Did you ever watch Star Trek : The Next Generation? If you did, you must surely remember the Borgs, whose philosophy of conquest was summed up in a single short speech Jean Luc Picard gave after having been transformed into a Borg: “I am Locutus of Borg. Resistance is futile. Your life, as it has been, is over. From this time forward, you will service us.” I doubt that the Star Trek writers had been immersing themselves in Islamic writings and history, but they could well have been.
At FrontPage Magazine, you can read an interview with Bill Warner, the the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam. Warner discusses Islam’s dualistic nature, which can hold simultaneously two opposite thoughts (such as the instruction to treat nonbelievers decently and the instruction that they must be destroyed as infidels). Thus, Warner contrasts Islamic beliefs with the Golden Rule, a principle that appears in all of the world’s other than Islam:
The term “human being” has no meaning inside of Islam. There is no such thing as humanity, only the duality of the believer and unbeliever. Look at the ethical statements found in the Hadith. A Muslim should not lie, cheat, kill or steal from other Muslims. But a Muslim may lie, deceive or kill an unbeliever if it advances Islam.
There is no such thing as a universal statement of ethics in Islam. Muslims are to be treated one way and unbelievers another way. The closest Islam comes to a universal statement of ethics is that the entire world must submit to Islam. After Mohammed became a prophet, he never treated an unbeliever the same as a Muslim. Islam denies the truth of the Golden Rule.
By the way, this dualistic ethic is the basis for jihad. The ethical system sets up the unbeliever as less than human and therefore, it is easy to kill, harm or deceive the unbeliever.
Now mind you, unbelievers have frequently failed at applying the Golden Rule, but we can be judged and condemned on its basis. We do fall short, but it is our ideal.
There have been other dualistic cultures. The KKK comes to mind. But the KKK is a simplistic dualism. The KKK member hates all black people at all times; there is only one choice. This is very straightforward and easy to see.
The dualism of Islam is more deceitful and offers two choices on how to treat the unbeliever. The unbeliever can be treated nicely, in the same way a farmer treats his cattle well. So Islam can be “nice”, but in no case is the unbeliever a “brother” or a friend. In fact, there are some 14 verses of the Koran that are emphatic—a Muslim is never a friend to the unbeliever. A Muslim may be “friendly,” but he is never an actual friend. And the degree to which a Muslim is actually a true friend is the degree to which he is not a Muslim, but a hypocrite.
More importantly, Warner discusses the Islamic philosophy of total conquest, something Westerners are loath to believe, despite 1400 years of murderous proof:
The history of political Islam starts with Mohammed’s immigration to Medina. From that point on, Islam’s appeal to the world has always had the dualistic option of joining a glorious religion or being the subject of political pressure and violence. After the immigration to Medina, Islam became violent when persuasion failed. Jihad entered the world.
After Mohammed’s death, Abu Bakr, the second caliph, settled the theological arguments of those who wished to leave Islam with the political action of death by the sword. The jihad of Umar (the second caliph, a pope-king) exploded into the world of the unbelievers. Jihad destroyed a Christian Middle East and a Christian North Africa. Soon it was the fate of the Persian Zoroastrian and the Hindu to be the victims of jihad. The history of political Islam is the destruction of Christianity in the Middle East, Egypt, Turkey and North Africa. Half of Christianity was lost. Before Islam, North Africa was the southern part of Europe (part of the Roman Empire). Around 60 million Christians were slaughtered during the jihadic conquest.
Half of the glorious Hindu civilization was annihilated and 80 million Hindus killed.
The first Western Buddhists were the Greeks descended from Alexander the Great’s army in what is now Afghanistan. Jihad destroyed all of Buddhism along the silk route. About 10 million Buddhists died. The conquest of Buddhism is the practical result of pacifism.
Zoarasterianism was eliminated from Persia.
The Jews became permanent dhimmis throughout Islam.
In Africa over 120 million Christians and animists have died over the last 1400 years of jihad.
Approximately 270 million nonbelievers died over the last 1400 years for the glory of political Islam. These are the Tears of Jihad which are not taught in any school.
Warner sums up an Islamic approach to world domination that is precisely the same as that voiced by the Borgs:
Political Islam has annihilated every culture it has invaded or immigrated to. The total time for annihilation takes centuries, but once Islam is ascendant it never fails. The host culture disappears and becomes extinct.
The big difference between jihadists and the Borgs, of course, is that the Borgs are entirely fictional. Jihadists are real, and our Western cultures are in complete denial about their goals and means. As Danny Lemieux, who sent me the link to this article said in his email to me, the solution to our Islamist problem is “education, education and more education.” To which I say “amen,” and begin your education by reading the entire interview with Mr. Warner, and by bookmarking his website.
del.icio.us
digg itFiled under: Islam |
Bookworm Room (ARCHIVES) 
Islam denies the truth of the Golden Rule.
Because it does not apply to them. Apparently they have been convinced by the West that they can abuse those in their power, but the West won’t abuse those who have abused those in their power, when they are in our power.
Why should they follow a rule that even we don’t seem to believe in? Wether Golden or Meta-Golden. Or perhaps it is only a half-hearted bigoted belief. That America is the Good and therefore is held up to higher standards, so we should treat others the way we would like to be treated. But the Islamic JIhad, oh they aren’t as civilized, so they get a pass. They can treat however they prefer, and it is the US people should focus on in terms of so called human rights violations. In such a climate of fear and intimidation (one sided), Book, to what extent should the Islamic JIhad follow a rule that is so useless? If it won’t get them something, if it won’t benefit them to follow it, then it is like Kyoto. They won’t follow it.
If the Borg is the Islamic JIhad, Book. Then Certainly the Prime Directive of Picard and Starfleet is the West. Hypocritical, false in its righteousness, and weak in its efficacy and enforcement.
Starfleet, I always thought, was a very entertaining look into the Left. The idealist Left, I mean, rather than the revolutionary Leftists.
It gives you a view of what most Americans believe in when they say “America is better, we are held up to higher standards” when in response concerning GitMo and what not.
It is myopic, Book. And the consequences of such short sightedness is perhaps not instant, but it is very very real all the same.
One of the things I’ve gone over with Startrek Voyager, was their thinking and use of holograms. You know about holographic technology, Book. They can use photons to actually create matter, that they could even eat. Sort of like replicators, although the differences are perhaps academic at the moment.
But the application is that holograms can be used outside the ship, and setup in advance, like the doctor. One of the various episodes they had, was the ship being boarded and what not. And I was thinking, if you can have holograms actually outside the ship, with relay projector emitters and what not, then why don’t you setup holograms that are auto-turret defense cannons on every bulkhead and what not. All you need would be power, there would be no need to expend “human lives”.
But what they do. They cry about “don’t weaponize technology” or whatever. This is reflected in both the episodes themselves, as well as perhaps by the writers’ personal philosophies. They just don’t need much about technology.
But in the terms of Voyager itself, the universe world, what were the consequences? The consequences were that the crew of the Voyager died, needlessly, fighting off invasion incursions that could be dealt more effectively through advance use of weapons technologies.
I think it shows some of the flaws of fake liberal thinking. This is not the fighting liberals that were represented by Teddy “The war Monger” Roosevelt. Who won a Nobel Peace Prize at the end of the Russo-Sino war of the early 20th century (or was that the late 19th).
This kind of the Left, as shown by Star Trek, is not a group that believes in “Peace Through Superior Firepower”, Book. They never did. They cared far more for pure science and exploration, than the actual defense of colonial worlds and of individual human beings. Classical and true liberal philosophies focus so much effort and value on individual human lives, Book, that it would be a pretty large sacrilege to let something like distaste for weapons technology end up in a human life wasted. Surely such is the difference between true liberals and fake liberals.
But if you didn’t value individual human lives above certain ideologies (Prime Directive, Golden Rule, moral high ground), then you might be at liberty to sacrifice a few lives to the Greater Good.
But what exactly is the Greater Good, Bookworm? Who decides what is the greater good. I mean, if the rationale behind the Prime Directive is of “not harming the indigenous population through interference” then isn’t the Greater Good supposed to be about protecting people? And how is that accomplished by letting people slough through war, death, disease, and despair all by themselves. Wouldn’t that be a belief in Darwinism and might and right through war, rather than the classical liberal belief in the salvation of individual people?
The point I’m getting at isn’t that Star Trek should have setup holographic auto-turrents on Voyager and upgraded Voyager with kick arse weapons that could blow up a planet (although there was one episode that came close). The point is that these people on the Left don’t look at their own beliefs and philosophies, to check whether it is true. Whether it does what it says it does. They just look at it and say “that is the good” and that is it.
Would an engineer look at a blue print and then say it is feasible just because it came from a grand old company? Of course not, he would have to run a few calculations in his head himself, to check if it really computes in reality. And when actually creating it in reality, he might run into problems that he has to solve, and that requires understanding how the blueprints may be modified without harm.
Would a lawyer just glance over a contract and say it is workable?
The Prime Directive (anti-Colonial anti-Imperial) folks just say “don’t mess with it”, ignore them and their people will figure things out for themselves. Figure what out, figure out the things that you people already know, but aren’t willing to shoulder the responsibility (and the blame) for teaching it to the “people” if things go bad?
One of the things I never quite understood about the Left’s reaction to Iraq, was perhaps what they thought should have happened. You know, what their idealized version would have been. But it was Star Trek that helped me see, that the Left may not have wanted the attempt to be made at all. At All I say. To a true liberal, leaving people in despair and pain when you have the power to help them is…. not human, not compassionate. Not an act that gives you worth in the eyes of god or of justice.
But it was exactly what the Left wanted us, me, to do. Leave the Iraqis alone, to fall or getup on their own, never to help, never to guide, never to aid. It is what they said when they said “let the Iraqis have a revolution like we in the US did”. Afghanistan was justified in their eyes cause “Osama was there and he hit us”, but Iraq wasn’t cause… well I guess cause people had more important things to take care of than the suffering of strangers. I recognized and supported the national security angle, of course, but that was not where I started. When the war first began being debated, I did not support it because of national security interests. I supported it because a friend told me what Saddam had done, and I believed that a war could not be evil if it was against such a person. I disliked preemption because I feared it, feared the slippery slop. But fears are not what people should take counsel of when making decisions or supporting causes.
Since a lot of fake liberals can’t seem to explain the axioms they take for granted via debates, I had to learn of it via different sources. Star Trek gave a very good (and entertaining) look into what the Left sees as the ideal. The situation of the Judgement with Q and Picard, was very interesting. They brought up good questions, important questions even, about humanity’s fate, duties, responsibilities, and what not. As well as our capacity for war and hate and everything else as well. Of course, Picard’s answers were not my answers ; )
While Star Trek did not really have a debate concerning whether the Prime Directive was shall we say moral or not, they did question its efficacy, and how to actually go about it. And what I could not help noticing was that the most interesting episodes to me, were episodes in which the crew of a starship (even during NC1701 Cpt Kirk) interacted directly with the local population. Whether disguised or not. I got a sense, perhaps reflected in my own soul, that encountering different cultures was entertaining as well as educational. That the people of the Enterprise wanted to learn. But they did not want to interfere, yet the possibility of interference they took for granted…. so long as the “local government” approved or so long as their knowledge is advanced (perhaps selfishly). The local government being anything from pirates, thugs, to fascist oppressors that is. So long as the local government “approved”, then everything was honky dorry. Some of this schism and contradictions were covered in many episodes, concerning say extradition of a Starfleet officer.
But they never resolved whether the Prime D was truely moral or not. They just perhaps left it at “good” but “flawed’. I wasn’t satisfied with that.
I was always curious, I always would not leave things as they were. I would not be satisfied in simply accepting things as they are because they told me how it was, I had to get at the why, at the roots.
Btw, Book, this is what happens when you bring up Star Trek (borgs) to someone (me) who has written several complete blog posts on individual episodes of Star Trek (Voyager).
Two of the most funny and great episodes were one ST Voyager and one Picard episode. Picard when Enterprise-C came through a time vortex just before it was destroyed, pitting SF against the Kinglons. The New militant Picard had a CIC in the background “like military background chatter”. Combat Information Center. His uniform changed to a darker hue. Obviously they wanted the effect of a more warlike and militant atmosphere, so as to send the Enterprise C back and get the peaceful Star Fleet back. Still, very refreshing.
The other one was where the episode of Voyager where the holographic doctor was re-activated amongst a people that told the story of a warlike Voyager. Obviously an unjust caricature of the real voyager, to us audience members. They gave a view of the Voyager battleship (snickers) with armor planes showing 3 Vs ontop of the saucer section, giving it a racing and menacing look. I snicker because I knew what the authors wanted me to feel. They wanted me to feel outraged, scared, and intimidated. But all I thought “Oh ya, now that looks kick arse”. It was a parody on many levels. The level they intended, and the level that I saw through.
What does this all have to do with the Islamic Jihad? Hrm, well in one way they find us just as funny and weak as I find Picard and Janeway in Star Trek. There are certain things I can respect of Picard and Janeway as leaders and personalities, but I do not admire them. And neither does the Islamic JIhad admire us, regardless of our technological, economic, and military status of forces.
The level they intended, and the level that I saw through.
A better way to phrase that might be.
I loved the parody that they did about a warlike voyager, unjustly painting the real peaceful voyager as crass and aggressive.
And I also loved the parody of the parody. Which was the unjust painting of the warlike Voyager as something that was “bad”, that was always to be avoided, rather than embraced.
2 levels. Might have been a third level, but I was enjoying it too much to expend too much energy in looking farther.
Speaking about dualistic natures. Neo has this great post up about Hate.
http://neo-neocon.blogspot.com/2007/02/are-all-hatreds-alike-becoming-just.html
Regarding the FACT that “our Western cultures are in complete dinial about their goals and means.” Please take a look at “Our Vulnerable Religious Freedoms” at http://faultlineusa.blogspot.com/2007/02/our-vulnerable-religious-freedoms.html
“Our greatest National strengths can also be our biggest points of vulnerability. I have written earlier that our freedom of expression, freedom of equal protection as citizens, and the “wall of separation” between church and state in the United States, as guaranteed by the Constitution and the 1st, 2nd and 14th amendments, is vulnerable to being undermined for one specific reason. Our nation has never attempted to define what constitutes a religion. . .”
“Our nation has never attempted to define what constitutes a relgion” and if it did ,you can rest assure,it would become hypocritcally corrupt(check the historical records). However, on the other hand, how do we get along in a world becoming more an more culturally and economically interdependent ?
The Golden Rule is a guidleline only and not carved in stone. People have different values ,rules,orientations,beliefs etc.(yes ,yes,I know some are better and MORE SUPERIOR AND HOLIER THAN OTHERS, but we can work through that . . education . . patience and vigilance).
In America ,there are people, on religious and non religious sides,that happily, WOULD TAKE EACH OTHER OUT, if it were not for the law and the constitution ,protecting the minoity from the majority and vice versa.
Now ,the Golden Rule is a good standard but as George Bernard Shaw said “Do not do unto others as you would they should do unto you.Their tastes may not be the same”(Radical Islam vis a vis the West).In other words “the Golden Rule is that there are no golden rules” Now, how to get along ,sustain our lifestyle, and help lift the rising expectations of nations in the developing an underdevelop world and deal with surging Radical Islam at the same time, where people are not seeing eye to eye.
Gandhi was right “an eye for an eye and all the world is blind”
Who will be the person,that can get the world to see, eye to eye? The new General Secretary of the United Nations ?
Of course the GR is a guideline. Just like “don’t spit on soldiers coming back from Iraq” is a guideline. It means about as much as people want it to mean.
[…] @ 12:24 pm *Post about the borg, Iraq, Star Trek, and fake liberal philosophy. Inspired by this post by […]
Thank You
Wonderful write-up, I have book marked this web-site. You should ask your readers for new topics.