Category Archives: Pseudo-history

Update II: B. Hussein In Wonderland

America, Barack Obama, Islam, Israel, Propaganda, Pseudo-history, Terrorism

OBAMA’S CAIRO SPEECH. Dialogue is good, dhimmitude is not. From a cursory look, Obama’s speech is festooned with feel-good fantasies, cliches, and plain errors, highlighted by the great Robert Spencer, who provides a point-by-point Guide to the Perplexed (via “Virgil”). Naturally, our adventurous foreign policy might be a necessary condition for Muslim aggression but it is far from a sufficient one. Terrorism, of course, is the handiwork of people who’ve heeded, not hijacked, Islam. However, Hussein omits any reference to “Islam’s bloody borders,” as the scholar Samuel Huntington put it. More from me later.
Over to Spencer, who dishes unvarnished truth.

Update I: ME HERE (see Spencer below) Where to begin? In his speech, Obama equated Islam with peace. That’s nothing new in the annals of American presidents. Remember Bush?

Courtesy of Michelle Malkin, Daniel Pipes, and demographic data: There are only 2.8 million Muslims in the US; not 7, as Obama asserted.

About the greatness of Cairo University. Is anyone of these Nobel Prize greats a graduate?

Thomas Jefferson owned a Koran. So what? So do I.

I’m “an African American with the name Barack Hussein Obama.” So the president is owning his name. After making hay about scribes (like this one) who used it in vain.

Grammar: “I’m aware that there’s still some who would question or even justify the events of 9/11.” So he’s not such a pedantic writer. Should be: “there are.”

“The Holy Quran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as — it is as if he has killed all mankind.” Not quite. The adage, bowdlerized from the Jews, is heavily qualified in the Koran. I covered it in “More Fatwa Fibs”.

THIS NEXT ITEM from Hussein, the “student of history,” as he refers to himself, is particularly priceless: “the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas; they are human rights.”

Memo to Hussein, “student of history”: The ideas of human rights and the dignity of man are distinctly Western, an outgrowth of the Enlightenment. There is no such thing in Islam, despite what our Head Historian says about “the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles.” Does the latter failed parallelism (pairing a country and a religion) mean that Hussein acknowledges Islam is a political system? Or perhaps he is just bad at constructing corresponding syntactic constructions.

This is growing tiresome: the banality of the cliches Obama uses come straight out of … a Michelle Obama univesrity thesis.

LATER.

Update II (June 6) Krauthammer: Speech abstract, vapid, and self-absorbed. Pretty much. This is good. Watch:

SPENCER: I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning,

…whose Grand Sheikh, Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, has given his approval — on Islamic grounds — to suicide bombing.

and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt’s advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I am grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. I am also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamu alaykum.

According to Islamic law, a Muslim may only extend this greeting — Peace be upon you — to a fellow Muslim. To a non-Muslim he is to say, “Peace be upon those who are rightly guided,” i.e., Peace be upon the Muslims. Islamic law is silent about what Muslims must do when naive non-Muslim Islamophilic Presidents offer the greeting to Muslims.

We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world – tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

“Co-existence and cooperation”? When and where, exactly?

Note that Obama lists only ways in which the West has, in his view, mistreated the Islamic world. Not a word about the jihad doctrine, not a word about Islamic supremacism and the imperative to make war against and subjugate non-Muslims as dhimmis. Not a word about the culture of hatred and contempt for non-Muslims that existed long before the spread of American culture (“modernity and globalization”) around the world, which Obama D’Souzaishly suggests is responsible for the hostility Muslims have for the West.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. This has bred more fear and mistrust.

The idea that the jihadists are a “small but potent minority of Muslims” is universally accepted dogma, but has no evidence to back it up. The evidence that appears to back it up is highly tendentious — check out here how Dalia Mogahed (now an Obama adviser) and John Esposito cooked survey data from the Islamic world to increase the number of “moderates.”

And of course it was by no means only “the attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians” that “has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights.” It was also the Islamic texts and teachings that inspired those attacks that have fueled this perception. But Obama is not singular in declining to acknowledge the existence of such texts and teachings. In that he is following George W. Bush and every influential American politician, diplomat, and analyst. …

The complete analysis at Jihad Watch.

Update VI: Lead Me To The Vomitorium

America, Barack Obama, Media, Politics, Pop-Culture, Pseudo-history, The Zeitgeist

A Vomitorium: “A passage situated below or behind a tier of seats in an amphitheatre, through which crowds can ‘spew out’ at the end of a performance.”

The Obama orgy in the fleshpots of Washington has not yet begun in earnest, and I’m already in gag mode.

The beaming tele-twits, their racial-pride roster of guests, the MLK montages, the hyperbolic homilies to the Messianic Man and The Historical Moment; the posturing from pious pundits, the overwrought, empty waffle—how low can a country, and a once-great culture, sink?

Hang in there. I’ll be back shortly with a few, recommended, DVD distractions to help get you through the next few days. I promise. (You’ll also need some grog; no getting around that.)

Update I: A spluttering Jonathan Alter of Newsweek to “Countdown” Keith: “The inauguration… here… in the capital built by Michelle Obama’s slave ancestors. …”

In case you get swept up in the tide of “history from below”: The people who established the political order described by Thomas Jefferson as “a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, … derived from natural right and natural reason,” were predominantly British Christians.

Where’s the gratitude?

Update II: The Day of the Crowning (Jan. 20): MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow effused last night about the historical necessity–nay, obligation–to formulate an answer to the “Where Were You When” question.

A wonderful line from Peter Schiff resonates right now: “our country became great not because of what politicians do, but what they didn’t do.”

Send us word about how you’re coping with the Barack Bacchanalia.

Some more headlines from the intrepid press around the world (This segment is being constantly updated):

Black Washington looks to Obama (BBC)
What a black president means to me
Scientists optimistic over Obama
From segregation to inauguration
Difficult to Capture the Moment (MSNBC)
Watch Juan Williams Have A Wobbly

As to the last headline: Really? Let me take a timid bash: slushy, weak-minded sentimentality; senseless slobbering.

Update III: Even Sen. Ted Kennedy could not take it; he had a seizure mid-carnival. That is, another seizure. Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Republican, also Kennedy’s official “Praise Singer,” was on hand to comment on the Kennedy conniption.

I’m surprised at Michelle Obama’s awful ensemble. It is a yellow-greenish sequined affair that makes her skin look like old cheese. Not very flattering.

To Barbara’s sartorial comment: If it’s a cold, wintry day, I say dress for the weather. Draping yourself in flimsy fabric on a bitterly frigid day makes one look like a high-school girl trying to show skin.

(Update V Jan. 21): First Lady Michelle Obama’s evening gown was only slightly better than the lime number. She should have gone with a veteran, big-name designer. The white tunic resembled a curtain with bulky tussles, and did not flatter her well-toned figure. An off-the-shoulders garment is not the best fit for a woman with such a wide, amazon-like build.

As for Rev. Joseph Lowery; I’d like to see him tarred and feathered. Here’s his coruscating attack on white folks, delivered in childish, churlish prose:

“Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around – when yellow will be mellow – when the red man can get ahead, man – and when white will embrace what is right.” …

F-ck you too, Lowery!

Update VI (Jan. 21): Jill Biden’s inaugural gown was lovely. I don’t much like red, but the lines of this frock are rather nice.

Updated: Presidential History

America, Government, History, Pseudo-history, The State

“Of all historical genres, one of the least respected, at least among academics, is Presidential history. Mixing the unfashionable (with scholars) but generally popular fields of political history and biography, Presidential history is often a vehicle for national celebration and myth-making. Presidential historians often tend to narrate heroic tales of an unfolding national drama that sees the expansion of liberty and justice; words like “courage” and “leadership” abound. Nowhere does the “Great Man” history become greater than in histories of the White House. If patriotism is a kind of American civil religion, then Michael Beschloss, Doris Kearns Goodwin and David McCullough are its high priests.” (Andrew Preston, TLS, December 21 & 28, 2007)
Goodwin is particularly repugnant.
Discuss.

Update (Jan. 15): From political economist Bob Higgs comes the quintessential guide to properly rating presidents:
“Washington, I think, actually does deserve a high rating–not even the historians can be wrong all the time. He established the precedent of stepping down after two terms, which lasted until it clashed with FDR’s insatiable ambition, and he prescribed the sensible foreign policy, later slandered as ‘isolationism,’ that served the nation well for more than a century. Other early presidents who were not entirely reprehensible in office include Jefferson and Jackson, though each committed grave derelictions.

Of the presidents since Cleveland, I rank Coolidge the highest. He sponsored sharp tax cuts and greatly reduced the national debt. As H.L. Mencken wrote, ‘There were no thrills while he reigned, but neither were there any headaches. He had no ideas, and he was not a nuisance’—high praise in view of the execrable performance of other twentieth-century presidents. Taft and Eisenhower were a cut above the rest, but that’s not saying much…”
A guide to the perplexed in “No More Great Presidents.”

New Historians' Hissie Fit

History, Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Propaganda, Pseudo-history

In Harvard Hucksters, I spoke about the modus operandi of the New Historians: This is a group of popular far-left fabricators (one of whom facetiously boasted: ‘We perform at weddings and bar mitzvas’), who’ve cocked a snook at the liberal country in which they’ve thrived, so as to gain admittance into the fashionable Palestinian pantheon… they misrepresent documents, resort to partial quotes, withhold evidence, make false assertions, and rewrites original documents. Such is the incompetence of these Arabists that they even neglect Arab archival material, “relying almost exclusively on Western often only secondary sources.” As Ha’aretz’s Avraham Tal puts it, they are preoccupied with the systematic invalidation of the Zionist narrative in the Israeli-Arab conflict. Avi Shlaim, one of the performers in the New-Historian’s much sought-after vaudeville, juggles the facts to come up with an analysis of Israel’s failed war in Lebanon. The shtick is familiar: no mention of the eight dead and a murderous diversionary shelling of border communities by Hezbollah, but plenty of assertions about the vampiric lusts of the Jewish State’s leaders. The anatomy of hating Israel is worth reading.