We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Reflections on the terrorist attacks on Israel a year ago “The past year has not been a Palestinian war against Israel, nor an Arab war against Israel. It has been an Iranian war against Israel, fought directly by Tehran’s own military and through its numerous terrorist proxies, including Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Yemen’s Houthis, and Iraq and Syrian milita groups. And behind the terrorist storm troopers lies Iran’s nuclear weapons programme.”
– John Bolton, Daily Telegraph, writing today on the grim anniversary of the 7 October progrom inflicted by Hamas on southern Israel last year.
My thoughts with those who grieve for the loss of their loved ones.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Hamas is Sunni, Hezbollah is Shia – both wish to exterminate Israel as part of their religious duty to make the world Islamic. It is a mistake to think Islam regards Tel Aviv as more important than, say, Rochdale or Minneapolis – it holds that the world was created by Allah and, therefore, should be under Islamic governance, hopefully peacefully – but other means are considered legitimate.
As for Iranians – their culture has been under Islamic pressure (to use a polite word for conquest) since the 7th century A.D. most recently since President Carter’s betrayal of the Shah in 1979.
The fact that modern Westerners can not bring themselves to say that there is a conflict (partly a non violent conflict – but sometimes a violent conflict) with Islam, partly because they risk PUNISHMENT, not from Muslims – but from the “liberal” authorities in the West, bodes ill for the eventual outcome of the conflict – whether non violent conflict (the competition of belief systems) or violent conflict.
It does not matter how much fancy technology the West has – if Western people refuse to accept they are even in a conflict, they will, eventually, lose.
“We can not say that, because we would lose our jobs and be punished by the “liberals” in other ways”.
Fair enough – then the West is going to fall. Indeed if expressing the opinions, on Islam, of John Bright, Gladstone and Winston Churchill is punished – then the West has, in terms of philosophy, already fallen – already lost.
Look at Western countries – are most followers of Islam in these countries “Iranian”? No they are not. Are they even Shia? No they are not.
Does this make a great difference? No it does not.
According to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom – one should “stand with the Jewish community” but there should also be a “cease fire” which would allow the Islamic forces to restore their strength and wipe out the Jews.
I also listened to a Conservative Member of Parliament who stressed how much he supported Israel – and who also supported the creation of a “Palestinian State” (i.e. an Islamic state – which is what Gaza was, there was no Jewish “occupation” there) – whose basic objective would be to exterminate Israel. The schools of the “West Bank”, much of which is closer to the sea than to the Jordan river, teach the same Islam as the schools of Gaza – how could it be otherwise? Islam is the teachings and the life example of Muhammed – there can be no other Islam (although the deluded President Macron of France thinks there is).
With “friends” like this, who urge a “cease fire” and a “Palestinian state”……
Modern Westerners, of whatever political party, are so mentally confused (so lacking in basic logical reasoning), that it is painful to listen to them.
And, see previous comments, they are just as confused about Britain, France, Germany, America and-so-on as they are about Israel.
Paul is right that it isn’t just Iran. In some ways I suspect Iran is in too deep for their own liking*. Paul is wrong(ish) in saying it doesn’t matter. If Israel falls then the Hell that shall replace it will be decided very much by factors like Sunni vs. Shia. That is the big theological division but there are many others. Despite both being Sunni Hamas and Fatah hate each others guts with a passion. Oddly enough the existence of Israel as a universal hate figure is the only thing stopping all-out slaughter and chaos amongst Muslims in the region. I think it’s very complicated. Note the roles Jordan and Egypt haven’t played. Quite bizarrely the Palestinian cause seems more popular with US and UK homosexuals than “the Arab Street”!!! Yes, I’ve said it before but “Queers for Palestine” still seems like a rejected April Fool story…
I have a lot more to say about this grim anniversary but now is not the time or, moreso, the place.
*But that is where OTT rhetoric gets you. At some point you are going to be called out on it. Do you honestly think they wanted to waste an extra 180+ ballistic missiles? Those are expensive and they must be getting low. And where are they going to put their nukes?
Paul,
Dare I say it? I suspect the reason for parrotting the “Two State Solution” is now because it has assummed the form of some sort of holy writ. How did this happen? I suspect it is because it is easy to support something which is completely unworkable because you are commiting yourself to something that will never happen and nobody can blame you for it.
As to a “ceasefire” that sounds very noble and pacific and loads of politicos would like, “I made it so!” on their CV but if that came to pass it would only prolong this war. Not that this war can ever end whilst the Arabs hate the children of Israel more than they love their own.
NickM – as you know Gaza was an experiment at a “two state solution”, all Jews were removed from Gaza (just as demanded for the “West Bank” – much of which is closer to the sea than the Jordan river – it almost cuts Israel in two) and the place was under Islamic governance – the experiment failed, totally failed, and it had failed long before October 7th 2023.
Why do Westerners cling to this delusion? Because it is part of their wider delusion about peaceful coexistence in France, Britain, Germany and-so-on.
They, the Western establishment, do not really have any arguments in support of their position – just PUNISHMENT for anyone who says anything “Islamophobic” or “anti immigrant”.
The establishment drive people from their jobs and persecute them in various other ways – they do all this because they have no rational arguments for the establishment position, and so punishment of dissent is their only option (other than admitting that their position is irrational).
As for Iran – John Bolton might support nuking the Iranian nuclear bases (which is the only way they can be destroyed – as they are buried in the sides of mountains and so on), but the Western establishment would not.
Imagine that Israel nuked the Iranian nuclear bases tomorrow – the entire Western establishment would denounce Israel.
The Western establishment would denounce Israel even though the establishment know (they know) that the Islamic Republic of Iran regime intends to nuke Israeli cities as soon as the Iranian nuclear weapons are finished.
So I wish the Western establishment would stop saying they support Israel’s right to exist – as they clearly do not.
I agree with John Bolton that regime change is needed in Iran – so that that the savage persecution of the Iranian people stops.
President Trump turned down this agenda (and opting for peace led to the break between President Trump and Mr Bolton) – but President Trump did not pour vast sums of money into SUPPORTING the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Both the Obama/Biden and the Biden/Harris Administrations did that – they both actively supported the Iranian regime (financially and in other ways).
As to why they did this – well they seem to see Shia Islam as more pro “Social Justice” than Sunni Islam, as having more of an “option for the poor” (as the Marxist Liberation Theology types in the Catholic Church would put it). Of course, at first the difference between Sunni and Shia was on who should lead the Islamic community – but, over time, differences in theology, in Islamic jurisprudence (Islam is a political and legal system) emerged. And Barack Obama and K. Harris do seem to regard Shia Islam as more “Progressive” – from their point of view.
The case is a bit thin – it rests on a certain tax (the proceeds of which go to the poor) being applied to all economic activity in Shia Islam and only to some activities (such as plunder from infidels – but also mineral extraction) in Sunni Islam – but both Barack Obama and K. Harris seem to believe the case that Shia Islam is more “Progressive”, more into “Social Justice” than Sunni Islam.
Philosophically the difference between Sunni and Shia Islam is on Determinism – with Shia Islam rejecting Determinism (so Winston Churchill’s attack on the philosophical Determinism of Islam would not work if directed against Shia Islam).
And on treatment of infidels? Well this is the problem – there really is not a major difference on the infidel question between Shia and Sunni Islam.
They have important differences on various matters – but not really on the infidel question.
Paul Marks: Hamas is Sunni, Hezbollah is Shia – both wish to exterminate Israel as part of their religious duty to make the world Islamic. It is a mistake to think Islam regards Tel Aviv as more important than, say, Rochdale or Minneapolis – it holds that the world was created by Allah and, therefore, should be under Islamic governance, hopefully peacefully – but other means are considered legitimate.
That ignores the geopolitics of this. As John Bolton’s article makes crystal clear, the Iranian Revolution of 1979 was the pivotal moment in the ME and according to folk such as historian Steve Kotkin.
I know that the Shia and Sunni strains of Islam, for all their vicious differences, have also, among the fanatics, a hatred of Israel, of Israel’s existence and its very success as a country. I am aware that we are up against a nihilist deathcult, a fusion of an ancient religion founded by a military ruler, and far-left ideology.
But, in rolling back this nightmare, it is necessary to demoralise the fanatics, to make them despair and give up. Taking the Mullahs of Tehran down, destroying their networks and rule, and hopefully encouraging ordinary Iranians to establish a broadly decent country, underpinned by Persia’s wonderful history, would be a momentous change for the better. That will not discourage all Sunni fanatics, but it will have some demoralising impact across the board.
In the near term, Israel, and hopefully backed by the US (the UK is a joke at this point), needs to destroy Iran’s war-fighting capacity.
This is a first, but necessary step towards making Islamists realise that their shitty, degenerate, anti-life ideology is a losing proposition.
Check out this excellent interview of Douglas Murray by Bari Weiss. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kY3luFEvjIY
“the existence of Israel as a universal hate figure is the only thing stopping all-out slaughter and chaos amongst Muslims in the region. ”
It is not stopping.
See the Iraq-Iran war – 1980-1988 – 1 million dead.
See the Syrian “civil war” – 2011 and ongoing — half a million dead.
See the ongoing wars in Ethiopia and Sudan (Ethiopia is only partly Muslim).
the Iranian Revolution of 1979 was the pivotal moment in the ME
The Iranian revolution was important, but slaughter occurred and occurs also without that.
Any examples of a Middle Eastern regime imploding in the past few decades that didn’t lead to loads of refugees heading to Western countries?
Martin, a lot of Iranians fled to the West just before 1979. They tend to be ardent anti-Islamists.
I’m guessing that the young adults, such as women, who protested against the regime in Iran a few years ago would like it to implode. Just as those living under the old Soviet Union wanted it to collapse.
As long as the mullahocracy stays in power and funnels wealth and weapons to terrorists, it’s a menace requiring rough treatment.
Would it not suffice to bomb the access to each nuclear base?
Then people outside could not get in, and people inside would die a deservedly slow death.
Johnathan Pearce – I suspect you are whistling in the dark, but given the punishment and persecution that people who talk bluntly about Islam face, and face in Western countries – and NOT from Muslims, your caution is understandable. We both know that such people as John Bright, Gladstone and Winston Churchill (yes Churchill as well) would be in prison if they were in Britain today. Other Western countries are much the same – the United States is an exception, there a person “just” faces the risk of losing their job and being forced to live on the streets, not actually being sent to prison for expressing their opinions (that will change if Harris/Walz are declared elected – they will appoint Supreme Court “Justices” who will, de facto, end the Bill of Rights – including the First Amendment).
Snorri – I do not think that conventional attack on the nuclear bases, or access to them, would work, although, of course, I could be mistaken. HOWEVER – there is a form of conventional (non nuclear) attack that might work.
As John Bolton and others have suggested – conventional (not nuclear) attack not on the nuclear bases, but on the economic foundation of Iran, destroying its capacity to export hydrocarbons.
The hope being that this would lead to chaos in Iran that would lead to the downfall of the regime – BEFORE they are ready to launch their nuclear attack on Israel.
Nothing to do with their being “fanatics” as that word is normally used – the leadership of Islamic Republic of Iran just have a different frame of reference.
Their frame of reference is certain texts which they believe to be true, and the life example of someone (a particular person) they revere – once one understands that (their starting point of reasoning) their actions are perfectly logical – quite rational.
Time is running out – fairly soon the Islamic Republic of Iran will launch their nuclear attack in Israel, certainly by the end of 2025, if not sooner.
One way for a Westerner to understand a bit about the Islamic world is to watch English language television stations from the Islamic world – after all these stations are in English so that Westerners can understand them. These television stations present Islam in the best possible light (and fair enough – one should expect that), but it is interesting that even though they are trying to appeal to Westerners (indeed want to appear just like Western news stations) they are quite revealing if one watches and listens carefully.
Johnathan Pearce and John Bolton are correct that Iranian backed television stations push XYZ – but, for example, the television stations backed by Turkey (which is available on Sky – one does not have to go to Rumble to watch it as with “RT”) and other Sunni powers push much the same line, lies about “genocide of the Palestinians” and-so-on.
There are differences, yes indeed there are, but the general attitude to people outside Islam is much the same – and logically so, given the texts they all hold to be true, and the deeds (actions) as well as the teachings, of the person they all revere.
If I held these texts to be true and I revered the person they revere – then I would take the position that they do. There is nothing irrational about it – it is all quite logical, if you accept their starting position.