Constancio Asumen, Jr.
Global Warming: The Religion that Failed
January 4, 2010

"Allahu Akbar" is such a potent invincible jihad battle cry. Translated literally as "God is the Greatest,” no God-believing soul would dare argue against the proposition, especially if it is reinforced with Kalashnikov assault rifles and kindred weapons and/or the detonation of IED’s (Improvised Explosive Device), PETN’s (pentaerythritol tetranitrate), and C4 (Composition C-4) explosives.

Even the few non-believers who may be so inclined to challenge it, have to ensure they are commensurately protected, armed, or fortified before daring so, else it would only be a fatal exercise in futility. Furthermore, they would not be challenging the substance of the proposition per se, but the mission implicitly sanctioned by the battle cry as popularly and traditionally perpetrated and prescribed for by Jihad.

Many a war veteran (especially of WWII and Vietnam) have been wondering why in the good old days Muslims, Sheikhs and Infidels were comfortable sharing bunkers, trenches and fox holes with one another to fight a common enemy such as the North Vietnamese regulars and Viet Cong guerrillas, Italian fascists, Japanese militarists, and the Wehrmacht of Nazi Germany.

The blessings of a common adversary propelled the instinct for survival to compel adherents of Islam to forge various alliances, with the infidels both during World War II and the Cold War (also referred to in some quarters as World War III). Such alliances, however, being proscribed by Islam as a matter of doctrine, was necessarily both inconvenient and transient. Marriages of convenience never last beyond the next bifurcation in political strategy.

Like all marriages of convenience, however, the pact was dissolved once the adversary was vanquished. So while everyone was obsessed with the pursuit of happiness, as enshrined in the American Declaration of Independence, albeit mostly in the form of decadent materialism’s demand for instant gratification, the proscriptions of the doctrine, especially of Islam, were brought to the fore.

The doctrinaire proscription on collaboration with infidels is clear and unmistakable. Amil Imani ha s abundantly cited chapter and verse of the Quran to meticulously document that the hostile relationship with infidels is integral to the tenet of Islam with this succinct summation:

"...Islam is anything but a religion of peace. Violence is at the very core of Islam. Violence is institutionalized in the Muslim’s holy book, the Quran, in many suras:

"Qur'an:9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."

"Qur'an:9:112 "The Believers fight in Allah's cause; they slay and are slain, kill and are killed...”

Just as not all Catholics subscribe to the ritual of confession as an effective and exclusive means of atonement for ones sins, not all Muslims subscribe to the ritual of jihad, until he runs amok and starts killing infidels, to the familiar refrain of "Allahu Akbar." Incidentally, amok, is the Malayan language (e.g., Tagalog a.k.a. Pilipino, Bahasa Indonesia, etc.) word for Jihadist. Juramentado is the Bisaya equivalent of the term. It is derived from Spanish and literally means one who disavowed all worldly pursuits and pledged his life and soul exclusively to killing infidels.

It might be over stretching the reliance on hope over experience to credit Liberal ideology to have invented Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) as an overriding planetary danger so once again doctrinal differences can be considered minor and pushed to the back burner for safer periods of planetary bliss when the polar bears are no longer in danger of being washed away and off to oblivion.

Alas Global Warming has become a religion adopted and actively promoted by various national governments or government supported academic institutions, including most ominously the attempt to establish a Global Government. So the moral categorical question of the era is: can Global Warming protect and save us from the murder and mayhem that come with the battle cry "Allahu Akbar"?

To answer this question it behooves to examine both the evolution of the Global Warming movement and the dynamics of political marriages of convenience in the historical record, and their attendant consequences, intended or otherwise.

The Stalin-Hitler Non- Aggression Pact of 1939, signed in August with a secret agenda to divide Europe into "spheres of influence” consigned to Germany or the USSR was one classic illustration of such marriage of convenience. Both sides knew at the outset that the pact would be abrogated either unilaterally by one party, or by mutual consent of both parties to the treaty, once other political expediency demanded such an eventuality.

Thus when one month later the Germans invaded Poland, and Russia took over the Baltic countries, the world accepted it as a logical consequence, as a matter of course, as day follows night. Likewise, when on 22-Jun-1941, Hitler deployed Operation Barbarossa in full implementation phase in an attempt to sweep the Russian Front like a storm, most astute political observers chalked it up to Cole Porter’s "just one of those things,” the none too bizarre falling out of a political marriage of convenience.

Joseph Stalin’s Yalta Conference with both Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill in February 1945 was of a similar ilk. It pulled to an inconvenient, uncomfortable embrace, otherwise mortal adversaries. It was George Patton's genius to have recognized that Stalinism and Americanism were irreconcilable visions of reality and acknowledged and warned of the danger of the alliance even in the heat of crucial maneuvers in the battlefronts of World War II.

Ironically, the Yalta Conference spawned the United Nations which ultimately begot the Church of AGW, with its arsenal of politically fabricated ‘scientific’ gospels. Without denigrating the UN’s initial role as a useful vehicle for mediation in the Cold War, when the super powers treated geopolitical strategic calculations as a chess game played on a global scale, its subsequent degeneration into a den of graft and corruption, as exemplified by the Oil for Food Program shenanigans, is yet another teachable instance of the falling out of a political marriage of convenience.

The entire history of the Berlin Wall is one of the most appropriate metaphors for the role of the United Nations as a mediator in the Cold War. Under the aegis of the UN, the Wall rose and deplored by John Fitzgerald Kennedy. With the consternation of the UN the Wall fell on the instigation of Ronald Wilson Regan. The commemoration of its fall was dismissed by Barack Hussein Obama as of no significance.

But most noteworthy of all, the fall of the Berlin Wall triggered the disintegration of the USSR. This resulted in a host of communist ideologues amongst the liberal intelligentsia of the West to flock into the United Nations and its satellite institutions. This crystallized the takeover of the environmental movement by communist ideologues of all shades and flavors of radical persuasions.

The seminal beginning of the present-day AGW is traceable with unmistakable certainty to the Stockholm Declaration of 1972. Said document, reads, in part:

"Principle 5: The non-renewable resources of the earth must be employed in such a way as to guard against the danger of their future exhaustion and to ensure that benefits from such employment are shared by all mankind.

 "Principle 14: Rational planning constitutes an essential tool for reconciling any conflict between the needs of development and the need to protect and improve the environment. "

In other words, a Command and Control Economy needs to be established to guarantee the equality of outcome for all peoples. The resources of the planet must be leveraged by a Global Government and deployed with precision to achieve that goal. What better tool to galvanize the support of the entire planet than a common danger with the tragic existential implications of Armageddon. Hence AGW as recently celebrated in Copenhagen came into being.

But as a counterforce to Islamic Jihadists, Global Warming as a religion was a non-starter, or an abject failure, at best.

Firstly, as Samuel P. Huntington aptly pointed out (emphasis mine),

"...The people of different civilizations have different views on the relations between God and man, the individual and the group, the citizen and the state, parents and children, husband and wife, as well as differing views of the relative importance of rights and responsibilities, liberty and authority, equality and hierarchy...”

Furthermore, as I indicated earlier elsewhere (emphasis added),
 

"...The fact that geographically and historically Islamic cultures have been associated with repressive governments is no accident of history. It is rooted on the proscription of the notion of Free Will from the tenets of Islam that makes its adherents exceptionally vulnerable and susceptible to fear and repression.”

Moreover, the notion of compassion is, by all indications, alien to and contra-indicated by the tenets of Islamic Jihad. By definition, the Islamic Jihadist is, ipso facto, not interested in collaborating with infidels, much less in cohabiting the planet with anybody but adherents to Islam.

Similarly, most if not all acolytes of Global Warming are not really interested in saving the planet but in the control of our purses and lives. That they make profit in the bargain, is rather incidental.

Thus it came to pass that the exorbitant expenditures of sorely needed government resources to pay homage to the oracles of Global Warming in Copenhagen is just another instance of the ruling elite disregarding the sentiments of the governed. But it has always been my contention, since I started becoming aware of politics, that without any exception, any nation always deserve the leadership that happens unto them, regardless of the process (or errors) they come by it.

There is no doubt that the subrogation of national sovereignty to a global authority is an act that properly falls in the rubric of high crimes and misdemeanors. It is a category of conduct constitutionally impeachable, by law. But with both houses of Congress controlled by the Democrats, in the infamous parlance of Al Gore, there simply is no "controlling legal authority” to make impeachment even a remote possibility. It is from this vantage that the Democrats need to lose control of the House in November 2010.