April 16, 2013 The Boston Bombings : What to Expect Next By : Billy Rojas As things stand we simply do not know with any certainty who was responsible for the Boston bombings. Theoretically this could have been the work of the Earth Liberation Front ( very unlikely ) or a neo-Nazi group ( also unlikely but at least a little bit plausible ) or a lone wolf crazy --or crazy group of lone wolves ( unlikely but possible ). Still, probability alone does not establish that the blasts were carried out by Islamic terrorists. For now this is simply what is most logical to conclude. What we can say with certainty is that if this is not the work of Muslims it is at a minimum a copycat act of terror. TV dramas have used this theme in the recent past and it cannot be ruled out. For example, disgruntled ex-soldiers who have extremist political views might use such an action to try and foment anti-Muslim violence to further their own political agenda, viz, along lines once suggested by Lenin but also used by fanatics on the far Right. All of this said, let us ask what the fallout would be if it is established that, in fact, Muslims were responsible. What would the consequences be ? After 9 / 11 there were two very different social effects. One was public defense of Muslims based on the false premise that Islam is similar to Christianity and that most Muslims, by far, deserve no opprobrium. This view is only sustainable based on ignorance of any and all objective study of Islam, and by blatant dismissal of important critics such as Ibn Warraq, a serious scholar and ex-Muslim, or by smear campaigns against people like Pamela Geller. While Geller is not an academic, and while she has her own political axe to grind which is related to the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and which ironically for an Orthodox Jew takes an anti-Biblical view of homosexuality, regardless, her research into Islam is as good as it gets and her stands on Islam-related issues fit objective facts in ways that cannot be refuted empirically. It should be added that there is such a thing as a social version of the Stockholm Syndrome. Because of this syndrome significant numbers of Americans, especially --proportionally-- black people, converted to Islam following the attacks against America. In terms of gross numbers there were more white converts. In any case, thousands of Americans in the course of 2002 became Muslims because of 9 / 11. This is couterintuitive but also fits in with Leftist political opinion to the effect that the non-Western world is intrinsically virtuous and its actions, no matter how extreme, are justified by reaction to white "oppression." This kind of thinking is right out of Franz Fanon's playbook, and ultimately out of Lenin's via the Report of the Commission on The National and Colonial Questions of July 26,1920, and also out of Leon Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution. Basic to all of this is an anti-Western and anti-Capitalist view of the world while extolling of the worth of non-Western peoples who, by their resistance to westernization, show everyone else the path to a future 'untainted' by corporations and plutocacy and so forth. In other words, what may be called a Social Stockholm Syndrome, in which an ideology responsible for a horrific attack against America, in the case of 9 / 11 Islamism or Islam per se, is identified-with by a victim population to the extent that at least some people among victims convert to the faith of the attackers. Which is not a new phenomenon. In my research into the origins of Balkan Unitarianism ( mostly found in Rumania ) it became clear that such beliefs as strict monotheism with no divinity for Christ, derive directly from the serious military threat of the Ottomans in the 16th century, who, of course, heavily promoted Islam and who made it clear that Islamization of Christian cultures was on their agenda. Which is a long way to simply say that if it can be shown that the bombers at Boston were Muslims, then we can expect some resurgence of pro-Islam sentiment on the political Left, maybe not so much associated with the Democratic Party as with "hard Left" people who have internationalist leanings. Those people plus black people --who are already saturated culturally with pro-Islam values promoted by standard Muslim organizations and by Left-wing ersatz "Christian" groups like Rev Jeremiah Wright's church to which Barrack Obama once belonged. There is also the factor of Farrakahn's Nation of Islam version of Muslim religion which is universally known and even respected among populations of black people despite the virulent anti-Semitism involved, despite obvious reverse racism, and despite the generally poor education it valorizes via Afro-centrist theories which have no objective merit. ----- We could also expect a resurgence of ignorance-based reaction. That is, there are populations of essentially white people who, almost totally uniformed about any religion except maybe Christianity, could be expected to act on the basis of vigilantism, take matters into their own hands, and attack people who "look like Arabs" --and if Sikhs or Coptic Christians or anyone else gets hurt or killed, what's the difference ? There could be a reaction from the Right, in other words. The Left cannot see the sickness of its own typical reactions and would try to blame everything possible on the Right, something all too easy to do in hothouse Left-wing environments like San Francisco / Berkeley, or perchance, Madison, Wisconsin or Austin, Texas. The Right similarly cannot see its limitations and would try to tar-and-feather the Left with ignorance-based mischaracterizations of everything it dislikes as "socialism," forgetting that the British Labour Party is "Socialist" and has long been in alliance with the United States, or for that matter, various Socialist parties around the world even when some are highly critical of US foreign policy. That is, "Socialism" does not translate into Marxist-Leninism except for die hard neo-Communists. There also are millions of Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats and so forth who are not Marxists at all, or who, if they are, are obvious "Revisionists" who believe that Marx is only suggestive and not some sort of "gospel." As well, as a footnote, there are types of non-Marxist Socialism that are basically unrelated to normative politics and are mostly philosophical or economics-centered or even primarily religious. For the Right to seek to condemn everything it disdains as "socialist" is a strategy pursued by people who don't know what they are talking about. Yes, there is much to be critical of on the political Left. The point is that much current criticism is misguided and contributes little or nothing to solving actual problems. The point is also that the Right is anything but our political "salvation." To repeat the mantra yet again, the Left is capable of many evils, such as its tolerance of Islam regardless of the gross criminality that is enshrined within Muhammad's religion. But you can't fight against evil by resorting to the stupidity that so often characterizes the political Right. To return to the subject of post-Boston reactions and what to expect next, there are three obvious possibilities : ( 1 ) Increasing frustration if no clear suspect is identified with growing likelihood that Muslims --or Islam more generally-- deserves the blame. While this identification is based on the record of militant Islamists of the past decade and more, it still would not be a certainty and would leave the door open to serious embarrassment if it turns out to be wrong. ( 2 ) The rise of conspiracy theories of all kinds. These could be almost anything : Right, Left, Independent , or Off -the-Wall. This was pointed out on the Fox News show, Special Report. Meanwhile, Left-leaning CBS offered the observation that people are becoming increasingly uneasy with complete absence of knowledge of who the perpetrator was. The implication of the CBS story was that at some point an "explanation" of some kind will arise that, because it is more plausible than other viewpoints, would become the revealed "truth" and people would start to act upon it. The strongest possibility clearly is that some version of a narrative in which Muslims are guilty would become widely accepted. We should not rule out other possibilities. I have already come across one blog comment that is sure to resonate if the perpetrator is not identified in short order, namely, that the Jews are responsible ! Speaking personally, this kind of anti-Semitic speculation strikes me as absurd and motivated by nothing so much as bigotry and feelings of inferiority, or of powerlessness, and has just about no relationship to reality. Regardless, there could well be some people who would become convinced that it must be true. The Left, of course, wants to find that some Right-wing militia caused the Boston atrocities, or another Timothy McVeigh and friends, and in any case, the narrative they prefer is that the bombings were a tragedy to mourn, and that our very best reaction should be based on sorrow. Many on the Right would also like this to end with a sorrowful set of reactions, as if comfort for the injured and widows and orphans is the best --and only-- policy. This might be the case on the part of various sincere religious believers for whom retribution and reaction in anger is "unchristian." ( 3 ) In the meantime, the mainstream media can be expected to seek some semblance of objective truth, even if they don't like it, but with the caveat that as soon as possible public perception should be guided along pathways that are favorable to the official position of the Obama administration, which follows a narrative not all that different than that of the Bush White House, namely : This was all an aberration, the true nature of Islam is that it is a "religion of peace," and we should, as soon as possible, bring the guilty to trial in a court of law, which would settle the matter once and for all and we could return to our normal lives in which Islam is officially regarded as a somewhat exotic version of Methodism. There is a serious problem with this approach, of course : In 2001 the number of Americans with anything like serious knowledge of Islam could not have been more than 1 % of the total population. In 2013, while no exact figures are available, the tally may be more like 20% or even 25 %. Of this number the best guess is that of the now-knowledgeable fifth or forth of the population, at least half are highly critical of Islam. This is very unlike the months after 9 / 11 when most Americans could fairly easily be led by the nose by the mass media in acceptance of official policy lines of the time in defense of Islam and of Muslims. Back then, benefit of the doubt was still the better nature of most Americans. "Innocent until proven guilty," in so many words. This remains the default position of most people on the Left, but it is hardly universal even there, and on the Right, even if no more than 10 % or 15 % of conservatives are reasonably well-informed about Islam, that is a substantial leadership cohort that did not exist a decade ago. Things could only be different than in late 2001 or in 2002. --- There are two additional ways to look at this. First : _Dancing in the streets of Gaza over Boston bombings_ (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/04/dancing-in-the-streets-of-gaza-over-bost on-bombings.html) Provided in the April 16, 2013 edition of Atlas Shrugs : "Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah Celebrate Boston Terror Attack," _Israel News Agency_ (http://www.israelnewsagency.com/bostonmarathonterrorattackpalestiniansdancingcandygazaobamahamasislamicjihadhezbollahiran48041513.html) , April 15:Jerusalem, Israel --- April 15, 2013 … Shortly after terror bombs exploded and murdered over 12 people [ actually 3 known deaths, with 152 known injuries ] at the Boston Marathon, members of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah were reported to be dancing in the streets of Gaza, handing out candies to passersby. A number of Palestinians had danced in the street in celebration of the 9/11 attacks in 2001 on the World Trade Center and Washington resulting in the deaths of thousands of Americans. The head of an Islamic terror organization in Jordan --the Muslim Salafi group-- says he’s “happy to see the horror in America” after the bombing attacks in Boston. “American blood isn’t more precious than Muslim blood,” said Mohammad al-Chalabi, who was convicted in an al-Qaeda-linked plot to attack US and other Western diplomatic missions in Jordan in 2003. “Let the Americans feel the pain we endured by their armies occupying Iraq and Afghanistan and killing our people there,” he said today. A Mideast counterterrorism official based in Jordan said the blasts “carry the hallmark of an organized terrorist group, like al-Qaeda.”...
That is to say, there will be inspiration for significant numbers of Muslims to seek to do likewise. Similarly, along lines expressed by Juan Cole also on April 16, there will be "blame America" rationalizations, as if there is some kind of moral equivalence to contemplate. For the record, scholarly critics of Islam regularly compare Muhammad's religion to Fascism. This is certainly the case for Ibn Warraq, who of anyone, should know. Even Leftists like Bertrand Russell saw strong parallelisms between Islam and totalitarianism, although Russell had the view that Islam was more akin to Stalinist Communism. In any case, here is the argument that is close to 100 % missed by Leftists : Islam is so much like Fascism, down to the details that the Mufti of Jerusalem organized SS regiments on behalf of Hitler during WWII, and the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood now in power in Egypt was founded in part by inspiration provided to its early leadership by Mussolini and somewhat later by the Nazis, that the resemblance cannot be overlooked by anyone with a conscience. Which the Left does not seem to have. Of course, there is a reason for the consciencelessness of the Left : Almost to a man ( or woman ), Left-wingers are hopelessly ignorant of religion in general and Islam in particular. This allows Leftists to pretend that Islam is whatever they want it to be, especially some version of a "people's revolutionary Cause." You know, the oppressed rising up against their oppressors. However, suppose this was WWII. Suppose there was a population of Nazis who were being attacked by superior force and made to suffer ? Maybe think of the isolated Nazi garrison on Crete, or Nazi units stranded in Brittany after the successes of the allied landings on D-Day and of Patton's army which soon divided the Wehrmacht into two parts. Where would your sympathies lie ? With the Nazis or with Americans and America's allies ? It would not matter how much punishment that the Nazis were enduring. They deserved it. And , at least in the past 25 years or so, this has become Israeli policy toward Hamas in Gaza and, before that, toward Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. Israelis, like Jews elsewhere, understand what would happen to them if Muslims were to prevail. The outcome would be no different than it was under the Nazis in Europe. Which is to say that all the bleeding heart supplications made by Leftists on behalf of Gaza Palestinians and other Muslims are absurd, based on gross ignorance of the true nature of Islam, and ridiculously immoral. The Left, which loves to chide the Right for its ignorance, criticism which sometimes is well deserved, however, is actually far more ignorant than all but the most antediluvian Rightists. The ignorance of the Left, moreover, is endemic, it is structural. Because the Left despises religion and regards religion as an unworthy subject to study, the Left is necessarily captive to a host of false premises about Islam, to obsolete understanding of Judaism or Christianity, and to myths about Islam of its own invention that have nothing to do with reality. Don't get me started about some people on the Right. "My way or the highway" is the mantra of still millions of Christian zealots --especially hard core Calvinists-- who cannot conceive that any truths are to be found outside of their interpretation on the Bible. On this subject it would be possible to write for many pages but that would be like shooting fish in a barrel, too easy, and also basically pointless. No-one pays attention to the zealots except other zealots. The Left is different. Especially since it has one of its own in the White House. Let us, in conclusion, consider the other alternative way of thinking about after-effects of the Boston bombings. If the perpetrators turn out to be Muslims, this would give new relevance to each and every critic of Islam who has become well known in the United States since September 11. This means Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Steve Emerson, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Brigitte Gabriel, Barry Sommer, Sam Harris, Nonie Darwish, Walid Shoebat, Ibn Warraq, Geert Wilders , V. S. Naipaul, Michel Onfray, the late Oriana Fallaci, Taslima Nasrin, R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Khalid Duran, David Horowitz, and so forth, and if I may be so bold as to include myself, Billy Rojas. I cannot speak for the others, but can tell you exactly what I would do if given half a chance to speak my mind in a pubic forum which was not manipulated by Left-wing moderators, or allowed to say what I most wanted to say in print without being censored : Everything possible to completely discredit Islam from start to finish should be regarded as absolutely essential. My contempt for this utterly vile and evil religion could not possibly be more complete or more uncompromising. Which I say not as an individual who is part of an unwashed multitude, but as a former college teacher of Comparative Religion and history of religions. I know exactly what I am talking about. If it was up to me what would happen almost immediately would be the organization of a worldwide War of Ideas with the explicit purpose of eliminating Islam from the face of the Earth --through persuasion, education, debates, media campaigns, public speeches, newspapers, television programs, and whatever else it would take. Islam is no different, as far as I am concerned, than Nazism under Hitler or Communism under Stalin or Mao. Essentially it deserves to be destroyed. But this dismantling of Islam should be entirely through peaceful means. O, yes, I am fully aware of what many Muslims would do if I could be part of a media campaign to discredit Islam entirely through free speech means like debates and scholarship. Millions of Muslims would riot, there would be suicide attacks all over the map, there would be more bombings and more large scale killings like events at Ft Hood........ And countless threats, insults of every description, false charges, smears, slanders, lies in profusion, defamations of character, much yelling and shouting, virulent denunciations, and much, much, more, all in a context of ceaseless violence. I rest my case. Billy Rojas =========================================== Real Clear Politics / Real Clear World April 16, 2013 Will Boston Have Any Geopolitical Fallout? Posted by Greg Scoblete Events are very fluid following the gruesome terrorist attack at the Boston Marathon, but _speculation is already swirling_ (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/us/officials-investigate-boston-explosions.html) as to motive and responsible parties. As I spoke with friends and neighbors yesterday, several people asked me if I thought North Korea was behind it. That possibility never even crossed my mind (and for the record, I think it's wildly implausible) but it did get me thinking about the potential geopolitical fallout of this event if it can be traced to international sources. In fact, there's only one plausible scenario* I can think of that would carry significant geopolitical consequences: If Iran's Revolutionary Guard or Hezbollah (or both) were behind it. In response to the assassination of Iranian scientists, Iran _has launched a wave of largely unsuccessful global terrorist attacks_ (http://www.realclearworld.com/blog/2013/01/irans_bumbled_terror_war_on_the_us_and_israel.html) against Israel and the U.S. While many plots were bungled, Iran (via Hezbollah) did manage to kill Israeli civilians in Bulgaria and attempted to assassinate Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the U.S. in Washington. If Iran's hand is in this act of terror, it would galvanize proponents of military action against Iran's nuclear program to push the administration for immediate action. The Obama administration would be under enormous pressure to act in some overt manner to punish Tehran. Yet unlike al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, there's no simple method of punishing Iran militarily that doesn't open the door to a much broader conflict. Retaliatory attacks aimed at the Revolutionary Guard or Iran's nuclear facilities could invite Iranian counter-moves and runs the _well-established risk_ (http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/IranReport_091112_ExecutiveSummary.pdf) of a direct military engagement with Iran. Standing pat, however, will be politically difficult (if not impossible). So, of all the potential scenarios associated with the Boston attacks, linkage to Iran carries the most significant geopolitical consequences. Why not al-Qaeda? The most likely global culprit is also the one least likely to spur any fundamental change to American security strategy or foreign policy. Three of al-Qaeda's main groupings -- in Pakistan, in the Arabian Peninsula and in Africa (the "Islamic Maghreb") -- are already the focus of intense counter-terrorism campaigns, drone strikes and covert action. If any of these groups are linked to the Boston attack it may lead to a stepped up campaign of drone strikes and covert action, but it's unlikely to radically reorient the Obama administration's current policy (it will, however, likely lead to a sharp debate over the drone strikes and whether they're a cause of, or solution to, incidents such as these). *There are plenty of implausible scenarios which would have far-reaching consequences as well: just pick your favorite rogue or adversarial state and make them the culprit. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
