Over half a century ago, my father warned me of “educated idiots”. Back then, that oxymoron didn’t make much sense to me. It took many years of living for me to learn that a good education doesn’t automatically guarantee common sense or good judgement. I’ve been hearing a lot of educated idiots in the news lately, so I did some research to learn the etymology of that term. But I found nothing. I even e-mailed Dr. Richard Letterer (“The World’s Foremost Authority on the English Language”) at verbivore.com and asked him of the origins of the phrase. Even he didn’t know. That tells me that the “educated idiot” concept is so primal and deeply imbedded within the structure of language, that it has probably been around since the garden of Eden. After all, Adam was pretty smart. He named everything in the garden. He even had conversations with God. But he still took that idiotic bite of the forbidden fruit. Yes, there seems to be a connection between the sin nature and educated idiots.
The North African nations along the Mediterranean Sea are Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya (home of “the shores of Tripoli”) and Egypt. They are all predominantly Muslim, and as different as different can be from their European neighbors on the other side of the ocean. While their forms of government vary somewhat, and even in some ways appear to have the trappings of democratic institutions, in each of these countries the rulers lord over the people and the people submit. Islam means submission. It is a foundational principle of Islamic culture.
From http://www.mongabay.com/reference/country_studies/algeria/GOVERNMENT.html (in reference to Algeria), I quote:
“A strong authoritative tendency and the supremacy of the military, both remnants of the war for liberation, have resulted in a sharply divided society in which the political elite remains highly remote from, and generally unaccountable to, the masses of its impoverished, unemployed, and dissatisfied citizens… nullifying almost all of the democratic freedoms and many of the free-market reforms of the preceding few years.”
In other words, the western imperialist dogs (translation: French colonialist pigs), defeated in 1962, have been replaced with Algeria’s own home-grown tyrants. Check out the movie, The Battle of Algiers (1966). It portrays the Algerian war for independence from 1954 to 1962. Throngs rampaging through public squares and crowded streets is nothing new. The fact is that in Muslim countries it is de rigueur. We’ve seen it elsewhere, notably in Gaza, Iran, Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. Most often, the cries for freedom are answered forcibly with the dictates of some fanatic leader.
When the rioting started in Cairo, all I could think was here we go again. I recalled the ouster of the Shah of Iran when Carter was President, the subsequent capture of the U.S. Embassy by the Iranians and the 444 days of captivity for the American hostages. That was a very scary thought for me as I wondered if history would repeat itself. But this time the American response was not to back Mubarak as they had the Shah. Rather the U.S. joined in with the calls for Mubarak’s immediate resignation. On the one hand, Egypt didn’t attack our Embassy, but on the other hand we abandoned a strong ally who had kept the peace treaty with Israel since 1978.
More fanatic, maniacal rioting. Oops! we’re not supposed to say that, are we? More “demonstrations” and “protests”. Right. Tea Party rallies are hate-spewing, violent, uncivil and Nazi-like. But mobs of angry, rioting Muslims violently causing mayhem, destruction and injury … why they’re just demonstrating for a better government, aren’t they? Gosh, they only deserve what we have, don’t they? After all, they should have a say in how they are governed, shouldn’t they? All they really want are “free and open elections”, right?
Those “free and open elections” will be just like those tried in other places, where there were no roots for freedom, no roots for “Democracy”. On pages 5 and 6 of “Obama and the Shadow Socialist Group Behind Egypt’s Fall?”, Michael Savage wrote, “The problem is that in order for a country to hold “free” elections, it must have a democratic infrastructure, a democratic culture. In the most important sense, there is no Middle Eastern country that has this, except for Israel. Even our attempts to establish democracy in Iraq have done little to combat the influence of Iran or to ensure that democracy will survive after we leave.”
But that isn’t what we hear in the media. The approved talking point is that Egyptians deserve to have a say in their government. They deserve to have “free and open elections” so that everyone is represented. We in America naively suppose that if only these poor people had the freedom to vote they would vote for freedom. The problem with this erroneous assumption is that it simply does not work in Muslim nations. In fact, in my example of Algeria, they have long since had universal suffrage starting at age 18. But that hasn’t freed them from their own government tyranny.
History disproves the assumption that since the personal desire for freedom is universal, people will choose freedom, if only given the chance to vote. Muslims may be just like us in their inner yearnings to be free, but unfortunately their culture and religion, under the heavy hand of Sharia law, won’t let them be free. Non-Muslims are to submit to Sharia law. Women are to submit to men. Everyone is to submit to the Imams. Freedom — the freedom to choose, the freedom to be different — is anathema to Islam. Like Star Trek’s Borg collective, individualism is eschewed.
What most in the West don’t know, don’t want to know or don’t care, even if they do know, is that fundamentally, these Muslim nations do not have representational government the way “democracies” do in the West. For Islam, the ideal government is a theocracy in which (unelected) religious leaders are in charge. But even in the few “secularized” or “moderate” Muslim nations, such as Egypt, Sharia law wields a great deal of power and influence over the people.
That may not seem too bad in theory. After all, laws based on religious values should be a good thing, right? But in Islam, moderation means a toning down of or even a departure from the teachings of the Koran. Because of this, so-called moderates do not get their authority from the Koran. It is that authority which gives the “fundamentalists” or “extremists” their power. It is the authority of the Koran which even permits lying and deceit to be used in overcoming infidels, or disbelievers. (See my article, “Islamodeception”)
The goal of Islam is to make the entire world Muslim. “So what?” you may ask. Don’t Christians also want to convert everyone? Stop yammering, sit down and consider this one distinct difference. Christians believe we should be free to tell anyone we want to about Jesus Christ. Along with that, Christians believe everyone is free to choose to believe or not to believe, as they determine for themselves. But Islam does not allow this. The Koran teaches that if a non-Muslim refuses to convert to Islam, you should kill them. That is a distinct difference, which educated idiots fail to grasp.
[UPDATE]: This is another opportunity for me to recommend reading The Politically Incorrect Guide To Islam (and the Crusades) by Robert Spencer.