THE CONVERGENCE OF TOTALITARIANISMS

For those new to the righteous cause, or for you naysayers and misguided appeasers in our midst, here is an excruciatingly detailed essay Alexandre Del Valle, translated from the French by Erich von Abele.

SINCE THE INSTIGATION of the second Intifada al Aqsa, in September of 2000; since September 11, 2001, which marked the end of the inviolability of America's strategic sanctuary; and, above all, since the second Iraqi crisis, which has resulted in the dismantling of the regime of Saddam Hussein, one has been able to note throughout the West the emergence of a Red-Green-Brown Axis (the Red of the extreme left, the Brown of the extreme right, and the Green of Islamism). The different components of this Axis have for a common objective the struggle against the new faces of Evil: America, Israel, “Imperialism”, and even the West in its entirety.

The objective alliances among these three ideologies, we will see, did not begin just yesterday. But it is undeniable that the events since the beginning of the new millennium have contributed particularly to their collusion. In effect, the use of the term “crusade” by George W. Bush on the day after September 11 has been seen as a provocation, as much among the anti-clerical extreme left and extreme right as it has among the Islamic milieus—whence the evermore revealing convergence among, on the one hand, those nostalgic for the first two totalitarianisms (the Browns and the Reds) and, on the other hand, the protagonists of revolutionary Islamism.

These latter affect to defend the Arab masses who are “occupied” as much as the poor, the weak, and the “humiliated” of the Third World, the victims of the new Judeo-Christian “imperialist” Crusaders. The recent public standpoints expressed by the famous terrorist—Carlos the Jackal, among others, lead quite clearly in this direction.

It is evident that Islamism, the third totalitarianism after Nazism and Communism, echoes to a definite extent the aspirations of its two predecessors: seizing the struggle of civilizations and religions, then declaring war on the Judeo-Christian world in the name of the “dispossessed” of the rest of the planet, Islamism seduces as much those nostalgic for the pagan Third Reich, resolved to eradicate Judaism and Christianity, as it does those partisans of the hammer and sickle, determined to come to blows with the “bourgeois” and “capitalist” West.

The nerve center of this despised system: Manhattan, “the planetary district of mercenaries of the economic and financial war that America wreaks on the world”, according to the words of Carlos. It was no surprise, then, to see the Browns, the Reds and the Greens rejoice together at the tragedy of September 11, 2001, and to identify Osama bin Laden as a new David against an imperial “American-Zionist” Goliath. It was no surprise, either, to witness the enthusiasm of these three totalitarian movements converge around the “heroic” struggle conducted since March 2003 by the remnant Baathist rebels and Islamist Shiites of Iraq against the American occupation of Mesopotamia.

Evidently, this Red-Brown-Green Axis of “anti-hegemonic” and “anti-imperialistic” hatred was reinforced since the first years of the 1990s and the fall of the Soviet Union. This paradoxical and neo-totalitarian assemblage has seen its apogee on the day after September 11, and above all, during the winter and spring of 2003, with the benefit of the vast campaign of anti-Americanism conducted in the Western world by the opponents of the war against the regime of Saddam.

This junction of Red, Brown and Green totalitarianisms around the cause of Palestinian martyrs, Iraqis and Afghans, as much as the revolutionary figure of Osama bin Laden, confirms the leadership, henceforth uncontested, of revolutionary Islamism. From now on, this exerts a real fascination upon the other totalitarian options defeated by history (Nazism and Communism) and, consequently, condemned either to reconstitute themselves or to join the Islamist revolution in order to pursue their struggle against liberal democracies.


From September 11 to the second Gulf War

If one follows the Red thread from the opposition to “Yankee imperialism”, one sees that the anti-Zionist and anti-American milieus which had found extenuating circumstances in the commando of September 11 are those who try, today, to absolve Islamist terrorism—whether it pertains to the bin Ladenite movement across the globe or to Hamas and the Islamic Jihad in Palestine. Mesmerized by the collapse of the Twin Towers—a terrible illustration of the power of radical Islamism—, the Third Worldist and anti-imperialist ideologues of the extreme left, along with other “counter-globalists”, had been the most vehement to castigate the American intervention in Afghanistan. These were the ones again who, one year later, organized the most virulent “pacifist” displays against the intervention in Iraq , displays equally conducted in the name of the “victims of Zionism”.

Thus Toni Negri, the ex-ideologue of the Red Brigades and leading figure of the No Global movement, declared, in September of 2001, that his compassion did not extent to anyone but to illegal immigrants who might have disappeared with the Twin Towers. The Trotskyite linguist Noam Chomsky, well known for his violently anti-Israeli positions, denounced, in the attack of September of 11, a “planetary imposture”, yet another fascisizing manifestation of “American imperialism”.

Worse: he imputed “the anger of the Islamists” to the “racist” drift of the Hebrew state. As far as the editor-in-chief of Le Monde Diplomatique , Alain Gresh, son of the celebrated pro-Soviet intellectual Henri Curiel goes, he justified, in his book written with Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, the terrorist option of Palestinians in the name of anti-Zionism and “anti-colonialism”.

Two recent, grave events merit particular attention: first of all, the exhortations of the new leaders of the Italian Red Brigades and of the famous “Red terrorist” Carlos to take up the fight of Hamas and al Qaeda; and then, the nearly unanimous appeal by Western neo-Nazi leaders to salute the “heroism” of Hezbollah and bin Laden in their struggle against the Jews and the Americans.

The logical consequence of these parallel fascinations and alliances: Carlos embraces a “revolutionary Islamism destined to sweep the world,” an Islamism that “realizes the dynamic synthesis of different currents (the anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist struggle) and draws for its models of action upon socialism, Marxism and nationalism”; and, at the same time, the charismatic leader of the English neo-Nazi movement, David Myatt, now become Abdul Aziz ibn Myatt, appeals to those nostalgic Axis members and to all enemies of the Zionists, to embrace with him the Jihad, the “true martial religion”, which will most effectively fight against the Jews and the Americans.

Another sign of this rapprochement: on April 3, 2003, the Salafist Londoner Omar Bakri Mohamed, leader of the movement al Mouhajiroun as well as being imam of the Finsbury Park mosque and a recruiter of a number of youths who went off to join al Qaeda, officially received Myatt and accorded him a “welcome into Islam”, specifying to journalists that the neo-Nazi past of this neophyte had “no special importance once their goals converged in common”…

Parallel to this, as the discourse of Marxist terrorists or of certain neo-Nazis becomes Islamified, so too the rhetoric of bin Laden, in particular, and of Islamists in general becomes “Marxized” and “Third Worldized” in its turn, and—uniquely, certainly, unto a tactical aim—borrows, more and more, from the anti-Semitic vulgate of the extreme right. Thus, in his declaration of February 11, 2003, not only did the head of al Qaeda seize on that bête noire of the extreme left which is “the American-Zionist imperialism in Palestine”, recalling the “martyrdom of Vietnam”, but he also for the first time authorized the faithful to ally themselves with an Arab regime that was “atheist” and nationalist:

“Although Saddam Hussein is an infidel, it becomes permissible to unite our forces with his in order to combat the American crusade against Islam and the Muslims.” Saddam himself, that atheist and old “pagan” admirer of Nebuchadnezzar had not ceased, since the first Gulf War, to Islamicize his discourse and his regime. The culminating point of this posture: his declaration of March 4, 2003, in which he called for a “holy war against the United States , the diabolic invaders”, and a Jihad which would oppose “the righteous against the liars, the virtuous against the vicious, the honest against the traitors, the warriors of Jihad against the mercenaries and aggressors.”


Islamism: the most effective of the “anti-imperialist” and revolutionary ideologies

From the outset, one asks oneself what could be able to unify movements as ideologically antagonistic as the Reds (atheists and materialists), the Greens (theocrats and Islamists), and the Browns (believers in the war of the races). To believe that such an alliance would be philosophically impossible and strategically improbable—and, therefore, from the get-go doomed to checkmate—would be to forget that Islamism is not only the third totalitarianism to come about, but is also equally, in a number of points, the inherited unifier of the two predecessors.

Insofar as Islamism is not only simply a religious “fundamentalism”, but also and above all a subversive revolutionary totalitarianism, an ideology of mass destruction comparable to Nazism, Maoism or Stalinism, this “Green fascism” prolongs the anterior totalitarianisms. What distinguishes the Green version essentially is that it brings to the historical totalitarian hatreds a theological justification and a divine benediction.

Whether it concerns the Lebanese Hezbollah, Palestinian Hamas, the al Qaeda combatants, or the Iraqi and Palestinian “resisters”, it must be recognized that in the marketplace of global revolution, the Islamists and the Arab-Muslim “mujahideen” in general are the most effective and ferocious adversaries of “Israeli-American imperialism”. They are the ones who are inflicting the most damage on the “colonialist” and “capitalist” powers—whom the Reds and the Browns detest above all.

Being the third moment of totalitarianism, an avenging Islamism leading the assault on the capitalist democracies and the “Judeo-Crusader forces” knows now such an ascension throughout all corners of the globe and, in particular, in Europe—an ascension facilitated by the planetary and unprecedented mediatisation which it has enjoyed since the shock of September 11—that it has been attracting, like a magnet, the attentions of those nostalgic for the communist and Nazi totalitarianisms.

Drawing at the same time from the vulgate of the extreme right and from an “Islamically correct” template that is pro-Arab and Third Worldist, this new revolutionary and planetary hatred henceforth seduces the latest anti-Jewish and anti-American militants of the extreme radical right.


From the crooked cross to the Crescent

The majority of the extreme right is clearly turned towards the Arab-Muslim world, conforming itself to the desire expressed by Hitler himself in his testament, in the name of the principle: “rather Islamic than Judeo-Mason”. It is therefore at the same time through fidelity to the Führer and by virtue of post-Cold War geopolitics, marked by the return of the civilizational paradigm, that the new extreme right, once viscerally pro-Western and anti-Communist, has tactically exchanged its Atlanticism for a “Third Worldism tinged with anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism”. This orientation gravitates naturally to the support of revolutionary Islamism.

It is undeniable that the discourse of Alain de Benoist—leader of the Groupe de Réflexion et d'Études sur la Civilisation Européenne (GRECE), one of the more influential think-tanks of the pro-Islamist European extreme right—recalls strangely the rhetoric of the Italian Red Brigades (who have moreover always maintained bridges with the Browns), underscoring an obsessive anti-Americanism that would not surprise the extreme left: “The military-industrial American complex, of which George W. Bush, that sociopath and notorious retard, is today the mouthpiece, has unilaterally mobilized against the nation and people of Iraq a war so dastardly and monstrous that nothing—save his will to dominate the world—justifies it.

Beginning this Tuesday, March 20, every act of reprisal in the world aimed against American interests as well as American military, political, diplomatic and administrative personnel, wherever it occurs, in whatever scope it represents, by whatever means and circumstances, is both legitimate and necessary.”

Speaking of strange politics, the denunciation of “imperialist” American wars against Iraq has become, since 1990, one of the leitmotifs of the anti-Zionist extreme right, in this position becoming linked with organizations of the extreme left. The Iraq of Saddam Hussein had, it is true, much about it to please the partisans of the three totalitarianisms: not only had this regime nearly realized a synthesis of the national-Bolshevik with the national-Socialist, but it found itself, moreover, at the point of war against the two demons fought in common by the Reds, the Browns and the Greens: Israel and the United States. The ideological pro-Iraqi line which almost all of the extreme right in Europe adopted has been shown by a series of demonstrations denouncing “American imperialism”, as well as by voyages of solidarity to Baghdad . The capture of the dictator profoundly deceived those who were opposed to the American intervention. His arrest, in effect, came [at the time] to contradict their thesis, repeated ad nauseam, of the “American quagmire” in Iraq .

For the extreme right, the Age of Gold of the Brown-Green Axis harks back to the Second World War which saw an alliance between the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Hitler, then the establishment of pro-Nazi Arab and Balkan legions (Waffen SS composed of Croatian-Bosnian-Albanian Muslims along with Egyptian green-shirts, etc.). With reference to the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood, the Grand Mufti, Al Hajj Al Husseini, was at the origin, in 1942, of the creation of the Arab League, destined to pursue, alongside the forces of the Axis, the war against the Jews installed in Palestine . It is moreover in reference to the Grand Mufti that the English neo-Nazi leader David Myatt explains his conversion to Islam and his rallying to the cause of al Qaeda, recalling how “60,000 Muslims responded to the appeal of the Grand Mufti to join forces alongside Hitler.”

Three great historical figures of the alliance between the Swastika and the Crescent continue, to this day, to saturate the minds of those nostalgic for the Axis: Leon Degrelle, the leader of Rexism—a collaborationist Belgian movement—and a great crafter of rapprochement between Palestinian organizations and the neo-Nazi milieus between the years of 1950 to 1980; the famous Swiss banker François Genoud, testamentary legatee of Hitler and Goebbels, who consecrated the bulk of his post-Nazi life to financing terrorist and nationalist Arab movements (Nasserism, the Palestinian FPLP and OLP, the Algerian FLN, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc.) in their capacity as enemies of the Jews; and, finally, one of the major artisans of the “Islamonazi synthesis,” Johann Von Leers, Goebbel's old right arm, responsible for anti-Semitic propaganda under the Third Reich.

Becoming Omar Amin after having been recruited in Egypt by Nasser, who nominated him responsible for anti-Jewish propaganda in Cairo, Von Leers converted to Islam after his contact with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. His example continues to inspire an Islamophile and pro-Arab current of the extreme right. It is in his memory that one of the actual ringleaders of the new pro-Islamist European right, the Italian Claudio Mutti, has chosen for his name of conversion to Islam that of Omar Amin. Today still, these three symbols of Islamo-Nazi flirtation are referenced by young neo-Nazi militants who look in the Brown-Green alliance toward the “sole chance of survival for an Aryan Europe” in the face of the danger represented by the “Western plutocracies” and by the “Judeo-Mason conspiracy”.

Read it all.

ON THE PARADOX WE FACE

PARADOX BY ITS NATURE is what is un-resolvable by any reasonable means so it can mean anything to anyone without holding anyone accountable for their beliefs or actions. So a ‘moderate’ Muslim can be violent, and that’s allowed by the rules of paradox, which absolves the perpetrator of crimes (against humanity) from personal responsibility. In effect, it excuses coercive criminal activity as legitimate in the total belief system.

I don't know whether or to what extent Marx/Engels/Lenin/Stalin et al studied Islam when they developed their own toxic paradox as a semantic weapon for their ideology. For the past 150 years, Marxist Dialectical Materialism—specifically, its "Law of the Identity of Contradictions" —has similarly been used to excuse "coercive criminal activity as legitimate in the total belief system."

However, in the history of totalitarian political ideologies, Marxism has been a mere "flash in the pan" compared to the 13 century history of Islam.

The preceding was snipped from a comments page at Jihad Watch discussing the Dali Lama's recent dhimmitude with concerns to Islam being a "Religion of Peace."

THOUGHTS ABOVE THE RIM

DESPITE ALL THE NATIONAL TREASURE spent for the sake of others over the past sixty or so years, the inimitable West is still trying to reclaim lost ground in the culture war. We believe that the following paragraphs may very well be grounded in truth, with one exception. Oil money has allowed the frothing deeply-entrenched Jew-hatred of Islam to once again rise to the top of their poisoned cup. Russia may have poured gasoline on the festering resentment, but they didn't invent it.

"In 1972, the Kremlin decided to turn the whole Islamic world against Israel and the U.S. As KGB chairman Yuri Andropov told me, a billion adversaries could inflict far greater damage on America than could a few millions. We needed to instill a Nazi-style hatred for the Jews throughout the Islamic world, and to turn this weapon of the emotions into a terrorist bloodbath against Israel and its main supporter, the United States. No one within the American/Zionist sphere of influence should any longer feel safe.

"According to Andropov, the Islamic world was a waiting petri dish in which we could nurture a virulent strain of America-hatred, grown from the bacterium of Marxist-Leninist thought. Islamic anti-Semitism ran deep. The Muslims had a taste for nationalism, jingoism, and victimology. Their illiterate, oppressed mobs could be whipped up to a fever pitch."

Read it all in the National Review article Russian Footprints, authored by former Soviet General Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest ranking intelligence officer to have defected from the former Soviet bloc.

In a simple twist of fate, some pundits think that France will be the first European country in modern times to be overwhelmed by Muslims due to her very large, violent immigrant population and effeminate native populace. Others point to the Netherlands, from which native Dutch people are beginning to flee in the face of hostile Islam among the immigrants in that densely-populated nation. But Russia—a huge nation with vast natural resources, thousands of nuclear warheads, and until recently a global superpower—may be the first to capitulate to Muslim sensibilities. This seems possible even though Russia suffers little from those suicidal bouts of uncritical tolerance and multiculturalism that afflicts Western Europeans.

In 2015, less than ten years from now, Muslims could make up a majority of the Russian military. Military service is compulsory for young Russian men, though only 10% actually serve due to college deferments, bribes to escape duty, and the like. Given the famously brutal Russian military, perhaps avoiding military service is a forgivable trait. But will the generals be able to avoid having a Muslim military if most young men who haven't fled Russia are Muslim? Will such a military operate effectively given the fury that many domestic Muslims feel toward the Russian military's tactics in the Muslim region of Chechnya? What if other Muslim regions of Russia—some of which contain huge oil reserves—rebel against Moscow? Will Muslim soldiers fight and kill to keep them part of the Russian motherland?

With birthrates, death rates, and emigration rates the way they are now, it is highly plausible that Russia could be majority Muslim by 2040. And there are other opinions.

Writes Bill Abbott, sparing few feelings, "The demographic implosion of the West is due to feminism and women's refusal to accept the role either God or nature (depending on one's belief) has given them. The acceptance of this responsibility by most Muslim women is what will win for Islam in the end. In no other species, does the female not understand that continuation and survival of the group is her responsibility and, for the most part, hers alone. Among some homo sapiens, selfishness reigns. It has been said that a society that sends its daughters, sisters and even mothers into harms way will not long survive. I wonder if it even deserves to survive."

Read more on this topic here and here.

DECONSTRUCTING THE UNHOLY ALLIANCE

Holy War and Anti-War: An Axis against Nature
by Walid Phares

The oddest of all factional relationships is the open alliance between the Jihadists and the so-called "antiwar" neo-Left movement in the West. The jumble of causes thrown together is mind-bending: globalization hobnobs with the caliphate, class struggle with Wahabism, proletariat with infidels, and North Korea with Palestine.

While still shedding each others' blood, the Reds (neo-Left) and the Dark Greens (Islamists) are conducting a joint offensive against both democracy-pushing America and the democracy-craving Middle East. They are not letting old or new grudges get in their way.

The Wahabis fiercely fought the Soviet Communists in Afghanistan;

the Muslim Brotherhood and the Marxists have been at each other's throats for decades;

the Salafists butchered left-wing intellectuals in Algeria and assassinated progressive bureaucrats in central Asia after the Soviet collapse;

the Taliban killed socialists and shut down art institutions;

the Khumeinist regime in Iran decimated the Tudeh Communist Party in the 1980's.

Despite all the mutual mayhem across the Mediterranean and throughout the Middle East, an unnatural alliance was established by elites of the two camps, even while blood was being shed in the 1990's. Setting ideologies and history aside, the Islamist tacticians and neo-Left pragmatists gradually converged on a two-lane path against liberal democracies and the specter of a free market and pluralist Middle East.

The Jihadi concern with Western involvement in the region is logical: free societies in the Arab and Muslim world, joined finally to the international community, would shatter fundamentalism's control of the region's political cultures. To have Arab and Iranian youths, in addition to minorities, hooking up directly with the peaceful and prosperous societies of the West would leave the Islamists without a base to recruit from.

Jihadism is joined with the antiwar movement even while promoting "holy war," which is the essence of their rissala (mission). The ideology of the Salafists and Khumeinists is to prepare for, mobilize for, incite, and engage in a constant war of jihad against the infidels, who are supposed to be all those who aren't Islamists, including moderate Muslims.

Theoretically, the jihadi connection to the antiwar concept is impossible. But in the realm of reality, it does occur, mainly because of the mutating "pragmatism" of both of the antidemocratic movements. The radical Islamists, as I argued in "Future Jihad", have undergone a strategic mutation that has allowed them to coalesce tactically with ideological foes, among them Baathists, Neo-Marxists, and anarchists.

The last group, under an international neo-Left umbrella in the West, created the anti-war movement, which is reminiscent of the old Cold War Communist-controlled "peace movement."

Islamists found it easier to insert themselves as partners in an "antiwar" movement than a "peace" movement. Effectively, in the jihadi aqida (doctrine), seeking permanent peace with others is a non-issue, given that jihad is constant, regardless of its form. Jihadism cannot accommodate a peace movement in principle.

However jurisprudence based on al Haja (necessity) would allow the jihadists to accept an interim cessation of war and work in more sophisticated ways to stop wars that they cannot win. Thus it is in the interest of the radical Islamists to stop a war that can't be won by them, at least until the balance of power is restored and a winnable war becomes possible again. They are against the West's war for tactical reasons. But they are not at all in favor of peace until they win.

In the case of the War on Terror, the "political Islamists" joined the "no war" crowd in order to stop the military efforts of the United States and its allies against the terrorist forces of the jihadists. Hence Islamic militants marched in the demonstrations against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as a way to give respite to the Taliban and al Qaeda. The antiwar movement exposed its broken rationale when it marched against some but not all wars. It demonstrated against the military efforts to overthrow the Taliban and Saddam but ignored the wars waged by the Sudanese regime against the African peoples in the south and Darfur; it marched against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, but ignored the Syrian occupation of Lebanon.

Worse, in the eyes of millions of Middle Easterners, were the highly publicized "red buses" filled with antiwar militants who headed to Iraq to "support" dictator Saddam Hussein. They traveled from London, Berlin, and Rome through Eastern Europe without a word in remembrance of its struggle against the Soviet occupation, and crossed Syria without comforting the thousands of political prisoners tortured and assassinated by the Baathist regime.

And for an apex of irony, the buses rolled through sinister Halabja, a Kurdish town gassed by Saddam in 1988, and past the Shiites' mass graves, stopping only to "shield" Saddam's castles, built from oil revenues that rented the buses and lodged their occupants in fancy hotels. This antiwar movement was convenient for the jihadists, as it was a form of war against the rise of democracies in the region. For the movement, mostly bourgeois in nature, never showed up in Darfur, among Berbers in Algeria or Lebanese under Syrian occupation, or to shield women under the Taliban.

Hence it wasn't surprising for viewers around the world to see the Islamist militants in Europe taking to the streets alongside the "bourgeois Neo-Marxists" to protest the governments that supported the War on Terror. In Europe, the most revealing action of the Islamist militants was when—in the same year as the red buses—they marched in support of the French government against U.S. intervention in Iraq, and then burned shops and cars in 200 French cities and towns during a "French intifada."

The jihadi manipulation of the bourgeois-Neo-Marxist "struggle" has played a central role in the so-called "mass demonstrations" in the West since 2002, and the demonstrations themselves are an important component of the "War of Ideas" against democracy. On campuses, both in North America and Western Europe, the jihadi-antiwar axis has planted deep roots, and thanks to the skills of university-based anarchist groups, the jihadists have found a cover they can hide under, instead of simply becoming members of the typical Wahabi-controlled Muslim Student Unions.

But this "marriage of convenience" with the extreme left has not deterred jihadists from conducting another, simultaneous, wedding with the extreme right. But that's another story.

Dr. Walid Phares is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and a visiting scholar at the European Foundation for Democracy. He is the author of "War of Ideas", "Future Jihad", and other books.

A quite-thorough biography is available—within his web site, here

THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY

It's not easy in the world of appearances to disappear.
Dreaming, one pixel at a time. One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind. Okay, that's an old riff I lifted from the man on the moon, but having just signed up for the news aggragate Technorati, I'm feeling more than a bit bellicose right now, in fact I am feeling dizzzzz zeeeeee....

Technorati Profile

Which reminds me that I have recently kindled a fledgling friendship with a woman who's somewhat of a semi-pro in the political activist game, as far away from my point of view as to seem a mere speck on the horizon, this anarcho-Marxist seems to always be on the prowl for fellow operatives, a beautiful, delightful, captivating woman, but how dare she tell me this week that I seem to project little or no politics. My response to her was simple, "I know what I am against more than I know what I am for."

This was a lie, but it seemed appropriate.

I thought my response summed things up rather nicely, especially since I had leveled a similar characterization at dozens of hard Left associates who have dragged me into their oscillating sphere of influence the past twenty uears or so, associates who were quite nimble and adept at negatively critiquing every cubic inch of modern life as we know it, but never seemed to have three words to rub together in actually articulating a workable vision of a better world, much less slaying the existing dragon, laying the new tracks and dredging the old tributaries true believers in this brave new world would require in getting from here to there.

LYING AMONG THE LIARS

I just returned tonight from a lecture on state-sponsered Islamic-Totalitarianism by Dr. John Lewis at George Mason University here in suburban Washington, DC. There were numerous police officers posted in and around the building providing security. Needless to say, haven't we seen this move before? Mob mentality ruled as chaos via invective broke out as "demonstrators" in the audience disrupted the entire event.

Islamofacist groups and their Marxist dhimmi associates hurled insults, howled like rabid wolves, and spat into the mix in possessed frenzy. The professor and his supporters, much to their credit, behaved with complete restraint and respect for different viewpoints during the Q&A session. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of his opponents. The rumor of tolerance and diversity among so-called politically correct duffers is an irrelevant myth. Those repeated attempts to disrupt and shut down the speech and follow-up discussion were a disrespectful, uncivilized display of hate that supports the argument that one cannot reason with or appease this kind of enemy.