Saudia in the Gun Sights

Projecting Zionist Tactics onto Arabs

by Joachim Martillo (ThorsProvoni@aol.com)

On May 6, 2008, the Harvard Objectivist Club, which frequently engages in Muslim-baiting, hosted a panel discussion on Totalitarian Islam. Announced participants on the panel were Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute, Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum, and Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, which is a project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Even though Robert Spencer was unable to attend because of conflicting commitments, the event was extremely interesting for its revelations about Neocon thinking with regard to the American Muslim population, US ME policy, and Islam in general.

The audience filled an Emerson lecture hall and numbered approximately 120-140 attendees. There were two Harvard cops within the room. Taufiq Rahim of the Kennedy School Muslim Caucus attempted to hand out a flyer* but was stopped by one of the officers. There was a temporary problem with the audio.

Objectivist Club President Kelly Cadenas welcomed Pipes and Brook. He informed the audience that banners and signs were not allowed and that its members must obey the conduct sections of the student handbook. He introduced a post-doctoral fellow named Stevens, who would moderate the discussion.

Stevens restated the topic of the event as: The Threat of Totalitarian Islam: What is it? Who is the Enemy? How Should the West Respond to Calls for Censorship?

Stevens introduced Brook as a writer on economics, business, and objectivism, which is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Brook often appears on Forbes.com. There is apparently a split among objectivists because a significant number believe that Brook's support of Israel is inconsistent with objectivism and that the executor of Ayn Rand's estate has betrayed objectivism to Neoconservatism. This dispute appears to be of no interest to Harvard Objectivists, who appear to be for the most part a Jewish sect of some sort, have historically shown themselves to be super-Zionist and generally support Neocon agenda completely.

Stevens briefly summarized the Biographical Sketch of Daniel Pipes as it appears at http://www.danielpipes.org/bios/.

Stevens then explained that each panelist would speak for 5 minutes and would then respond to questions from the audience.

Pipes spoke first and noted that for the first time he was speaking in a hall where he had been a student, for he had attended the lectures of the introductory E. Asian studies class Soc. Sci. 10 in this room.

Pipes pointed out his father Harvard Professor Richard Pipes, who was present in the room and who did quite well as a Sovietologist and Russian studies specialist. Daniel Pipes mentioned that Professor Pipes had asked him back in 1978 how he would make a living from a specialization in Islamic Studies, which at that time period before Khomeini's revolution in Iran seemed like a generally underfunded esoteric academic field.

Of course, nowadays anyone writing books and articles to scare-monger Islam seems to do fairly well, but there is deeper answer to the question.

Both Richard Pipes and Daniel Pipes have effectively chosen the same career of explaining the international menace to the general public and to the US political class, and both have more or less obviously distorted their analysis to fit preferred Jewish Zionist beliefs.

Solzhenitsyn has accused Richard Pipes of writing the Polish history of Russia but generally misses how this version of Russian and Soviet history serves Jewish and Zionist mythology.

Even though Richard Pipes concedes in The Russian Revolution that pogroms were hardly confined to Jews in Czarist Russia (as I once challenged him on the issue more than 30 years ago), the Harvard Professor systematically underestimates or diminishes the role that Russian ethnic Ashkenazim played in the overthrow of Czarist Russia and in the establishment of the Soviet Union as well as in the planning and perpetration of the crimes of the latter state.

In The Unknown Lenin Richard Pipes is careful to establish Lenin's status as an hereditary Russian aristocrat but neglects -- almost certainly because it is good for the Jews -- to mention anything about the new information available after the fall of the Soviet Union about Lenin's Jewish ancestry as recorded in Dmitri Volkoganov's biography Lenin.

Just like his father's scholarship on Russia and the Soviet Union, Daniel Pipes's analysis of Islam, Middle Eastern politics, and the American Muslim community likewise fits perfectly the Neocon agenda of subordination of American interests to those of the Jewish Zionist oligarchy and intelligentsia.

In his five minute presentation Daniel Pipes outlined three approaches to understanding the relationship of terrorism and Islam.

1. The terrorists have hi-jacked Islam,
2. Islam, which is a cultic political doctrine, is the eternal enemy of the West, and
3. Islamism is a movement that develops in the twentieth century into a totalitarian menace of great power.

Pipes leans toward the third analysis with some modifications. He believes that Islamism can be discredited just as fascism was and that by encouraging a different interpretation the West can help Islam to become a good neighbor.

Brook took over and agreed with almost everything Pipes said. He emphasized the totalitarian nature of the Islamist ideology and postulated that Islamists will use the mechanism of the state to force their version of Islam on everyone else. According to Brook the ultimate goal is the reestablishment of the Caliphate and world domination. He argues that Islamists will destroy everything that we Americans cherish. In his opinion Islamists despise freedom, individual rights and capitalism.

Brook believes that the US failed to fight the ideological war properly and only used force after 9/11. He believes that the war with totalitarian Islam began on Nov. 4, 1979 with the seizure of the US embassy in Teheran when the West should have started the ideological war against radical Islam and Islamic totalitarianism. The enemy is not terrorism. Just as in WW2, the enemy was not simply the kamikaze pilots but the ideologies of German Nazism and Japanese imperialism, the West must wage a war against the ideology of Islamic totalitarianism by offering an alternative to persuade Muslims to reshape their culture along Western parameters,** to separate church and state, and to respect reason. He tells the audience that Americans must have the pride to fight for what makes them Americans. Until Americans are clear on this point, the enemy will only gain ground.

At that point the moderator opened up the panel discussion to questions from the audience. The responses of Pipes and Brook to the questioners form a complete and self-consistent approach to Islam, the American Muslim community, and ME foreign policy with the following three qualifications.

1. Pipes has some reservations when Brook attempts to lump Sunnis and Shiites together,
2. Pipes has a more nuanced understanding of Islamic beliefs or practices, and
3. Pipes makes a greater distinction between Saudi and Iranian goals.

Only Muslims that accept Israel and believe that it is something good are moderates. Ten to fifteen percent of Muslims are dangerous Islamist extremists. A large percentage of the remaining Muslims are stealth or legal Islamists.

Analysis

Stealth Islamists voluntarily obey Islamic law (Sharia) and will attempt to introduce Islam into the societies where they live by discussion and by persuasion. Perhaps they will try to convert non-Muslims to Islam, and then if they have sufficient numbers they may try to legislate Sharia or Islamic morality into the law code.

Despite Pipes's demonization efforts, as far as I can tell, for all intents and purposes stealth Islamists are Muslims that sincerely try to practice their religion. They do not differ much from orthodox Jews that voluntarily obey Jewish law (Halakhah), and they seem a lot like sincere Christians. Just as far too many Jews have prejudices against believing Christians, Jewish Zionist Neocons have problems with believing Muslims and are making an effort to incorporate anti-Muslim prejudices structurally into American society in order to limit the democratic rights of Muslim citizens of the USA.

In Pipes's understanding of ME politics, the Iranians are the force of direct confrontation with the USA while the Saudis use the power of their wealth both to subvert the Islamic world and also to corrupt the USA by using American Muslims as a fifth column. For Pipes, the Saudis seem to be the more serious enemy because the male members of the Saudi royal family have created something like the Soviet nomenklatura (номенклату́ра) by marrying multiple wives and by fathering lots of children.

In many regards Pipes's depiction of an Islamic world dominated by the Saudi version of the Soviet ruling class is simultaneously laughable and somewhat reminiscent of my analysis of Judonia. Pipes may both be projecting his experience within the Neocon or Jabotinskian Zionist intelligentsia onto Muslims and also be making consciously or unconsciously a fundamental mistake of equating a ruling class with the mobilized or mobilizing intellectuals that comprise an intelligentsia.

In Russian history, the Russian (russki), Russianized (rossitski) and Jewish intelligentsias worked together to overthrow Czarism. The Soviet nomenklatura worked hard to make sure that Soviet intelligentsia had no such capability. The Zionist intelligentsia has been tremendously successful because it deals with a small relatively homogenous political economic oligarchy that is willing to allow Zionist intelligentsia to think for it in all matters except how the individual Zionist oligarchs run their private businesses.

Not only does the Saudi state have a plethora of internal and external enemies, but the political powers and centers throughout the Islamic world are not going to concede authority or even strategic planning to the Saudi leaders any time soon.

While Pipes is probably one of the most important members of the Zionist intelligentsia, he may not have a complete grasp of the political economics either of the Zionist system or of the Saudi state, but he is working hard along with other members of the Zionist intelligentsia to create a Saudi bogeyman for the American public. Because of the success of the Zionist intelligentsia in manipulating the USA into incinerating Arab and Muslim states, the Saudi government should be extremely worried by the activities of Pipes and his fellow members of the Zionist intelligentsia.

Video Clips from Totalitarian Islam Question Session

Pipes & Brook on Totalitarian Islam Q1 - Ayn Rand Institute http://www.aynrand.org The questioner (Omar Maqdaman) asks the panelists to estimate the number of Islamic totalitarians. Pipes believes that 1 out of 7 to 8 Muslims believe that Sharia should imposed on Muslim and non-Muslims, but the violent fraction within this group is small. Pipes seems to object to Islam as a proselytizing religion and treats the Turkish AK party as among the Islamic totalitarians. Pipes and Brook both equate Islam as a proselytizing religion with Islamic totalitarianism.	Pipes & Brook on Totalitarian Islam Q2 - Ayn Rand Institute http://www.aynrand.org I ask the panelists how the American political leaders can criticize Islamic extremism when they so blatantly support Jewish extremism in the form of Zionism. Brook argues that acceptance of the State of Israel defines moderate Islam. Pipes attacks my question for an implicit equation of Zionism and Islamism even though I myself reject claims of equivalence.
Pipes & Brook on Totalitarian Islam Q3 - Ayn Rand Institute http://www.aynrand.org A Russian Jewish questioner claims that American professors that fail to teach Zionist hasbarah (propaganda) constitute a threat to academic integrity. Pipes argues that academics criticizing Israel are anti-American while Zionist think tanks and intelligentsia provide "balance" to current university scholarship about the ME. Brook argues that Zionists must win the battle for the soul of America. Brook attacks the concept of a Palestinian ethnic or national identity.	Pipes & Brook on Totalitarian Islam Q4 - Ayn Rand Institute http://www.aynrand.org Charles Jacobs of the David Project asks about Saudi contributions to American universities and mosque-building. Pipes provides his hypothesis of the world Saudi conspiracy, which is a reworking of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion with the Saudi Royal Family recast as the evil Jewish elders. He argues that the Saudi royal family is now large enough to constitute a nomenklatura. He projects Judonia onto the Islamic world. Brook attacks Wahhabism. Together Brook and Yaron are conducting a campaign to incite the USA to attack Saudi Arabia and the Saudi royal family.
Pipes & Brook on Totalitarian Islam Q5 - Ayn Rand Institute http://www.aynrand.org An elderly Zionist (probably of Viennese origin by accent) brings up the usual argument of taqiya in order to dismiss agreements with Muslims. Pipes dismisses the claim and with Brook makes a broader argument to believe Islamists are lying.	Pipes & Brook on Totalitarian Islam Q6 - Ayn Rand Institute http://www.aynrand.org Questioner, whom I believe is Communications Director Taufiq Rahim of the Harvard Kennedy School of Government Muslim caucus, asks why if 85% of Muslims are not Islamists, there is no Muslim on the panel. Brook claims most American Muslims are unwilling to stand up for American values while Pipes points out that a non-Islamist is not necessarily a moderate. Pipes expresses some suspicion of the motives of the questioner.
Pipes & Brook on Totalitarian Islam Q7 - Ayn Rand Institute http://www.aynrand.org The questioner asks Brook what it means to be at war with an ideology. Brook makes the point that the ideology has made war on USA. He analogizes the war against Islamofascism to the war against Germany. That conflict was ideology, and the USA had to kill a lot of Germans to defeat German Nazism.	Pipes & Brook on Totalitarian Islam Q8 - Ayn Rand Institute http://www.aynrand.org The questioner, who is of Pakistani American background, wants to know who the Islamic totalitarians are. She has never met them in the American Muslim community. She is active in Muslim-Jewish interfaith, but she has the impression from Pipes's history that he believes a good Muslim is a Muslim that says Islam is bad. Pipes worries about soft or stealth jihadists, who agree with some of al-Qaeda's ideas. He is opposing the spread or infiltration of Islamic law in American society by political means. In other words, a Muslim willing to work within the system is not necessarily a friend.
Pipes & Brook on Totalitarian Islam Q9 - Ayn Rand Institute http://www.aynrand.org The questioner asks why and how the West should fight for its civilization. Brook gives many platitudes in response.	Pipes & Brook on Totalitarian Islam Q10 - Ayn Rand Institute http://www.aynrand.org The questioner asks what can we do to facilitate change in Islam and generate good will. Pipes states that we must be clear in rejection of Islamism -- especially of the stealth Islamists that often do photo-ops with government officials. He pointed out that ISNA receives federal funding and that this practice of funding Islamist groups must stop. In his opinion stealth Islamists should be excluded from the political process and not be permitted to come to the USA (apparently either as visitors or immigrants). Brook argues that we must act with confidence in our superiority and generate good will by winning.
Pipes & Brook on Totalitarian Islam Q11 - Ayn Rand Institute http://www.aynrand.org The questioner asks how to eliminate the perception within the Muslim world that the core of the conflict with the West lies in the struggle over Palestine. Brook answers with standard Zionist Hasbarah. Pipes makes minor elaboration of Brook's point. Brook concludes that one party must win in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Note

* Here is Taufiq Rahim's flyer.

The Kennedy School Muslim Caucus proposed to the organizers of this Panel Discussion to have a constructive event on the perils of religious extremists and radicals who conduct violence and human rights violations in the name of Islam.

We proposed adding an additional panelist to the three already chosen, who could provide an additional and informative perspective. With very little consideration, this was rejected by the Ayn Rand Institute and its representatives, who have primarily organized today's event. It is vitally important to have a reasoned and inclusive discussion on the issues raised today in order to move forward in an honest and productive manner. The organizers of this event have demonstrated a desire to provoke controversy, and inflame emotions and passions, rather than pursue a more constructive path.

Daniel Pipes is a known polemicist and anti-Muslim, anti-Arab activist, who has demonstrated a complete disregard for a discourse based on civility, respect, and tolerance. He has previously made the following statements:

• "So I conclude, the Palestinians must have their will crushed so that they will no longer be trying to eliminate Israel; so they will tend to their own affairs, and we as well, alone. Crushed. There's no alternative; I wish there were, but there is none. To have the Palestinian will crushed requires that they go through the bitter crucible of war, of loss, of despair." (at UC Irvine, Jan. 31, 2007)
• "There's no escaping the unfortunate fact that Muslim government employees in law enforcement, the military, and the diplomatic corps need to be watched for connections to terrorism, as do Muslim chaplains in prisons and the armed forces...Mosques require a scrutiny beyond that applied to churches, synagogues, and temples. Muslim schools require increased oversight to ascertain what is being taught to children." (to Jerusalem Post, Jan. 22, 2003)
• "Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene...All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most." (National Review, 11/19/90)

Confronting the very real problems that face us in the world today in a manner that is polemical, discriminatory, intolerant, and inflammatory, will only acerbate the very divisions that exist. The Kennedy School Muslim Caucus, and countless millions of Muslims around the world, reject extremism and support the moderate discussion of all issues, something that is beyond Pipes and the organizers of this event.

Prepared by the Communications Director of the Kennedy School Muslim Caucus
Taufiq Rahim (taufiq_rahim@ksg08.harvard.edu)

** Brook may have been referring to homosexuality. Even though Brook is married with children, he has many of the mannerisms associated in Yiddish culture with feygeles. He made an issue of homosexuality in Arabic and Islamic culture during his initial presentation, which was not among the videoclips that I was able to find.

Sphere: Related Content