has been denied.

The dependence of the “Liberal” cults on a blind and irrational faith was long obscured or concealed by their professed esteem for objective science, which they used as a polemic weapon against orthodox Christianity, much as the Protestants took up the Copernican restoration of heliocentric astronomy as a weapon against the Catholics, who had imprudently decided that the earth could be stopped from revolving about the sun in defiance of Holy Writ by burning intelligent men at the stake or torturing them until they recanted. Pious Protestants would naturally have preferred a cozy little earth, such as their god described in their holy book, but they saw the advantage of appealing to our racial respect for observed reality to enlist support, while simultaneously stigmatizing their rivals as ignorant obscurantists and ridiculous ranters.

The Jew has done his bit to damage to the West, too, as noted to great effect by Dr. Kevin MacDonald of the American Third Position Party.   Dr. Oliver wrote of the plight of Western man at the hands of the Jew:

It is a grim and terrible fact that many members of our own race have had their minds so deformed by centuries of cunning Jewish propaganda that they have been conditioned, as effectively as well-trained dogs, to snarl and bite when their Jewish masters utter certain key-words, such as “fascist”, “racist”, and the like, which take the place of the “sic ‘em” to which dogs respond.   They are, furthermore, so emotionally addicted to narcotic fantasies that many of them are both unwilling and unable to endure the distress of looking at the real world about them and thinking rationally about it.  They understandably prefer to close tightly the eyes of looking at the real world about them and live in the dream-world of pleasurable fairy tales, such as they heard in the childhood to which they subconsciously long to regress.  As Kipling nearly characterized them, “If they desire a thing, they declare it is true.  If they desire it not, though it were death itself, they cry aloud ‘It has never been!’”

It is a tragic and potentially disastrous fact that any candid and reasonably comprehensive analysis of our present plight not only exposes its author to surreptitious reprisals or open reprisals, but also alienates many members of our befuddled and perhaps doomed race, making them snarl and want to bite the man who would make them face an unpleasant reality. Many more are so timorous that even a hint of disrespect for Jews sends them running for cover, like frightened cats, lest the Jews punish them for having listened to impious words.

Liberalism, followed by the politically correct philo-Semitic paralysis, followed by the death of the West.