Sultan Knish › 2.0: The Blogmocracy

Posts Tagged ‘Sultan Knish’

Soros’ Latest Israel Project

by Kafir ( 128 Comments › )
Filed under Judaism, Leftist-Islamic Alliance at December 28th, 2011 - 2:00 pm

I have been reading the reports in Israel about the clashes between the Ultra Orthadox and other residents of Israel with a sad heart. I should have known that George Soros had his grubby paw prints all over it. How can a man hate his own people so much that he has dedicated his life to ruining their homeland and urging the world to hate them as well? I just don’t understand.

Soros’ Latest Israel Project

If you have been seeing coverage of gender segregation issues in Israel then you may not be aware that you are actually seeing another Soros project in motion. The name of the game, as usual, is divide and conquer. Soros funded NGO’s embed themselves into a society and leverage its weakness to create confrontations that empower its activists and agendas.

While Israel does have neighborhoods in Jerusalem where a few Anti-Zionist cults practice their own form of intimidation and thuggery (if you have seen men in black protesting outside Israeli events, then you have seen some of these people at work) this particular crisis is the work of Soros funded NGO’s who have their own agenda, and it isn’t gender equality or women’s rights.

Soros’ money helps fund the New Israel Fund, a radical anti-Israel group operating inside the country which serves as the mothership of smaller left-wing Israeli organizations targeting demographic groups and organizing them under the umbrella of its movement.

In the following video, Rachel Liel, the executive director of the New Israel Fund, talks fairly openly about the New Israel Fund’s goals and its shift in tactics from funding confrontations between religious and secular Jews, to funding internal confrontations among religious Jews.

The material is old hat for anyone familiar with how Communist and New Left groups operate, the game here is to leverage the billions of dollars at the disposal of the American Left to sow discord within the State of Israel, and to create a constituency for the New Left with the endgame of destroying the country. The money passes through multiple NGO’s as grants and trickles down through the New Israel Fund to groups that can be used to carry out its agenda.

The left’s blueprint remains the same– exploit social problems within a target country, recruit a fifth column of the disaffected and build a permanent political base for permanent power, while at the same time overturning the culture and its values.

Soros’ people in Israel began their work with Arabs, they moved on to exploiting tensions between secular and religious Jews, and now they have pushed further into to stirring up conflicts among religious Jews. The deeper they get, the more damage they cause.

Please read it all. It’s a real eye opener.

Tags: Daniel Greenfield, George Soros, Sultan Knish
Posted in Judaism, Leftist-Islamic Alliance | 128 Comments »

Not only an invented people, but a badly invented people

by Mojambo ( 147 Comments › )
Filed under Fatah, Gaza, Hamas, Islamic hypocrisy, Islamic Invasion, Israel, Middle East, Palestinians, Syria at December 12th, 2011 - 2:00 pm

The Knish gives his take on the whole kerfuffle regarding Gingrich’s truthful comment that the Palestinians are an invented people. What Gingrich said is actually true and George Stephananpolous could not question the veracity of that statement. When Sirhan Sirhan (who came to America form the West Bank) was identified, he was correctly referred to as a Jordanian immigrant.

by Daniel Greenfield

In the post-news environment, media no longer exists to report, it exists to disseminate glib talking points that sound good at first, but don’t stand up to examination. Fact checks, one of the latest media gimmicks, have become another vector for disseminating talking points. So have media blogs which began repeating the same ridiculous thing over and over again.

Take the response to Gingrich’s accurate statement that the Palestinian Arabs are an invented people. Aside from all the hysterical “sky is falling” nonsense, is the comparison between the Americans as an invented people and the Palestinian Arabs.

[…..]
Americans are not a self-invented people, they are a self-evolved people. The American revolution was a struggle between a colony and the mother country that ended in a break and the creation of a new country that still used the language and much of the culture of the mother country, but at the same time the colonies had been slowly evolving their own unique identity.

The “Palestinian” Arabs on the other hand are an invented people, and not even a self-invented people. That dubious honor fell to some comrades in Moscow and the Arab nations who found it convenient to have terrorist militias that could launch attacks across the border, supposedly on their own initiative, but in reality answering to them.

Their whole claim to a state is the bizarre insistence that they are the region’s original inhabitants who were driven out by the actual original inhabitants, the Jews. When they are actually the descendants of the Muslim conquerors who drove out or subjugated the native inhabitants. It’s as if George Washington had not only put on an Indian costume but began claiming that his ancestors were there for thousands of years before the Cherokees drove them out.

Palestinian identity is just so much gibberish. The official definition of that identity encompasses only those parts of the Palestine Mandate which Israel holds today.

The people who live on the parts of the Palestine Mandate that were turned into the Kingdom of Jordan in 1921 are not Palestinians. There is no call to incorporate them into a Palestinian state. The people who lived in the parts of Israel that were captured by Jordan and Egypt in 1948 weren’t Palestinians, and there was no call to turn the land that today comprises the so-called “Occupied Territories” into a state. But in 1967 when Israel liberated those areas– only then did they magically turn into Palestinians.

How is anyone supposed to take this nonsense seriously?

[……]

When the Jews rebuilt their country, they did not call it Palestine, that was the name used by European powers. They called it Israel. The local Arabs who had come with the wave of conquests that toppled Byzantine rule had no such history and no name for themselves. Instead they took the Latin name used by the European powers and began pretending that it was some ancient tribal identity, rather than a regional name that was used by the European powers to describe local Jews and Arabs.

Even Arab place names invariably lack historicity. The Arab name for Jerusalem is Al-Quds or the holy city. It’s a little like calling New York, Big City and pretending that it means you saw it first, when it actually means that you saw it last and are piggybacking on its existing identity.

The Arabic for Hebron is a translation of the Hebrew. The same goes for Bethlehem. Ah but what about Nablus? The Jews may call it Shechem, but the Arabs have a unique name for it. Surely Nablus is part of the great and ancient Palestinian heritage. Not a chance. Nablus isn’t Arabic, it’s the Arabic mispronunciation of Neapolis, which if you happen to know Latin means “New City”.

Nablus has the same relationship to Neapolis, as Filistin does to Palestine, it’s the Arabic mispronunciation of the Latin. The name “Nablus” is every bit as regionally authentic as Naples, in Italy or Florida, which has the same meaning.

But what of the “Occupied Territories”? The Jews call them Judea and Samaria. The Arabs call them ad-difa’a al-gharbiya or the West Bank. Nothing says ancient history like bluntly descriptive names. But what of Ramallah, capital of the Palestinian Authority, that at least is an Arabic name. And that’s true. It is an Arabic name. A name almost as ancient as the city which dates back to the 16th century when a group of Christian Arabs crossed over from what is today Jordan fleeing Muslim persecution. Under Jordanian rule, Ramallah was overrun by Muslims and today it has a Muslim majority.

When the capital of your ancient people was founded by Christians from the other side of the river in the 16th century, and it wasn’t actually your capital until the bygone days of the 1990’s, and it only became your capital because you drove off its residents in the 1950’s, then your ancient civilization has a problem. It doesn’t actually exist.

The Arabs are not indigenous, they are colonizers who overran the land in tribal groups. There is no Palestinian people. For that matter there isn’t a Jordanian people or an Egyptian people. Just clans living behind one set of colonial borders drawn by European mapmakers in the 20th century. Those clans moved back and forth. Prosperous families lived like feudal lords. There was no common culture or national identity.

[…..]

The Al-Husaynis are no different than the House of Saud or the Al-Thanis of Qatar, they are ruling clans pretending to be a nation. The Palestinian Authority is for the most part a coalition of prominent clans, some of the same clans who refused to deal with the Jewish inhabitants and tried to drive them out instead.

If the Palestinian Authority was willing to be honest, it would call itself Husseinstin instead of Filistin, but since its entire claim to the land derives from a supposed ancient history, in which time they did not get around to thinking of a name for themselves, or creating a single government until the ancient days of the 1990’s, calling themselves the Husseinstinians wouldn’t have worked.

The Hashemite ruling family, also Saudi expats, may call their country the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, but they keep the “Jordan” part in there all the same, because it creates the illusion of antiquity. But Jordan is at least the river. What is Palestine? It’s the foreign name for a region that was meant to be a subsidiary of Syria. And the PLO began life as a Syrian front group, with its original chairman, who had represented Syrian in the UN, asserting that there was no such place as Palestine.

This bloody circus has been going on for way too long. Enough that the Arab states and the local clan leaders have managed to turn out generations of children committed to killing in the name of a mythical identity for a state that they don’t really want. The call for a Palestinian state was a cynical ploy for destroying Israel.

It’s why the negotiations never go anywhere, they’re not meant to go anywhere. The players aren’t free agents, they answer to their masters, and they can’t function without them. Hamas is running around like a chicken without a head, because it’s afraid of losing its Syrian backing. The Fatah leaders of the PA are even more incoherent, their ploy to threaten to unilaterally create a state has fizzled, and now they’re threatening to turn over rule to Israel if they don’t get what they want.

Self-government was the baseline for the American Revolution, but the Palestinian Authority can’t even manage that. Its budget consists of foreign aid. Its entire economy runs on money given to it by the rest of the world. It has an entire UN agency to cater to it. And despite being the biggest welfare state on the planet, it’s still completely incapable of taking care of itself.

Gingrich is right that the “Palestinians” are an invented people, but they’re a badly invented people. The Big Lie technique has turned their existence into an established fact, but the only basis for it is the repetition of the same lie. Orwell said that “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” Gingrich’s statement was a revolutionary act and no matter how the media might pillory him for it, as long as people continue to challenge the universal deceit of the press, then the revolution can continue.

Read the rest – A badly invented people

Tags: Daniel Greenfield, Newt Gingrich, Sultan Knish
Posted in Fatah, Gaza, Hamas, Islamic hypocrisy, Islamic Invasion, Israel, Middle East, Palestinians, Syria | 147 Comments »

Obama plans and is on track to winning

by Mojambo ( 160 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Elections 2012, Liberal Fascism, Media, Progressives, Republican Party, Socialism, Tea Parties at November 29th, 2011 - 2:00 pm

His contempt for us is a weakness, but it’s also a sign of how fortified his position is.

The Knish points out the obvious – that not only is Obama far from being beaten, but with the incredibly weak front runners we have in the Republican Party (Newt Gingrich aka “Mr. Newt”? Herman Cain who probably could not find the Middle East on a map? The cynical Mitt Romney?) is right now more then likely to win reelection. All the forces are still in play for him – a loyal base, a lapdog media, the popular culture, billions of dollars, and most important of all – he is still Black. The Knish reminds us that Obama tossed away the white working class vote in 2008 and still won.

by Daniel Greenfield

It’s downright strange that at a time when the field of Republican candidates has narrowed down to a few bad choices and the left has finally fielded its own answer to the Tea Party movement, that some pundits on the right are still cheerfully pushing the meme that Obama is all but done.

Sure it would be great if Obama were lying on the floor in a pool of spilled beer while humming songs from Sesame Street, but that is not what’s going on. And adding false self-confidence to the mix is about the worst possible thing to do.

Yes Obama wants to win and worse still he’s on track to win. It doesn’t matter how low his ratings are, so long as his opponent’s ratings are even worse. This is not a campaign that he has to win by being the better man, he just has to sit there and let the press destroy his opponent.

Obama does have one thing in common with some of the pundits predicting his imminent demise, they’re both sure that they can’t lose. But Obama has grounds for thinking that. Far better grounds than the cheerleaders who insist that anyone the Republicans run will win in a landslide in every state.

The lack of a traditional campaign on the D side of the line means nothing. 2008 wasn’t a traditional campaign either. Is Obama tossing away the white working class vote? He won without them in 2008. The unions have no choice and the rest can go to hell. Obama is saying mean things about Americans? He did that in 2008 too and it didn’t slow him down.

[……]

Using leftist occupations of public spaces in major cities as the kickoff to a campaign. How many people saw that coming and how many expected it to work? But it worked well enough to engage the younger voters who helped boost him last time around. And it’s not the end of the show.

It’s tempting to see Obama as another Carter or Dukakis, a malaise ridden liberal, but while he has a good deal in common philosophically with them, his image and his campaign have little in common with theirs. And it’s also worth remembering that Reagan’s defeat of Carter was not nearly as easy as some would make it out to be.

Reagan’s victory might not have been nearly so decisive without the involvement of an independent candidate who drew votes from Carter. And even that victory was not always inevitable. Before the debate, Reagan was polling behind Carter. Had Carter avoided debating Reagan and avoided challenges from the left, it’s not inconceivable that he might have pulled off a second term.

No we aren’t doomed to a second term of O. But as always the election is ours to lose. And the best way to lose a game is to assume that you’re going to win before you even play. It’s possible that we might win this on an “Anyone But Obama” vote by independents, but it’s more likely that we will have to work hard for it.

Out of the starting gate that means we are likely to be saddled with a candidate that much of the party isn’t happy with. Our challenge will be to revive a grass roots campaign even while the grass roots may not be particularly enthusiastic about the ABO candidate. It will be to cope with daily media attacks without getting beaten down or losing our spirit. And the best way to begin is to understand that this will be a tough fight.

So I’ll say it again, yes he wants to win. It may not look like he’s working for it, but that is because he doesn’t have to work for it.

Obama does not have to work hard to win this election. He just has to make his campaign stops, read his speeches off the teleprompter and bask in the glow of the media’s praise. We are the ones who have to work hard because we are the insurgents. No matter how dissatisfied the public is with this term, and no matter how willing they seem to be to vote for a generic Republican, they are not going to be nearly as eager to do so after a month of media attacks.

The media is going to make this a campaign of personalities, contrasting the personalities of their guy and our guy. We are going to have to fight to bring the issues to the forefront and that means renewed activism, not just for the big chair, but for the smaller chairs in the House and the Senate. We are going to have to pick a core economic issue and hammer it home over and over again until it can no longer be ignored.

Whoever the Republican nominee will be is not likely to be another Reagan, and he will likely not be reliable on many core issues, and it will fall to us to take up the fight on those issues. And that will not be an easy fight. The campaign won’t want anyone disrupting the likability of their candidate by touching of any divisive issues, a plan that will work as well as the shiny and likable McCain did.

[……]

Obama has lost the insurgent’s advantage, but he has gained the incumbent’s advantage. If his team manages to make his opponent seem unpalatable enough, then he becomes the default choice. If he’s at 35 percent, then his team’s goal is to push Romney, Gingrich or Perry down to 34 percent. And after what we’ve seen so far, do you think that will be impossibly hard to do?

The goal here is to make voters uncomfortable with voting Republican by portraying him as personally reckless and politically extreme. And it’s a little too easy to see how that will play out. The template for this was already written in election after election and there will be new wrinkles here, unexpected surprises and unprecedented attacks.

The idea that Obama doesn’t want to win ignores the simple fact that this is all he is. What he wants most is attention and being where he is puts him at the center of it. Not only that it’s financially lucrative and gives him powers well beyond those he ever expected to have. And it’s doubtful that he has gotten tired of wielding them.

At times he may appear sullen, not because he doesn’t want to be where he is, but because like a petulant child he doesn’t want to do the work that will take him there. Obama has always gotten by on the externals with other people to do the hard work for him. We can’t count on having anyone to do the hard work for us. Not our candidate, not the party and certainly not public dissatisfaction.

The people around Obama know that the public mood can be turned around in an instant, and that no likes to look foolish. If they can introduce wedges then they can split their opposition and collect the winnings. They also know that overconfidence can quickly lead to despondency and despair. The best way to prepare yourself for a tough job is to know the size of the task you mean to tackle and expect strong opposition and difficult obstacles along the way.

And no amount of irresponsibility, petulance and obnoxious behavior should give us the impression that our opponent doesn’t want to win. His contempt for us is a weakness, but it’s also a sign of how fortified his position is. We are the ones with the uphill battle and we cannot afford to rest at the bottom of the hill before we have taken the high ground.

Read the rest – Yes Obama wants to win

Tags: Daniel Greenfield, Sultan Knish
Posted in Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Elections 2012, Liberal Fascism, Media, Progressives, Republican Party, Socialism, Tea Parties | 160 Comments »

Rape and the Occupation

by Mojambo ( 59 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Communism, France, Islam, Liberal Fascism, Progressives, Socialism at November 15th, 2011 - 2:00 pm

The Knish reminds us that the end result of collectivization with it s destruction of individual rights only to be replaced by “group rights” is rape. Subsidized equality ultimately means a loss of all individuality, uniqueness and personal responsibility. Redistribution of power and redistribution of wealth are two different things. Capitalism in America has made the former possible.

by Daniel Greenfield

The multiple incidents of sexual assault in the Occupation tent cities are as ugly as they are inevitable. The absence of theft, assault and other forms of attacks is not a natural phenomenon, it is the outcome of a system that protects individual rights. The Occupy tent cities are not concerned with the rights of the individual, but with the grand collective right of the “99 percent” to demand private property on behalf of the government. And collectivist movements are notoriously unconcerned with what happens to the individual.

The collectivist response to the allegations is to urge the victims to remain silent to avoid harming the reputation of the movement. This is a commonplace institutional response to rape allegations. It is not concerned with the individual, but the group. You have to break some omelets to make some eggs and you have to cover up some rapes and assorted bits of ugliness to have a society where everyone’s masters degrees are subsidized by the state.

Rape is a symptom of a larger loss of rights. When rape becomes widespread, as in South Africa, it can mean that the society is now lawless and the weak are preyed upon, it can also mean that a society has been conquered from the outside and the conquerors are looting the conquered, as Muslims are doing in Sudan or Sweden. Either way it means the end of a consensus on enforceable individual rights.

[…]

If OWS thinks the 1 percent is bad in the United States, try the 1 percent in Medieval England, the USSR or Egypt in the present day. The 1 percents over there were and are a good deal worse with much more power and few rights for the commoners that needed respecting. And for all the working groups, the occupiers have not managed to come up with anything that works any better than the system they are denouncing.

While the left has consistently tied the redistribution of power to the redistribution of wealth, the United States Constitution redistributed power as widely as possible and then let the free market take care of the redistribution of wealth. The system has worked well enough that half the world would like to move to the United States, not because it has a wealth of natural resources, plenty of countries have that, but because it actually is the land of opportunity.

[…]

Almost a century after the French Revolution, France was being ruled by the Second Empire and the Napoleonic Dynasty. Around the same time the United States had put an end to slavery and was enjoying nearly eighty years of uninterrupted rule under the world’s second-oldest written Constitution. There’s the discreet charm of the bourgeoisie which managed to roll out a system of government that could be scaled from a portion of one coast to half a continent, survive a civil war and two world wars.

Women’s rights are yet another example of radical activism not translating into freedom. French women were vocally and passionately involved in their liberation movements and despite all the declarations and slogans, not only was France one of the last countries in Europe to give women the right to vote, but it did so only belatedly in 1944. The reason has an obvious overlap with what is going on at OWS.

[…]

It is no coincidence that the growing political power of women correlated not with radical politics, but with their growing economic power. Individual rights have always followed the trajectory of free market rights. Only individuals within a group that achieves wealth can achieve any meaningful equality. That’s the difference between Asian-Americans and African-Americans.

Without the industrial revolution, it is doubtful that women would have had a national right to vote or that there would have ever been a civil rights movements. But the revolution multiplied the value of the individual worker and made occupational flexibility possible. It is only through this that women came to be viewed as more than a subset of the family and workers as more than subsets of the plantation.

[…]

Muslims don’t view rape as a crime because they don’t recognize women as having individual rights. Tribal belonging yes, rights no. The hierarchy, whether it’s the USSR or OWS or any other similar monstrosity sees it as a crime against public order, and their goal is to maintain that order in the name of the larger cause. But that order can be maintained by suppressing rape or by suppressing reports of rape. Totalitarian systems usually practice a measure of both, manufacturing the illusion of order by suppressing crime and reports of crime, depending on the level of incompetence of those in charge.

Collectivism insists on an ideal that trumps the real, that invalidates the rights of specific individuals in the name of everyone’s rights. The greater good. This ideal never works and its failure must be covered up so that the lie continues.

The free market offers the real equality of achievement, while Obama and OWS promise subsidized equality. How well does subsidized equality work? Go look at the economic position of African-Americans, particularly after the subsidized mortgage implosion. Subsidized equality exists at the mercy of a hierarchy while the free market provides breathing room from hierarchies.

[…]

The collectivists offer the subsidized equality of their hierarchy, which is tyranny with a slogan. Not only can’t they promise equal rights to the country under their system, they can’t even practice it in their own encampments. If OWS’s raped women are expected to keep their mouths shut for the sake of the movement now, what can the whole country expect under an OWS system?