This post is to reply to readers' questions and criticism regarding my June 24 essay, Muslim Brotherhood: A skeleton in America's closet, and the decay of British culture.
1) At last count there are about 177,000 Google references to the connection between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Nazi party. To find the majority of those references you'd need to type in "banna nazi" instead of a keyword string such as "muslim brotherhood nazi, which only produces about 7,000 links. Incidentally some sites have it wrong when they list "vanna" nazi. It's "banna."
Please don't anybody write Pundita again to ask why the name of John Loftus is connected with so much data about Muslim Brotherhood-Nazi connection. Write Loftus -- or to save yourself the time, click on the link I provided in the essay and read the deliberately scanty biography he provides.
Note the security clearances he lists. There is a reason why John Loftus and no one else was given clearance to talk about some data pertaining to the Muslim Brotherhood and the Nazi Party.
Regarding a related question about the source: the website I linked to -- Warriors for Truth -- was almost a random pick out of tens of thousands of references; they were near the top of Google's list and did a reasonably good job of summarizing some items Loftus has revealed about the Muslim Brotherhood-Nazi connection, at least for the purposes of my essay.
The site itself has no relevance to the points I made. I have linked to al Jazeera and a Trotskyite site. I'll link to just about any site if it contains useful data for my readers and/or does a good job of summarizing the data. Regular Pundita readers know this. We're an empirical blog not a political one.
I interject that I could have put up a link with even more incendiary information about the Muslim Brotherhood-Nazi connection and the MI6-CIA connection. For example, the British Secret Service lied to the CIA -- they didn't tell them that the 'agents' they foisted on the CIA were Nazi war criminals.
The CIA later lied to cover up the mess. This was after they learned the hard way that they'd been lied to by people who were supposed to be US allies. However, the full story--as much as has been declassified at this point--is outside the scope of the essay I wrote. However, the "Blame it on the British" excuse would be pretty weak.
In any case, the site I linked to does a decent job of summarizing the basics. Interested readers could have pursued more about the story on their own.
2) Tariq Ramadan is forging alliances with the Communists and other non-Islamic groups and softening the old Muslim Brotherhood rhetoric. The US military will believe a leopard has changed his spots when they see it. They have intelligence indicating that the miracle has not yet occurred. If you dig on the Internet, you can learn that Pundita is not revealing state secrets. The Muslim Brotherhood has active terrorist connections.
3) All the above explains why Condoleezza Rice refused to accord the Muslim Brotherhood the same privilege she accorded outlawed political parties in two other countries.
Could she have put better words to it? A more diplomatic or at least more explanatory sentence? Yes and no. The Muslim Brotherhood's leaders got her message loud and clear. She was saying in effect that the leaders need to clean up their act because the stage show is not fooling anyone but poorly informed people.
I swear to you, Loftus is not making up any of the stuff about the Muslim Brotherhood-Nazi connection. But given all the screw-ups of the CIA, Pundita is not interested in raking up the history of the MI6 in Arab lands. I was intent on conveying that no matter how nice and intellectual Tariq Ramadan sounds to European ears, he's bad news.
And no matter how unfair and stubborn Condoleezza Rice might have sounded, she had her reasons for sending an uncompromising message to the Muslim Brotherhood.
This does not mean the US won't deal with them down the line if they get rid of the people they know they need to ditch. But the leaders tried to set a trap for Secretary Rice at that press conference in Cairo, and she refused to take the bait. Good for her.
4) The argument that the US should deal with the Muslim Brotherhood because the movement is widely popular in Egypt and other parts of the Middle East is not defensible.
It's falling into the same trap that the British did in relation to the Nazi Party. Yes, the Nazis were wildly popular in Germany in the runup to the invasion of Poland but popularity should not be the guide for rational defense policy.
5) In reply to the female reader who brought up the question -- it's more descriptive in most cases to term "female circumcision" as "female genital mutilation." This is not being sensational, only descriptive. I came as close to detailing the mutilation as I wanted by use of the word "sawing."
I interject that making this distinction would help more people understand why Muslim governments in Africa countries have moved heaven and earth to fudge data relating to AIDS transmission.
I will not describe how the mutilation is done outside a clinical setting and how the wound is sewn up but the point is that it does not heal, not in the way a surgical circumcision does. It remains a small oozing wound. This means virtually every Muslim female who had her clitoris mutilated, and who has intercourse with an HIV-infected partner, gets the disease -- unless he wears a condom and many African and Arab males refuse to wear them.
If you're slapping your forehead -- how did you think AIDS spread so fast on a continent where anal sex from the homosexual act is taboo in every nation, in every African and Arab culture?
What the Muslims have said is that AIDS incidence is actually lower in Muslim women because Muslim women are not promiscuous because of genital mutilation. Muslim governments have brought out data to support these claims.
Of course the Muslims are trying to blame it on the non-Muslim Africans. This argument has backed them into a corner. This is because it brings them to discussion of whether AIDS was almost automatically transferred to females who suffered genital mutilation during the years when no government or Islamic authority was facing the widening epidemic.
The Muslim leaders in Africa are trying to cover up the truth for the same reason Beijing's government made a suicidal attempt to cover up outbreaks of H5N1. They are rightly frightened that their 'race' will go down in infamy.
It's because they are frightened that Muslim leaders are quietly cooperating to encourage that the practice of genital mutilation be abandoned. I assure the confused questioner that the practice is widespread throughout the Muslim world.
Therein lies the problem for Western countries because genital mutilation is also practiced in the Muslim communities in those countries. And because hard-line Muslim clerics have set up shop in those countries, they do more than continue to encourage the practice of mutilating Muslim female children. They also issue threats against mothers who do not agree to mutilate their female children.
So, the grotesque conundrum that the authorities in Europe have set for themselves is whether to encourage that the female Muslim children be taken to an accredited doctor to have a 'clean' circumcision with proper healing.
When you realize the rationale for depriving a female of her clitoris, the conundrum is a sign that Europe is descending into barbarism.
The debate has worked its way to America, I might add. It needs to be shoved away from our shores and dumped back in the laps of the British, whose society is a train wreck. And for the same reason they waited too long to deal with Hitler. Why are they so afraid this time around? Perhaps because of the large number of British expats working in Muslim countries. They saw what happened at Luxor.
Same speculation would apply to the French -- who also have a very large expat community in Arab lands. Realize that many of these expats have been living in great fear because of the strong retort that the US government made to terrorism. Because they can't direct outrage at the Arab Muslims in the host governments, they've turned their anger on the American government.
6) It is so well established that Britain became the "terror capital of the world" by the 1990s that it's not necessary to provide data to support the statement. It is widely known that they had an open-door policy for every terrorist organization on the planet.
And they were very open -- proudly open -- about the policy. What they didn't figure out until after 9/11 is that just because you bend over backward to accommodate a terrorist, that doesn't mean he won't try to blow you to kingdom come.
Thus, the 2000 memorandum by Lyndon La Rouche is not a "source" for the above statements. It is the "story" -- the centerpiece of the Muslim Brotherhood essay.
I repeat: there is a difference between a source for a story and the story. Now what was the story? What was Pundita's reason for bringing up La Rouche and the letter?
As I politely put it in the essay, Mr La Rouche is controversial. Okay, we won't beat around bush: he is widely known and believed by many to be a raving lunatic.
The point of the essay is that when things arrive at the juncture where a perceived lunatic is the only person calling for sensible action, this is a sign your civilization is headed for collapse.
Now kindly return to the La Rouche letter, and tell Pundita what you see. You're looking at a cut-and-paste job from headlines and a portion of transcript of a session at British Parliament.
La Rouche didn't use special sources. He quoted the day's news, to support his argument that it was past time for the US to put Britain on the list of states sponsoring terrorism. The headlines and transcript amply shore his argument.
My point was how did it happen that it was left to at best a 'quixotic' person to play the child in the Emperor's New Clothes?
As I labored to convey in the essay, I think it happened because the American government could not confront what America's closest ally had become. I think it happened because the majority of British people could not confront what their society had become. They had come to openly tolerate barbarism.
Thus, I brought forward Mr La Rouche and his memorandum as a kind of morality tale and warning.
To repeat: I was not using La Rouche or his letter as a source to back up statements I made. Pundita's blog is not a newspaper or scholarly journal. When I provide links, it is not to support statements I make. It is to ask my readers to make themselves aware of a particular situation.
If I wanted to source my statements, I would make this a subscription blog. But very little of what I've published on this blog can't be verified via Internet research.
7) Now for the reader who asked whether I was quoting from the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion when I mentioned public stoning practiced by Muslims.
Public stoning -- including stoning of children -- is practiced in Iran by the method I described in the essay. The stonings are attended by large crowds -- sometimes in the hundreds of thousands -- which are rounded by the military and ordered to attend.
Understandably the regime in Tehran has tried to suppress news about the atrocities, perhaps more to help the EU Three negotiators save Face than anything. If the extent of the barbarity of the Iranian regime were generally known by the public in Europe, the governments concerned would have a hard time rationalizing how they treat Tehran.
That is why I brought up the specific example when citing instances of barbarism. But then I overlooked that not all readers are informed about instances of stoning.
I interject that I do not think Iran is the only region where public stoning according to Muslim law take place; I might stand corrected but I seem to recall it is also used as a method of execution in rural areas of Pakistan and the tribal territories. However at least in Pakistan, if public stoning takes place, I doubt the government officially sanctions it, as is the case with Tehran. I don't know whether stoning is the law in other countries with Muslim governments, such as Sudan.
8) For the male reader who expressed confusion about my application of the word "terrorism" to acts of public stoning and genital mutilation of female children -- again, I am not going to describe how these mutilations are carried out when not done in a clinical setting. My intention is to inform, not make the reader's blood boil. But the reader may trust that if someone did that to his penis when he was a boy, he would be properly terrorized for life.
Instilling terror is the intent of all cruel and unusual punishment -- in prisons, POW camps, misogynist societies and tyrannies, and families headed by an abusive parent or spouse. Acts of terrorism are also the standard practice for gangs that prey on immigrant communities.
The objective of cruel and unusual punishment is to terrorize a segment of the society, or the entire society, or an individual, into submission.
The objective is evident in Muslim dictatorships. The view of the Muslim hard-liners is that if Islam -- the Will of God -- is not properly respected, it is their duty to help God do his work by terrorizing people back into a properly submissive relationship with their God. This view ran riot in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. I seem to recall that was also the same view of the Inquisition so I am not singling out Islam.
The critic interprets the meaning of terrorism in the modern political aspect, which is too narrow. Terrorism is as old as the evil of one human seeking complete control of another. It's not how it's carried out that is the defining characteristic. The means and motives for terrorizing are many but the objective is always the same: to instill the emotion of terror in a person.