Rudd's split brain is ... textbook ideologue pathology

Rudd: 'Scared as hell'

THE government is deeply pessimistic about Australia's engagement in Afghanistan and officials have described as hopeless the key task of training the Afghan national police.

Despite repeated public assurances that gains are being made in Afghanistan and that long-term success is possible, secret US embassy cables reveal that some of our top diplomats and officials hold grave concerns about the prospect of success in the nine-year war ...

... Rudd told a group of visiting US congressmen ... "the national security establishment in Australia was very pessimistic about the long-term prognosis for Afghanistan".

Mr Rudd also told US politicians that "he supported the Afghan war 'from day one' but confided that 'Afghanistan scares the hell out of me'."

Blind Freddy can see that terrorism exists in the West only because, as Christopher Caldwell puts it: "Western Europe became a multi-ethnic society in a fit of absence of mind". The problem is here, not over there.

Diana West, What President Bush should say to us

It ... must become a part of our national will, to ensure that Islamic law does not come to our own shores, whether by means of violent jihad terrorism ... or through peaceful patterns of migration, such as those that have already Islamized large parts of Europe ...

Rather than continuing to emphasize the democratization of the Muslim Middle East as our key tool in the war on terror, I will henceforth emphasize the prevention of sharia from reaching the West as our key tool in the war on terror ...

... unregulated immigration of peoples from "sharia states" ... If such an influx continues, Islamic law will be accommodated, adopted and even legislated, at least in some jurisdictions, according to majority will. We know this to be true because such a "sharia shift" is already transforming what sociologists call post-Christian Europe into an increasingly Islamic sphere. If we do not want to see such changes here, we must act. Accordingly, I am asking Congress to amend our laws to bar further Islamic immigration, beginning with immigration from sharia states.

Lawrence Auster, Our moral dilemma in Afghanistan that we never discuss

Should we be helping sustain a society and government the fundamental laws and customs of which require the execution of people for distributing a negative opinion about Muhammad? Obviously not, since to do so is not only wrong in itself but means supporting a religious system that seeks to subdue us to the same law. What then should we do? Obviously we do not have the ability to modernize or democratize a society ruled by a religion that executes people for expressing opinions.

That's the rational/emotional part of our brains talking. But Big Kev and his transnational progressive cohorts suppress and ruthlessly beat down such prudence, even though it sneaks back in e.g. the government's own defence white paper:

... the white paper states of violent jihadism: "The scale of the problem will continue to depend on factors such as the size and make-up of local Muslim populations, including their ethnic and-or migrant origins, their geographical distribution and the success or otherwise of their integration into their host society."

This is a statement of the obvious but it is normally not allowed to be said. It begs the question: is it necessary for a liberal Western society to encourage immigration from predominantly Muslim countries with histories of significant minority support for extremism, when it is obvious such immigration will lead to big problems?

But do we then stop Muslim immigration and contain the spread of our local Muslim population? Nope, the ideological/groupthink side of the brain just keeps on trucking as if nothing is wrong. It keeps on banging its head against the same brick wall: non-discrimination and democracy, always and everywhere, must prevail.

Here's some repressed memory therapy for Big Kev and his tormented cohorts:

Step 1: you have an identity, let it out; you have a race, protect it; you have a country, love it.

Step 2: not all religions are peaceful, say it; Mohammed was a terrorist, say it; the Koran is a declaration of war, say it; stopping Muslim immigration is right, know it.

Step 3: breath, cry; know that you have discriminated and know that it is good and necessary.

Step 4: your dream of replacing 'Spanky Banky' as UN Secretary General is over, let it go.

Step 5: Watch these videos by Robert Spencer about the futility of dealing with Islam without confronting uncomfortable truths (skip to 5:30 in the first video).




Step 6: your bill for this consultation is $200

File under: Boo! Ideology is one scary ride, eh? ... It's no wonder that ideologues never sleep.

UPDATE: Auster's caveat about Spencer's inadequate take on Islam

Everything Spencer says is good. At the same time, he frustratingly leaves the discussion where he always leaves it: with the enormous obstacles in the way of Islamic reform, and--nevertheless--the lingering hope that these obstacles can somehow be overcome. He seems to feel that he must end on that hopeful note, in order to show that he is not--as his liberal critics including Dr. Peterson accuse him of being--an extremist who simply treats Islam as an enemy. He never boils down the problem to its essentials and clearly says:

In all likelihood, Islamic reform is never going to occur, and even if, against all the odds, it occurs at some point, it is not occurring now and may not occur for decades or centuries. What, then, do we, Islam's intended targets, DO about the REALITY of currently unreformed and most likely never-to-be-reformed Islam?

Just as Islam remains what it has always been, Spencer remains what he has always been: a superb explainer of the Islam threat, who declines to address seriously what should be done about this threat, and thus leaves his listeners intellectually and practically helpless before it.