So many maniacs share the same delusions

If you want to be sickened by the nature of Hamas’ fellow travelers in the U.S., check out Zombie’s photographs from the rally in San Francisco to protest Israel’s war against Hamas.  One photo, combined with Zombie’s comment, struck me with particular force:

Globalize the Intifadah

Globalize the Intifadah

“Globalize the Intifada.” This is the fundamental message underlying all of these anti-Israel rallies organized by far-left radical groups: They see the Palestinian Intifada as the first wave of attack in a global revolution. Which, in their delusional fantasies, will usher in a secular communist utopia. This goes a long way toward explaining how left-wing groups can possibly give their support to Hamas, which is after all a repressive theocratic regime.

If that theme doesn’t strike you as familiar, you’re either fairly young, or you’re not thinking about it hard enough.  It is, in fact, Charles Manson’s Helter Skelter theory, played out on a global scale.  As you may recall, there  was a method behind the Manson murders.  Manson had convinced his followers that it was their mission to instigate a race war between blacks and whites in America, not because he had a dog in either fight, but because he believed that, once the combatants had destroyed each other, his little group would emerge triumphant from the chaos and take over the world.

We all freely acknowledge that Manson was insane, and that his followers were too (or, at least, they were in the grip of a temporary insanity while under his sway).  It was this insanity that led them to commit murders of unspeakable brutality, and to do so with unbridled glee.  Their craziness, aside from firing their blood lust, left them incapable of grasping that, when countries or cultures self-immolate, very little emerges from the ashes but further chaos and death.  (I give you large parts of Africa as Exhibit A to support that statement.)

It’s sadly obvious that those Communists who waltz with the Islamists in their hope to see a world engulfed in flames are subject to precisely the same delusion that drove Manson and his followers.  Despite the manifest insanity of their view, they’re vocal in their belief that they’re the Phoenix, and it’s up to them to stoke to fire to create the ashes.  One wonders were it will end.  Manson’s mania-driven murders numbered in the double-digits.  If these fellow-travelers have their way, mere millions of deaths may ultimately seem like small numbers.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Gringo says

    Western secular leftists who support the Islamists on the supposition that ” the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” the common enemy being loosely defined as Bush and supporters of the US incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan, will find themselves rudely surprised.

    In the Shah’s Iran, leftists allied themselves with Khomeini, assuming that once the Shah was overthrown, they could prevail against the mullahs. Guess who won that argument? Haven’t heard much of the Tudeh lately, have we?

    Note that of the “Jews to the ovens” contingent in the recent demonstrations in the West, most appear to be Muslim immigrants, not native Westerners. Our shame is that they are not roundly condemned.

  2. Danny Lemieux says

    Not only that, Gringo, but the Iranian Lefties were the first ones lined up against a wall and shot, once they had fulfilled their role as useful idiots.

  3. says

    I’m pretty sure that years ago — possibly before I even crossed the Rubicon to become a neocon — I read that, during the Spanish Civil War, the Spanish and Russian Communists fairly indiscriminately slaughtered American volunteers, all of whom were impure (too soft American liberal/not enough pragmatic Communist), to make sure they didn’t return to the States and reveal just how part real Communism was in action. I’ll see if I can find that story, ’cause it’s an interesting one.

  4. Gringo says

    Book, perhaps documentation for that is in Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia. Orwell noted that the Communists executed a number of people on the left. As I recall, it was Anarchists the Communists executed. I don’t recall anything about Americans being executed, but since I read it 30+ years ago, I make no claim on certitude.The Spanish Civil War was a turning point for Orwell.

    We need to follow in the footsteps of Casey Stengel and look it up. As born and bred member of Red Sox Nation, even I have to admit that ol’ Case and his catcher Yogi were uncommonly gifted in their command of the English language.

  5. David Foster says

    A lot of “progressivism” is really nihilism….these are people who want to “dance on the ruins,” in the words of a now-defunct Italian blogger…an excerpt from her post here.

  6. socratease says

    I’m guessing this Phoenix delusion is grounded in their faith in the inevitability of their particular ideology. The Islamists get their faith from their mosques and imams, the Marxists from their university professors, and neither one are deterred by facts or reality. Madness indeed.

  7. Ymarsakar says

    Many Americans don’t know the weaknesses of their own political system. Because of this fact, they also don’t know how to properly defend themselves, let alone such abstract things as “freedom” or “human rights”.

    The same is true for individuals that seek to defend themselves against those that would hurt them, whether the attackers be Islamic Jihad, organized crime, or those with a grudge. If you don’t know your own weaknesses and how to exploit them, then you are categorically unable to “defend” yourself.

    Because I know where and how a human being can be injured, maimed, or killed, I know how to defend myself. I cannot make myself immune to such things, because that is impossible, but I can defend myself. Or rather, it would be more accurate to say that my ability to decide how to defend myself is going to actually produce the results I want rather than the unintended results of Murphy.

    Iraq has proven that Obama, the Democrats, and the Left all have no idea how to defend this nation or cover up our weaknesses. If you knew your own weaknesses so well and have successfully defended those weak points from the enemy, you would also have known what to do about other people’s weaknesses. The Democrats did not know, however. But not only that, even if they did know, even if they were programmed with the Soviet Union’s knowledge of how to exploit the weaknesses of democracies, they would have refused to help us defend America and Iraq from the enemies of humanity. I’ll let you decide what proportion of people are the former vs the latter here in America.

    What this tends to mean for Book’s topic post is that maniacs that spend their entire lives learning how to destroy a system and blow it up, will not know how to use power legitimately or to use power to defend and build things back up. This is not a matter of “choice”. It is a simple matter of reality, as ironbound as the physics of the universe, at least the parts we know about. People that know how to destroy a system will not know how to build that system back up. Why? because they didn’t give a damn about any of that in the first place, so why should they when they are the ones with the power and the legitimacy to use it?

    This is why the Soviets got rid of those people as fast as possible once their use was up. You don’t want a bunch of terrorize around in your territory once you have seized power. Those guys do not know the meaning of “peaceful transition of power”. They also don’t know the meaning of compromise. And when some of those people realize that the Soviets had made dupes of them, they would ultimately turn against the Soviets and the Communist cause and use their knowledge of how to make bombs and kill people against the Soviet Communists. We can’t have that, now can we.

  8. Ymarsakar says

    My highest regret concerning the aftermath of Khomeini’s coup de tat against the Shah is that Khomeini wasn’t able to capture and execute Jimmy Carter and the rest of Khomeini’s Leftist allies here in the US.

    It would have been grand to see people reap what they sowed. No higher justice could have been produced for these individuals than to have the Khomeini regime execute them. But the universe is an unjust place and that is why Jimmy Carter is still alive and supporting dictators while Reagan is dead and why Khomeini’s supporters here in the US still have power and influence now that Iran, once again, producing a crisis.

  9. Ymarsakar says

    Khomeini purged himself of his Leftist allies because he knew, unlike the Shah, that there will be no “peace” so long as such people are around fomenting grief and disturbances.

    The Shah released prisoners and tried to reform the system in Iran and make things prosperous for Iran and look what he got. Khomeini produced a Reign of Terror, make things worse in Iran economically, and increased repression and he got to stay in power and produce an entire dynasty of Mullah successors.

    The world is a bad place because bad people keep on living. There is a very simple cure to that, however.

  10. Mike Devx says

    Ymar (#10)
    >> Khomeini produced a Reign of Terror [...] and he got to stay in power and produce an entire dynasty of Mullah successors. The world is a bad place because bad people keep on living. There is a very simple cure to that, however. >>

    Ymar, simple in concept or in execution? I’d love to see a well-written novel come out, right now – fiction at this point – about a U.S. war against Iran. Something along the lines of Clancy’s “Red Storm Rising”, which was exciting but not particularly well-written… But that would be good enough for me.

    Ending a bad political system and purging it from a society (ie the Nazis or the Japanese military machine in WWII) is hard enough. Ending a bad political system that is a theocracy, tightly woven into the religious society itself, must be a much more difficult undertaking, I would think. How would you purge it? Part of the reason the Surge succeeded in Iraq is because Al Qaeda made the critical mistake of not integrating themselves with their Sunni “allies” – indeed Al Qaeda deliberately antagonized them, to our own great benefit.

    What would have happened had Al Qaeda honored their potential Sunni allies? Of course, asking that question is like asking, “What if pigs had flown?” Why ask rhetorical questions not grounded in any semblance of reality? Al Qaeda honoring anyone but their own, anyone at all… ha! ha!

    But the problem of defeating the Mullohcracy of Iran – and purging it – does it have a simple answer?

  11. Ymarsakar says

    Ymar, simple in concept or in execution?

    Both. In war, however, even the simplest things are very hard to do. It is something called friction and it is part of the Fog of War or otherwise known as the Butterfly Effect in Chaos Theory.

    Ending a bad political system that is a theocracy, tightly woven into the religious society itself, must be a much more difficult undertaking

    Not if they have an alternative political system that can fill the gap. Khomeini didn’t always rule in Iran, after all.

    But the problem of defeating the Mullohcracy of Iran – and purging it – does it have a simple answer?

    You can always cut it up into 10 different parts. They’ll never represent a danger once their nation has been separated into that many pieces. They’ll have a common culture called “Persian” but without the political unity to do anything with it. Sort of like the Arabs.

    The one thing funding these problems is oil. So take those oil fields away from them. Annex the territory and then defend it, then take that oil and ship it to the people who need. Like us.

    Occupying some oil fields and pipelines is always going to be easier than occupying an entire nation.

  12. Mike Devx says

    Ymar #12
    >> So take those oil fields away from them. Annex the territory and then defend it, then take that oil and ship it to the people who need. Like us. >>

    Now THAT is strategic thinking! Hit em where it hurts. Every time they try to take it back, quite easy if brutal to stop them. They might try a rain of missiles should our forces be arrayed in relatively limited terroritory geographically… but even in that scenario, I bet there would be standard military actions to handle the risk.

    And such a rain of missiles would render the oil fields inoperable anyway. Iran, for example, has absolutely no capability of repairing that kind of destruction should they cause it. In effect there would be absolutely nothing Iranian leadership could do to recover from that strategic stroke.

    In a sense, I think what you’ve proposed, Ymar, is as revolutionary a concept as terrorism. Terrorism works against us because the enemy is a shadow enemy striking at us via fear, and fighting that enemy destabilizes our democratic ideals.

    Since our enemy relies on oil as its sole valuable resource, simply occupy your enemy’s most valuable natural resource and dare them to figure out a solution. Asymmetrical warfare at its finest! How the liberals would scream, how the U.N. would scream. UNFAIR! UNFAIR! The Arab Street would seethe in ways it has never seethed before! As MadTV’s Leona would say, “Oh my Goodness! That’s a lot of seething!”

  13. Ymarsakar says

    Iran would probably retaliate with a couple of things. Nuclear terrorism, attacks against the Iraq-Iran borders, and naval blockade of the Hormuz straits utilizing any number of small boat IEDs, suicide small craft, or mines.

    The counter to that would be to drive through and link Iraq and Afghanistan, via the coast, and destroy every Iranian naval logistical point

  14. Ymarsakar says

    If ground forces are required to support the naval strikes, then simply go from Iraq, through the Iranian coast, and to Afghanistan. Since you are not occupying anything and since you don’t need to “stop” at any particular point because you are “too deep” in enemy territory, and because Naval forces can supply all the ground forces from any port they seize or coast line available, this would be a very short military operation with none of the exit plans required for such things as national building or occupations.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply