Primacy For Anti-Discrimination Is A Major Threat To National Security

Look at this quote from the article below:"... doing so would involv[e] analysis of Muslim religious tenets, a politically taboo subject area." The 'taboo' being referred to is the idea of running society on an anti-discrimination basis, extending the supposed right to be free of discrimination, even to foreign hostiles in wartime!

If an attitude cripples your military intelligence when you have two wars going on, how is it that such intelligent high-level officials, cannot seem even to register the reductio ad absurdum of what they are grinding down to? Are the powerful now selected, educated and promoted systematically for inability to see when anti-discrimination has been reduced to an absurdity even in important national security decisions? If so, enemies will exploit this mercilessly, and break American international power as easily as the Portuguese empire was smashed in the 1970's.
From Jihad Watch December 28, 2007 :

"Pro-Muslim Pentagon officials pressuring one of the U.S. military's most important specialists on jihad

Infiltration. "Muslim pressure," by Bill Gertz in the Washington Times (scroll down):

Pro-Muslim officials at the Pentagon are putting political pressure on one of the U.S. military's most important specialists on Islamist extremism, according to defense officials.
Stephen Coughlin, a specialist on Islamic law on the Joint Staff, met recently with Hasham Islam, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon R. England's close aide. The officials said Mr. Islam, a Muslim who is leading efforts for the Defense Department's outreach to Muslim groups, sought to convince Mr. Coughlin to take a softer line on Islam and Islamic law elements that promote extremism.
There is also evidence that a whispering campaign is under way to try and discredit Mr. Coughlin as a "Christian extremist with a pen" and force him out of the building, according to the officials.
Mr. Coughlin came under fire from pro-Muslim officials after a memorandum he wrote identified several groups that are being courted by Mr. Islam's community outreach program as front organizations for the pro-extremist Muslim Brotherhood.
Mr. Coughlin based the memorandum on documents released as evidence in a federal terrorism trial that he stated "are beginning to define the structure and outline of domestic jihad threat entities, associated nongovernmental organizations and potential terrorist or insurgent support systems."
Mr. Coughlin noted that the documents identified one of the Muslim Brotherhood front groups as the Islamic Society of North America, whose leaders were hosted by Mr. England in April at the Pentagon, raising concerns that the deputy defense secretary does not understand clearly the nature of the Islamist threat he is working against as the No. 2 official.
Mr. England has been a leading advocate of what critics in the Pentagon say is a misguided attempt to reach out to the wrong Muslims, regardless of their views, in an effort to counter Muslim extremism.
That approach has kept military and civilian officials from conducting much-needed assessments of how Muslim extremists are waging war because doing so would involving analysis of Muslim religious tenets, a politically taboo subject area."
JB comments: Does reading this give you confidence that our government people are on top of domestic terrorist activities, and that openness to diversity of Islamic immigrants is safe and wholesome in the least?
Can we reasonably have porous borders with officials emphasizing religious anti-discrimination this far above national security? Would Israel allow such activities and attitudes among their top officers? At the same time, these people can't possibly be so naive, as to assume that there are no enemies, and that if we just say all men are brothers, the 'brothers' will reciprocatingly regard us the same way, and if we don't discriminate, that enemies will not exploit this as weakness? Since they can't literally believe such folderol, the implication would be that they need major terrorism to increase here for some reason, or they may be caught in some rhetorical trap, where dangerous actions or tolerances are continued beyond the grave danger point.
In an earlier post I said: The More that Government Insists that We Owe Individual Judgement to Minorities, The Worse Inter-Group Relations Become
Does this effect occur by emboldening the minorities to ask for more, or by encouraging them to blame others, or in some other ways?

Connecting Some Dots Suggesting Motives Which Are Usually Covered Under Maudlin Feeling And Smear Offensives

Extracted from an interview entitled:"With Bhutto Gone. . .

By Jamie GlazovFrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, December 28, 2007

Quoting Steve Schippert:"It should be noted that instability and disunity are a requirement of any successful insurgency campaign,..." Taking the above as a premiss, what does this suggest of the motives of those who ask us to value openness to diversity, which includes that of Islamic refugees, and that of the current Islamic terror offensives? Next some reports on Islamic refugee resettlement copied from Refugee Resettlement Watch postings on Shelbyville, TN of Dec. '07 :"The Center’s first encounters with the newcomers did not go so well, with the Somalis being described as “demanding, aggressive and argumentative” and very different than anyone they had ever dealt with._______

“They are very demanding and I don’t know if that is because their culture in general,” Weaver explained, but she has also been told that Somalis are being taken to Minneapolis after they arrive in America and given classes on “what they should demand, and what are their rights.” [from:here, here, and here. ]
JB comments:There's a reason why refugees just in from Africa are said to have rights here, but citizens apparently are to be told that they only have duties to pay for this.
This is how the power-greedy operate now: they find a way to bring in ill-behaved, highly objectionable people, enemies even, then try to worsen the misbehavior, and when they succeed in provoking a response, they smear the opposition as racism, fascism, xenophobia, discrimination, etc.
With opponents on the defensive, no one remembers to say that the use of smearing and other fallacies indicates that there is no rational argument for giving more power to the power-greedy.
This way the power-greedy control the issues; they bring in the people who cause public outrage, and the issues are already set up for officials and others to respond with their accustomed replies (which are mainly smears). They are prepared, but those who value freedom-from-aggression appear to be always caught off balance.
Set all this in the historical context of the long, left-dominated struggle for greater power at the expense of liberty; for 100 years shrill government scholars cried for the class war, then it was the race war for forty or more years, which would be the 'liberation'. Now the War of Religion, that of Islam itself, appears to have become the hope of the leftist professoriate and power-greedy officialdom, as an addition to the preceding.
In this context, an official valorization of enhancing diversity, of disunity and instability, and of the potential for insurgency, all fit together, when otherwise they wouldn't. In the first quotation, it is stated that:"instability and disunity are a requirement of any successful insurgency".
Now we have two closely inter-related motives. The power-greedy can win if they provoke smearable opposition to the aggrandizement of their power, and they can win the dictatorship itself, if they can get full-scale insurgency going.
The same methods can be used in complementary manner for both objectives. These two methods have the valuing of objectionable diversity in common; they fit together rhetorically as well as pragmatically.
Now does it make sense why, the worse trouble we can expect from a foreigner, the more those who wish for more power, would prefer for that foreigner to be brought here, and close to your relatives?

The Deceitful Equivocation Of Worth With Moral Worth Is A Quicksand Fundament Of The Racial Quota Regimes

When some are, for example, handicapped or retarded, this affects their worth in high degree, but need not affect their moral worth. Genetic retardation in large groups, makes it very easy for the power-greedy to exploit that equivocation of worth and moral worth. It can be made to sound as if moral worth were meant, in order to get the disadvantaged riled, but especially to smear, by way of that equivocation. Those who speak of differences in worth between individuals and groups, are smeared as if they were saying that moral worth could be inherited genetically. This smearing is done, because there is no rational argument for treating everyone as equal in worth, and power can be won by pushing for equalization of the consequences of unequal worth.

Why Should One Speak Of The Pressing Issues Of Our Time, When One Could Just Imagine A Planet Where Such Issues Have Become Irrelevant?

First off, I want to raise my suspicion that there are radicals on the libertarian and/or economic freedom-loving right, who wish that our officials would succeed in getting racial conflict to go all the way, in such countries as they may feel could thus become ripe for their radical alternative, which otherwise would have much less chance to come into power.
Further, that such radicals would have us remain silent and helpless on these issues, when otherwise more could be done to forestall any trends towards catastrophically increasing racial and ethnic conflict, through advocating sensible palliatives.
It so happens that we have a power-seeking officialdom, a professoriate in their pay, and an unspeakably dishonest shysterdom, which are bent on making the most out of race. They have spent decades on this project of increasing their power through exploiting racial inequalities, and have got their racial programs set up so as to increase the raw materials of racial conflict every year, presumably hoping to win emergency powers thereby. Mass immigration of racial-quota eligibles is lauded and assisted massively. Why should those who value freedom-from-aggression, unilaterally disarm, or muzzle themselves, with the effect of allowing the exploiters of racial feeling to have an effective monopoly and use it to further their power-greed without opposition, except of some apologetic kind? Instead of avoiding, one should welcome, the issues which the left uses to initiate their smear approach against everyone to their right. It gives one an opportunity to point out that there is no rational argument for more power that would decrease our freedom-from-aggression, and that is why the power-greedy have to use their smears of racism and so on.
Another view is quoted below...

From Dr. John J. Ray's Dissecting Leftism: "Does black IQ matter?
[...] So why do I, as a libertarian conservative, continue to expound the science of the matter? There are two reasons: Because we do not live in a libertarian world and because it is my own scientific discipline that is involved and I feel a committment to publicize the truth of the matter.
The second reason I will not expand on [...] The first reason is the important one: Vast errors in public policy are made because of the general refusal to accept the truth of the matter. Race is a most vexed topic in all countries where there is a substantial African minority and the problem is made much worse by the utter failure of many attempts to deal with it. The clearest example is in education.
Because the lesser ability of blacks is not accepted in education circles, every failure of blacks to do well at educational tasks is always attributed to "the system" or "racism". A perfectly normal and natural occurrence is treated as an emergency which must be remedied by hook or by crook. And because the real nature of the problem is not admitted, all the "solutions" that are tried are based on wrong theories so not only fail but normally make the problem worse -- generating much anger and feelings of victimization among blacks at the same time.
One "solution", for instance, is "dumbing down". The requirements for (say) a diploma are watered down so that EVERYBODY (or most anyway) passes. In the course of that, however, the educational requirements for whites have to be lowered too (it would be "racism" otherwise) so that white kids in the same educational institutions are taught and evaluated at a "black" level and consequently receive a much degraded education -- which is a tragedy, however you look at it. For instance, around half of High School graduates trying to entering Florida's public colleges and universities are found to lack the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic -- skills which in more "racist" times were acquired in grade school.
I could go on to multiply examples of how refusals to cope with black realities degrade life for everybody but I think I have said enough to make my point clear. I cover the matter in more detail here. For the record, what I would advocate as regards black educational failure is simply for the authorities to be race blind..." [linkHERE Wednesday, December 26, 2007]

Alien Anti-Cultures, Such As That Of Myrdal's American Creed, Have Pressing Incentives To Replace Loyalty To Fellow Citizens With Anti-Discrimination

It suits the convenience of foreign hostiles to have American national loyalties redefined into anti-discrimination and the Creed of the Equality of All Mankind. When you reorganize society around anti-discrimination, the minimum loyalties of citizens to each other, and over against foreigners arriving in hostile manner, get eliminated. If anti-discrimination is used in the above way, though, contradictions-in-terms have to follow. One can't discriminate against someone who discriminates, that would mean both failing to be anti-discrimination, and supportive of it at the same time and in the same respect. When, as with Myrdal's fake national essence of believing that all are equal and should be judged without regard to race, creed, religion, color or national origin, there is an insuperable contradiction following with the exclusion of those of, for example, the Islamic creed, where Islam demands discrimination on the basis of creed. Such a belief in an idea, contradictory or otherwise, is not equal to national loyalty; it is not the same as loyalty to fellow citizens who are loyal to us in the minimum necessary degree. Thus, another contradiction-in-terms emerges from the notional nation of anti-discrimination: national loyalty is set equal to its opposite and negation. Another insuperable contradiction-in-terms arises from believing that those who do not believe in the anti-discrimination creed were outside the nation, if it defines them thus outside, it discriminates on the basis of creed; if it doesn't, the supposed national creed does not define the nation. It may be that few would expect that which calls itself The American Creed to be free of the most extreme and self-refuting contradictions. If one is speaking of Myrdal, though, or any others who described their opponents as proceeding only from irrationality, then the appearance of contradictions-in-terms arising from a central doctrine, must not be swept under the rug. Anti-discrimination as a basis for a nation is wrong and traitorous: it denies the loyalty we need to maintain towards fellow nationals, regarding at least, that circumstance in which foreigners enter in a way which increases the aggression here. It subverts that irreducible minimum loyalty necessary for the nation to be a lasting one, since it rejects discrimination as between citizen and foreigner, substituting generic humanity for that specific loyalty. Loyalty to generic humanity can be an addition to, but not a substitute for, loyalty to fellow nationals in the case of foreign aggression within the borders at least. One loyalty posesses attributes of sovereignty, the other occupies spiritual ground. See also this link:Liberty or equality?
Also:

"Traditionally, the principle that every American has a right to be treated “without regard to race, creed, color, or national origin” was long regarded as the most fundamental of our core values, so fundamental that Gunnar Myrdal (and many others) labeled it “The American Creed” in his highly influential AN AMERICAN DILEMMA (1944). Not only was this creed written into the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, it was even the basis for the two presidential Executive Orders that first implemented “affirmative action” in the federal government — 10925 from President Kennedy on March 6, 1961, and 11246 from President Johnson on September 28, 1965. They both repeated identical language in many provisions, typified by the beginning of Kennedy’s order:

WHEREAS discrimination because of race, creed, color, or national origin is contrary to the Constitutional principles and policies of the United States...."
Quoted from John Rosenberg's www.discriminations.us/ : The Press Dog That Didn’t Bark... »

The Greater The Islamic Percentage, The Less The Contribution To The Advancement Of Civilization

It is in this way that allowance for significant Islamic immigration is to be understood. The effect is on per capita, or per million, measures of advancement of civilization. That is, contributions to knowledge globally, not just local improvements in a place which is behind. The effect of Islamic population is independent of per capita income. As seen in the table below,
Egypt, Tunisia and Saudi Arabia, are at much the same level, even though they are at low, moderate and high per capita incomes, respectively. Algeria shows levels associated with per capita incomes in the hundreds of dollars, while actually being in the middle ranks of incomes. The 'Near East and North Africa' are comparable in population size to Sub-Saharan Africa, while having much higher per capita incomes and hugely larger university staffs in total, yet show, as in the bottom graph, scarcely larger total output of this kind. The countries shown below, which are less than 90% Islamic, India, Malaysia and Thailand, are also 90% or more below the output levels of America and many European nations. For context, America and the top European countries are at 700-1000 or higher on the scale used below:

From NSF at this link: Latin America Shows Rapid Rise in S&E Articles
"During the 1980s, the number of scientific publications per million inhabitants was 18 (Brazil), 16 (India), and 15 (the Arab world). The per capita output of the Arab countries is some 2 percent that of industrial countries. In 1990, there were more than 5,000 publications from 700 Arab institutions. Half of these were from 12 institutions, 11 of which were universities. Other institutions involved in publishing were hospitals and agricultural research stations.

R&D in the Arab countries is overwhelmingly of an applied nature. [...] The three leading countries in order of research output are Egypt (37 percent), Saudi Arabia (20 percent), and Kuwait (12 percent). "

Added 7-21-08 from: Sunday, July 13, 2008

Author Demonstrates Warlike Identity Of Islam By Publishing A Novel
It is encouraging that we have here still some brave intellectuals, unlike the dhimmi-leftists of the government schools of power-worship. Brad Thor is not only intelligent and courageous, he is raking in the millions, doing a job that foreigners won't do. Quoting from an article entitledAngry Muslims threaten life of 'The Last Patriot' author :"Thor says 'Islam is getting a free pass,' and he has the right to write anything he wants to write and Muslims have the 'right not to read it.' He adds that he's tired of the chattering class in Washington glossing over the violent nature of Islam, sugarcoating it as a 'religion of peace' that doesn't need to be reformed."Brad Thor has a character claim evidence that a peaceable Islam was the final word of its prophet, which would abrogate the jihad doctrines. Whether this is true or not, the response of today's Islam to such a claim is so warlike and intolerant, that they demonstrate their unfitness for civilization.Added 7-15-08: 2008The push to criminalize "Islamophobia"
Posted by John S. Bolton

Diversity, Ottomanization And The Spread Of Mass Murder

"Apparently, freedom of speech is not a human right in Canada. The Canadian Islamic Council that filed the nuisance suit may not win against somebody as globally-connected as Steyn, but the lesson for anybody actually living in Canada is clear [...], it is indicative of how diversity and civil liberties are increasingly in collision. The future of the world may well look like the old Ottoman Empire writ large: multiculturalism on a remarkable scale, but public liberty close to non-existent -- it was simply too dangerous in such a diverse community." Quoted from Steve Sailer 's post of Dec. 20/2007
JB comments:
The greater the diversity within a polity, the greater also is the chance that part of that diversity will be irreconcilable to other parties there, and lethally so. The greater the volume of diversity within a polyglot sovereignty, the greater also will be the chance for misunderstanding and unintentional provocation of hyper-sensitivities present in unequal groups. All empires are authoritarian to their conquered territories. Freedom from state aggression is never a priority, but diversity management, by all authoritarian means, always is high on the agenda of the rulers. In spite of this, the Ottomanologist Bernard Lewis said:

“The authoritarianism present in the Middle East region is not part of the Arab and Muslim traditions, but it has been imported from Europe.”

Despotic regimes have existed since the beginning of history in the mideastern and Islamic lands. Non-authoritarian regimes have never existed there, not in Islamic countries. They can't have got the idea of totally exterminating the Jews from Europe, either , if that is what Lewis actually means by 'authoritarian' in some deceitfully equivocated sense. Now Lewis is going to be contradicted with the relevant facts on the Mufti of Jerusalem, and his introduction of the practice of total extermination of the Jews into several countries of Europe. Below are some timelines indicating the direction of flow of the extermination practices from the Ottoman empire starting with the Armenians [bottom], brought to Europe by the Mufti of Jerusalem, developed into the practice of the total extermination of the Jews, a novelty which had its pilot operations begun under the Mufti in Bosnia, copied from this site on: Amin Al Husseini

Amin Al Husseini Meets Hitler in Berlin During WWII Hitler was reportedly content with deporting the Jews out of Europe to Palestine. Husseini perceived this as a threat to his stronghold in Palestine and pushed successfully for the extermination of the European Jews.
1941 Christian Serbian Genocide Husseini’s Personal Project [xxvi] 300,000 Non-Muslim Deaths Today… Amin Al Husseini meets Croat Nazi A.Artukovic and M.Budak during WWII.	April 25th. Amin Al-Husseini is made chief architect [xxvii] of Nazi offensive in Bosnia: Serbian-Cyrillic alphabet outlawed. Orthodox Serbs forced to wear Blue armband. Jewish Serbs forced to wear Yellow armband. While in Bosnia, Amin Al-Husseini takes the title “Protector of Islam”. One hundred thousand (100,000) Bosnian Muslims join the Nazi ranks. They seek Nazi approval to establish autonomous Nazi protectorate for Bosnian Muslims. Amin Al-Husseini approves the Pejani Plan, calling for the extermination of the Serbian population. Nazi Germany refuses to implement the Pejani plan. Bosnian ethnic cleansing under Amin al Husseini: . Orthodox Christian Serbs: 200,000 killed . Jewish Bosnians: 22,000 killed . Gypsies: over 40,000 killed Husseini’s legacy of hatred is a major factor in today’s Bosnia/Herzegovina conflict against the Serbs and their leader Milosevic. Amin Al Husseini Inspecting His Muslim Troops. 1943.
1942 10,000 Children Die	Amin Al-Husseini intervenes personally with Nazi High Command to block Red Cross offer of exchanging 10,000 Jewish children for Nazi prisoners of war. They will die in Hitler’s gas chambers. [xxviii]
1943 Nazi Muslims	Bosnia, which he calls ‘the cream of Islam’. It becomes the largest division of the Third Reich Army (26,000 men) and participates actively in the genocide of Serbian and Jewish populations. ‘Hanzar’ was the name given to the dagger worn by officers under the Turkish Ottoman Empire. [xxx] Muslim soldiers pledge allegiance to Nazi regime in official statement prepared by Heinrich Himmler, head of SS Nazi troops 1914-1917 Husseini’s First Taste of Jihad Allegiance to Ottoman Empire Amin Al Husseini: Ottoman Empire Officer Amin Al-Husseini swears allegiance to the Ottoman Empire during the Armenian genocide [i] . [ii] He is an officer stationed in Smyrna and participates first-hand in the Armenian genocide. One and a half million Christians are slaughtered under the sword of Islamic Jihad by the Ottoman Army. Allegiance to Ottoman Empire and Islamic world take-over will be echoed by Osama Bin Laden in his post-September 11th declaration [iii] .