A Different Standard, Indeed

Rep. William JeffersonIt’s off our mission statement here, but I had to take a look at this morning’s story about Rep. William Jefferson, the Louisiana Democrat who has been accused of taking bribes, and whose congressional office was searched by the FBI.

I suppose I could stretch it to fit Gates of Vienna, since Rep. Jefferson allegedly took bribes from a Muslim official in Nigeria, a country whose northern provinces have instituted the Shari’ah.

But I really just want to look at the sheer American political perversity of it.

As reported in the CNN account, the House Democratic Caucus has voted to suspend Rep. Jefferson from his seat on the House Ways and Means Committee. The full House will have to vote on it now, which should make for some excellent political entertainment.

The usual charge of racism is being thrown around. You would think that its currency had been so debased of late as to be worthless, but people can’t stop themselves from using it.

It seems that all the pandering and affirmative action and prostrating themselves before the likes of Al Sharpton hasn’t gained the Democrats very much. So now even Nancy Pelosi is a racist — she must be wondering how much bang the Democrats are really getting for their pandering buck.

But here are the paragraphs that really caught my eye:

But after the vote, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, Rep. Mel Watt of North Carolina, said the suspension was based on “political expediency” rather than House rules, warning that it “could have consequences” for Democrats among black voters.

“We believe our constituents will import their own interpretation into this, and a number of them will import that there’s a different standard in our caucus based on race,” Watt said, though he added, “None of us are saying that. I’m not saying that.”

He’s right about one thing: There is a different standard based on race.

It’s just not the difference he thinks.

Tom DeLay was hounded into retirement based on negligible evidence compared to that which is on the public record against William Jefferson. But because the man is black, he could be photographed standing on the Capitol steps receiving a laundry basket full of $100 bills from Atiku Abubakar, and any question of the propriety of the transaction would be denounced as “racism”.

I’m a racist. I know I’m a racist; it’s obvious.

Because I’m deluded into thinking that any black politician or celebrity who engages in wrongdoing, no matter how blatant, gets a pocketful of “Get Out of Jail Free” cards because of his race.

When he is investigated for wrongdoing, it is evidence of white racism. Being charged with a crime is evidence of white racism. Not to be given a free pass for any behavior is evidence of white racism.

I must be a very bigoted person to think such things.

I guess I need a little more Diversity Training.

New Danish Export: Dhimmi Cheese

After the Danish Mohammed Cartoons were published last year, a group of Muslim clerics led by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi called for a boycott of Danish products by Muslims around the world.

The Danish dairy conglomerate Arla was one of the hardest-hit victims of the boycott, with its extensive Middle Eastern exports cut to a trickle. It was quick to bend the knee to the Ummah and pay the jizyah.

Now Arla’s grovelling has borne fruit. Here’s an account from an editorial in Canada’s National Post:

Sheikh Yusuf al-QaradawiThe row over the publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper appears to have been resolved. At an “International Conference for Supporting the Prophet” last month, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a well-known terrorism apologist who led the anti-Denmark campaign, declared that the boycott of Danish products was to end. The conference of some 300 Muslim clerics in the Gulf emirate of Bahrain was also attended by representatives of Arla, the Danish dairy company that had been worst affected by Qaradawi’s February 3, 2006 call for an anti-Danish embargo.

The end of the controversy is no cause for celebration. Rather Qaradawi’s announcement, and the deal Arla has struck with him, is a victory for thuggery and extortion over free speech. The lack of resistance to the vilification of Denmark by Middle Eastern regimes and their pet theologians sets an appalling precedent.

Arla prostrated itself, in effect apologizing for the supposed offence caused by the 12 not terribly interesting drawings. Of course, the company does not put it that way. Instead, Arla’s Web site refers to “an active marketing approach.”

Nice euphemism. Way to go, Arla. That’s what Texaco should have called it when they were shaken down by Jesse Jackson back in 1996. Suggested new slogan: “No active marketing approach, no peace!”

The editorial continues:

At the end of January, Arla paid to have the Danish government’s official statement indicating its respect for Islam printed in Saudi newspapers. Then, in a full-page advertisement in newspapers in 25 countries on March 26, Arla stated that “Our presence in the region has given us an insight into your culture and values and about Islam. This understanding has, over many years, enabled us to supply high quality products which meet your preferences.”

God, it is said, works in mysterious ways. How else to explain this previously unknown symbiosis between the gathering of religious insight and the sale of dairy products?

So we see that the Danish government was complicit in this shameful commercial capitulation. Denmark’s government, it seems, is not monolithic. The American analogy might be the State Department versus the Defense Department — one agency ready to surrender obsequiously to any demand, the other standing firm on behalf of American interests.

And how much jizyah did Arla have to pay?

The centerpiece of the deal between Arla and Qaradawi is not the grovelling statement, but Arla’s offer to start humanitarian projects in the Middle East, including helping disabled children and cancer sufferers.

The terms of this deal had already been set in March during a conference convened by the Danish Foreign Ministry in Copenhagen. According to The New York Times, Amr Khaled, an Egyptian preacher, indicated that the boycott of Danish goods could end “if Danes and their government reached out with initiatives like help for small businesses, or health care.”

On his own Web site, Khaled had been even more explicit, announcing “We will not accept a symbolic apology. We want them to take actions that prove their respect for the Prophet.” Arla got the hint and paid up.

Arla’s behaviour is perhaps understandable. The boycott will apparently cost the company some $65-million, and has already forced it to lay off some 50 workers.

If the Jesse Jackson business model holds here, it would be Khaled’s cousin who gets the grant for a children’s medical center, and Sheikh Qaradawi’s brother-in-law would very conveniently open an oncology clinic.

The National Post concludes with an ironic historical reminder:

If extortion is not resisted, it is repeated. The Danes have a word for such regular payments: Danegeld.

Commenter Balder on a recent post about the Motoons broached the same topic. He’s glad that the “Buy Danish” campaign has taken off, but wants us to remember not to include Arla:

Some major Danish companies, and most notably the multinational dairy giant ARLA FOODS have been criticized heavily for trying to appease Muslim fundamentalists by coming with statements criticizing Jyllands Posten and the government. The company has bowed to the Islamists by apologizing for Danish freedom of speech.

Boycott ARLA, IKEA, GRUNDFOSS , and other companies which betrayed the values of the West…

We should never forget that mass third world immigration initially was a process staged by big companies that wanted cheap labor, and couldn’t care less for the long time cost and other consequences.

And it still is the largest companies, that support de-nationalization, globalization, betrayal of western values such as freedom of speech and woman’s rights, and appeasement to Muslim ideology…

The Danish Diary giant ARLA, which was initially boycotted by Muslim countries because of the Mohammed cartoons, has bent down its knees, and has praised ‘Muslim culture’ in many countries in the Middle East and has come with a number of apologizing statements to Muslim dictatorships. Statements, which are now heavily criticized by the Danish PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen and other members of the Liberal Party, normally definitely the pro business party.

Another member of the Liberal Party, Jens Rohde, suggested they move their company’s main seat to Teheran.

Also Danish feminist organizations, as well as many individual Danes have protested against ARLA ‘s cowardice and disgracing appeasement policies.

Boycott ARLAARLA products are now no longer boycotted in the Arab world, but by the Danish public.

The same goes for the Danish Technological Company GRUNDFOSS (produces pumps etc.) that also betrayed the values of its home country and licked the butts of Arab dictators, rather than to support the values that brought them into business.

I hope the news of this boycott by free speech supporters and woman’s rights groups will also be spread to those websites that display ‘Support Denmark’ banners.

The multinational ARLA by the way, has been long criticized and boycotted in Denmark because of their abuse of their dominant market position, to try and eradicate smaller and often more ecologically minded dairies and small farmers in Denmark.

It would be great if all the I Support Denmark blogs, would also display an “ARLA NO THANKS” banner, since this company more than any other has stirred up the anger of freedom loving Danes. It would be too bad, if now they too would benefit from the “I Support Denmark Campaign”.

I’ll have to admit that the whole issue was very confusing at first. Buy Danish, but don’t buy Arla! Whenever I went to get my weekly supply of Havarti, I had to look closely to make sure that an unobtrusive little Arla logo wasn’t on it somewhere. And if Arla was the only brand of Danish cheese in the store, I had to go get a six-pack of Carlsberg to console myself with.

The “Buy Danish, boycott Arla” campaign is an economic version of a JDAM, a precision-guided effort to take out an appeasing dhimmi corporation while leaving the surrounding commercial structures intact.

I hope it’s working. I hope Arla is feeling the pain, and thinking twice about its kiss-the-feet-of-the-Arabs strategy.

The rest of the effort seems to have been effective, based on Denmark’s recent trade figures.

Hat tip: Erudito.

Political Correctness — The Revenge of Marxism

The Fjordman Report

The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report as a guest-post at Gates of Vienna.

FrontPage Magazine: You make the shrewd observation of how political correctness engenders evil because of “the violence that it does to people’s souls by forcing them to say or imply what they do not believe, but must not question.” Can you talk about this a bit?

Theodore Dalrymple: Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.

I have heard people who have grown up in former Communist countries say that we in the West are at least as brainwashed by Multiculturalism and Political Correctness as they ever were with Communism, perhaps more so. Even in the heyday of the East Bloc, there were active dissident groups in these countries. The scary thing is, I sometimes believe they are right.

But how is that possible? Don’t we have free speech here? And we have no Gulag?

The IslaminternThe simple fact is that we never won the Cold War as decisively as we should have. Yes, the Berlin Wall fell, and the Soviet Union collapsed. This removed the military threat to the West, and the most hardcore, economic Marxism suffered a blow as a credible alternative. However, one of the really big mistakes we made after the Cold War ended was to declare that Socialism was now dead, and thus no longer anything to worry about. Here we are, nearly a generation later, discovering that Marxist rhetoric and thinking have penetrated every single stratum of our society, from the Universities to the media. Islamic terrorism is explained as caused by “poverty, oppression and marginalization,” a classic, Marxist interpretation.

What happened is that while the “hard” Marxism of the Soviet Union may have collapsed, at least for now, the “soft” Marxism of the Western Left has actually grown stronger, in part because we deemed it to be less threatening. The “hard” Marxists had intercontinental nuclear missiles and openly said that they would “bury” us. The soft Marxists talk about tolerance and may seem less threatening, but their goal of overthrowing the evil, capitalist West remains the same. In fact, they are more dangerous precisely because they hide their true goals under different labels. Perhaps we should call it “stealth Socialism” instead of soft Socialism.

One of the readers of Fjordman blog once pointed out that we never had a thorough de-Marxification process after the Cold War, similar to the de-Nazification after WW2. He was thinking of the former Soviet Union and the countries in Eastern Europe, but he should probably have included their Marxist fellow travellers, their sympathizers and apologists in the West. We never fully confronted the ideology of Marxism, and demonstrated that the suffering it caused for hundreds of millions of people was a direct result of Marxist ideas. We just assumed that Marxism was dead and moved on, allowing many of its ideals to mutate into new forms and many of its champions to continue their work uninterrupted, sometimes filled with a vengeance and a renewed zeal for another assault on the capitalist West.

We are now paying the price for this. Not only has Marxism survived, it is thriving and has in some ways grown stronger. Leftist ideas about Multiculturalism and de-facto open borders have achieved a virtual hegemony in public discourse, their critics vilified and demonized. By hiding their intentions under labels such as “anti-racism” and “tolerance,” Leftists have achieved a degree of censorship of public discourse they could never have dreamt of had they openly stated that their intention was to radically transform Western civilization and destroy its foundations.

The Left have become ideological orphans after the Cold War, or perhaps we should call them ideological mercenaries. Although the viable economic alternative to capitalism didn’t work out, their hatred for this system never subsided, it merely transformed into other forms. Multiculturalism is just a different word for “divide and conquer,” pitting various ethnic and cultural groups against each other and destroying the coherence of Western society from within.

At the very least, the people living in the former Communist countries knew and admitted that they were taking part in a gigantic social experiment, and that the media and the authorities were serving them propaganda to shore up support for this project. Yet in the supposedly free West, we are taking part in a gigantic social experiment of Multiculturalism and Muslim immigration every bit as radical, utopian and potentially dangerous as Communism, seeking to transform our entire society from top to bottom, and still we refuse to even acknowledge that this is going on.

In Norway, a tiny Scandinavian nation that was until recently 99% white and Lutheran Christian, native Norwegians will soon be a minority in their own capital city, later in the whole country. And still, Norwegian politicians, journalists and University professors insist that there is nothing to worry about over this. Multiculturalism is nothing new, neither is immigration. In fact, our king a century ago was born in Denmark, so having a capital city dominated by Pakistanis, Kurds, Arabs and Somalis is just business as usual. The most massive transformation of the country in a thousand years, probably in recorded history, is thus treated as if it were the most natural thing in the world. To even hint that there might be something wrong about this has been immediately shouted down as “racism.”

Eric Hoffer has noted that “It is obvious that a proselytizing mass movement must break down all existing group ties if it is to win a considerable following. The ideal potential convert is the individual who stands alone, who has no collective body he can blend with and lose himself in and so mask the pettiness, meaninglessness and shabbiness of his individual existence. Where a mass movement finds the corporate pattern of family, tribe, country, etcetera, in a state of disruption and decay, it moves in and gathers the harvest. Where it finds the corporate pattern in good repair, it must attack and disrupt.” This corresponds exactly to the behavior of much of the Western Left in our age.

In Germany, Hans-Peter Raddatz in his book “Allahs Frauen” (Allah’s Women) dissects the destructive attitude of Multiculturalism that is shared by many civil servants, journalists, politicians and lawyers in Germany and the EU. In particular, he documents how the German Green Party has a program for dismantling and dissolving the Christian “Leitkultur,” or common culture, that so far has been the foundation of Germany and the West. Raddatz thinks that the decades of Muslim immigration are used as an instrument for breaking down the institutions, norms and ideas that the Left has earlier tried to break down through economics. From powerful positions in the media, public institutions and the system of education, these Multiculturalists are working on a larger project of renewing a Western civilization that, according to them, has failed.

A Norwegian newspaper called Dagens Næringsliv exposed the fact that the largest “anti-racist” organization in the country, SOS Rasisme, was heavily infiltrated by Communists and extreme Leftists. They infiltrated the organization in the late 1980s and early ’90s, in other words, during the downfall of Communism in Eastern Europe. They went directly from Communism to Multiculturalism, which should indicate that at least some of them viewed Multiculturalism as the continuation of Communism by other means. It speaks volumes about the close connection between economic Marxism and cultural Marxism. They just have different means of reaching the same ends.

Much of the political Left is simply engaged in outing their opponents as evil, instead of rationally arguing against their ideas. Attaching labels such as “racist” or even “Fascist” to anyone criticizing massive immigration or Multiculturalism has become so common that Norwegian anti-Islamists have coined a new word for it: “Hitling,” which could be roughly translated to English as “to make like Hitler.” The logic behind “hitling” is a bit like this: “You have a beard. Adolf Hitler had facial hair, too, so you must be like Hitler. Adolf Hitler liked dogs. You have pets, too, you must be like Hitler. Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian. You like carrots, you are just like Hitler.”

Any “right-winger” can be slimed with such accusations. Curiously enough, the reverse is almost never true. Although Marxism may have killed 100 million people during the 20th century and failed in every single society in which it has ever been tried out, there seems to be little stigma attached to being a Leftist. The fact that Leftists can get away with this and claim to hold the moral high ground amply demonstrates that we didn’t win the Cold War. We let our guard down after the fall of the Berlin Wall and never properly denounced the ideology behind it. This is now coming back to haunt us.

One member of an anti-immigration party in Britain stated that to be called racist in 21st-century Britain is “the same as being branded a witch in the Middle Ages.” He’s probably right, which means that anti-racism has quite literally become a modern witch-hunt.

Naomi Klein, Canadian activist and author of the book No Logo, is a darling of the Western Left. She claims that the real cause of Islamic terrorism is Western racism, traceable back to the personal experiences of Sayyid Qutb, theorist of modern Islamic Jihad, while in the USA in the late 1940s. “The real problem,” she concludes, “is not too much Multiculturalism but too little.” More Multiculturalism, she claims, “would rob terrorists of what has always been their greatest recruitment tool: our racism.”

Robert Spencer, however, is not too impressed with Klein’s logic or historical knowledge: “Qutb’s world-changing rage?” Is that rage really Qutb’s? Can modern-day Islamic terrorism really be attributed to him, and to his experience of racism in Colorado? One would expect that if that were so, there would be no evidence of political or violent Islam dating from before 1948. But in fact the Muslim Brotherhood, of which Qutb was part, was founded not in 1948 but in 1928, and not by Qutb, but by Hasan Al-Banna. It was Al-Banna, not Qutb, who wrote: “In [Muslim] Tradition, there is a clear indication of the obligation to fight the People of the Book [that is, Jews and Christians], and of the fact that God doubles the reward of those who fight them. Jihad is not against polytheists alone, but against all who do not embrace Islam.”

Paul Berman does not share Klein’s interpretation, either. According to him, Qutb’s book from the 1940’s, Social Justice and Islam,’ shows that, even before his voyage to the USA, Qutb “was pretty well set in his Islamic fundamentalism,” although it may have gotten worse after his meetings with Western “immorality.” According to Berman, the truly dangerous element in American life, in Sayyid Qutb’s estimation, “was not capitalism or foreign policy or racism or the unfortunate cult of women’s independence. The truly dangerous element lay in America’s separation of church and state — the modern political legacy of Christianity’s ancient division between the sacred and the secular.” Islam’s true champions had to gather themselves together into what Qutb in his book Milestones called a vanguard. This vanguard of true Muslims was going to resurrect the caliphate and take Islam to all the world, just as Muhammad had done.” Both Milestones and parts of Qutb’s perhaps most important work, In the Shade of the Qur’an, are available online in English. In Milestones, he writes that Jihad will continue until all of the world answers to Islam, that “Islam came into this world to establish God’s rule on God’s earth.” “Islam has a right to remove all those obstacles which are in its path,” it “has the right to destroy all obstacles in the form of institutions and traditions” around the world that are in opposition to this. “God’s rule on earth can be established only through the Islamic system.” What does this have to do with Western racism? Why did Jihad start a thousand years before Western colonialism ever touched Islamic lands? What about the tens of millions of people massacred in India because of Islamic Jihad? Was that due to Western racism, too? Naomi Klein doesn’t say, she just blames the West. And she is far from the only one suffering from this delusion.

Commenting on the Jihad riots in France in the fall of 2005, philosopher Alain Finkielkraut stated: “In France, they would like very much to reduce these riots to their social dimension, to see them as a revolt of youths from the suburbs against their situation, against the discrimination they suffer from, against the unemployment. The problem is that most of these youths are blacks or Arabs, with a Muslim identity. Look, in France there are also other immigrants whose situation is difficult — Chinese, Vietnamese, Portuguese — and they’re not taking part in the riots. Therefore, it is clear that this is a revolt with an ethno-religious character. These people were treated like rebels, like revolutionaries. (…) They’re ‘interesting.’ They’re ‘the wretched of the earth.’ “Imagine for a moment that they were whites, like in Rostock in Germany. Right away, everyone would have said: ‘Fascism won’t be tolerated.’ When an Arab torches a school, it’s rebellion. When a white guy does it, it’s fascism. Evil is evil, no matter what color it is.”

In an interview with Danish weekly Weekendavisen, Finkielkraut said that: “Racism is the only thing that can still arouse anger among the intellectuals, the journalists and people in the entertainment business, in other words, the elites. Culture and religion have collapsed, only anti-racism is left. And it functions like an intolerant and inhumane idolatry.” “A leader from one of the organizations against racism had the nerve to refer to the actions of the police in the Parisian suburbs as ‘ethnic cleansing.’ That kind of expression used about the French situation indicates a deliberate manipulation of the language. Unfortunately, these insane lies have convinced the public that the destruction in the suburbs should be viewed as a protest against exclusion and racism.” “I think that the lofty idea of ‘the war on racism’ is gradually turning into a hideously false ideology. And this anti-racism will be for the 21st century what communism was for the 20th century: A source of violence.”

Roger ScrutonMaybe the French have fallen prey to the nihilism of Jean-Paul Sartre? Roger Scruton wrote about his continued influence in The Spectator: “The French have not recovered from Sartre and perhaps never will. For they have had to live with an intellectual establishment that has consistently repudiated the two things that hold the country together: Christianity and the idea of France. The anti-bourgeois posture of the left-bank intellectual has entered the political process, and given rise to an elite for whom nothing is certain save the repudiation of the national idea. It is thanks to this elite that the mad project of European Union has become indelibly inscribed in the French political process, even though the people of France reject it. It is thanks to this elite that the mass immigration into France of unassimilable Muslim communities has been both encouraged and subsidised. It is thanks to this elite that socialism has been so firmly embedded in the French state that no one now can reform it.” “Man cannot live by negation alone.”

Karl Marx himself has stated that “The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism,” a sentiment that corresponds almost exactly to the Islamic idea that “peace” means the absence of opposition to Islamic rule. Cultural Marxism — aka Political Correctness — and Islam share the same totalitarian outlook and instinctively agree in their opposition to free discussion, and in the idea that freedom of speech must be curtailed when it is “offensive” to certain groups. Former Muslim Ali Sina notes that “there is very little difference between the Left and Islam. What is lacking in both these creeds is the adherence to the Golden Rule. Just as for Muslims, everything Islamic is a priori right and good and everything un-Islamic is a priori wrong and evil, for the Left, everything leftist is a priori oppressed and good and everything rightist is a priori oppressor and evil. Facts don’t matter. Justice is determined by who you are and not by what you have done.” “Political correctness is an intellectual sickness. It means expediently lying when telling the truth is not expedient. This practice is so widespread and so common that it is considered to be normal.” Sina also quotes historian Christopher Dawson in writing: “It is easy enough for the individual to adopt a negative attitude of critical skepticism. But if society as a whole abandons all positive beliefs, it is powerless to resist the disintegrating effects of selfishness and private interest. Every society rests in the last resort on the recognition of common principles and common ideals, and if it makes no moral or spiritual appeal to the loyalty of its members, it must inevitably fall to pieces.” This will be the end result of Multiculturalism, and one suspects that this was the point of it to begin with.

Another former Muslim, writer Ibn Warraq, visited Denmark to launch his book Why I am not a Muslim. In an interview, Ibn Warraq stated that especially among the Left there is a post-colonial guilt complex that constitutes an almost insuperable obstacle to any criticism of Islam and Third World cultures. The Left have thus put their own, universal values aside in favor of a dangerous relativism. Ibn Warraq pointed out that more than fifty years after the West left its colonies in the Third World, Leftists are still blaming all the ills of Africa and the Middle East on the former colonial powers, while the same left-wingers only ten years after the fall of Communism blamed Russia’s troubles on unrestrained capitalism. “The Left refuses to seek answers elsewhere. At the same time they are, because of Marx, accustomed to look for economic explanations to everything. Consequently, they seek the explanation to Islamic terrorism in the economic situation. But it is a great mystery to me how 200 dead people in Madrid are supposed to help the poor in the Islamic world.”

Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus, who has personal experience with living under Socialism, warns that it may not be as dead as many seem to think: “We can probably confidently say that its “hard version” – communism – is over.” However, “fifteen years after the collapse of communism I am afraid, more than at the beginning of its softer (or weaker) version, of social-democratism, which has become – under different names, e.g. the welfare state – the dominant model of the economic and social system of current Western civilization. It is based on big and patronizing government, on extensive regulating of human behavior, and on large-scale income redistribution.” “The explicit socialism has lost its appeal and we should not have it as the main rival to our ideas today.” Klaus warns that illiberal ideas are making a comeback in different shapes: “These ideas are, however, in many respects similar to it. There is always a limiting (or constraining) of human freedom, there is always ambitious social engineering, there is always an immodest “enforcement of a good” by those who are anointed (Thomas Sowell) on others against their will.” “The current threats to liberty may use different ‘hats’, they may better hide their real nature, they may be more sophisticated than before, but they are – in principle – the same as always.”

I have in mind environmentalism (with its Earth First, not Freedom First principle), radical humanrightism (based – as de Jasay precisely argues – on not distinguishing rights and rightism), ideology of ‘civic society’ (or communitarism), which is nothing less than one version of post-Marxist collectivism which wants privileges for organized groups, and in consequence, a refeudalization of society. I also have in mind multiculturalism, feminism, apolitical technocratism (based on the resentment against politics and politicians), internationalism (and especially its European variant called Europeanism) and a rapidly growing phenomenon I call NGOism.”

The EUSSRVladimir Bukovsky is a former Soviet dissident, author and human rights activist. He was one of the first to expose the use of psychiatric imprisonment against political prisoners in the USSR, and spent a total of twelve years in Soviet prisons. Now living in England, he warns against some of the same anti-democratic impulses in the West, especially in the EU, which he views as a heir to the Soviet Union. In 2002, he joined in on protests against the BBC’s compulsory TV licence, which he considers “such a medieval arrangement I simply must protest against it” “The British people are being forced to pay money to a corporation which suppresses free speech — publicising views they don’t necessarily agree with.” He has blasted the BBC for their “bias and propaganda,” especially on stories related to the EU or the Middle East. “I would like the BBC to become the KGB successors in imprisoning me for demanding freedom of speech. Nothing would expose them more for what they are.”

He is not the only one who is tired of what he thinks is the Leftist bias of the BBC. Michael Gove, a Conservative MP, and political commentator Mark Dooley complain about lopsided coverage of certain issues: “Take, for example, the BBC’s coverage of the late Yasser Arafat. In one profile broadcast in 2002, he was lauded as an “icon” and a “hero,” but no mention was made of his terror squads, corruption, or his brutal suppression of dissident Palestinians. Similarly, when Israel assassinated the spiritual leader of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, in 2004, one BBC reporter described him as “polite, charming and witty, a deeply religious man.” This despite the fact that under Yassin’s guidance, Hamas murdered hundreds.” “A soft left worldview influences too much of what the corporation produces. We have a right to expect more honesty from the broadcasting service we are being asked to pay for.”

Vladimir Bukovsky thinks that the West lost the Cold War. “There were no Nuremberg-type trials in Moscow. Why? Because while we won the Cold War in a military sense, we lost it in the context of ideas. The West stopped one day too soon, just like in Desert Storm. Just imagine the Allies in 1945 being satisfied with some kind of Perestroika in Nazi Germany — instead of unconditional surrender. What would have been the situation in Europe then, to say nothing of Germany? All former Nazi collaborators would have remained in power, albeit under a new disguise. This is exactly what happened in the Soviet Union in 1991.” “Communism might have been dead, but the communists remained in power in most of the former Warsaw bloc countries, while their Western collaborators came to power all over the world (in Europe in particular). This is nothing short of a miracle: the defeat of the Nazis in 1945 quite logically brought a shift to the Left in world politics, while a defeat of communism in 1991 brought again a shift to the Left, this time quite illogically.” “It is no surprise, therefore, that despite the defeat of communism, the radical Left in the West still arrogates the moral high ground to itself.”

“When the Nazis lost the Second World War, racial hatred was discredited. When the Soviets lost the Cold War, the tenet of class hatred remained as popular as ever.” Bukovsky argues that while there might have been a Western military victory, Socialism still prevailed as a popular idea ideologically throughout the world. He writes: “Having failed to finish off conclusively the communist system, we are now in danger of integrating the resulting monster into our world. It may not be called communism anymore, but it retained many of its dangerous characteristics. . . .Until the Nuremberg-style tribunal passes its judgement on all the crimes committed by communism, it is not dead and the war is not over.”

Karl MarxCultural Marxism has roots as far back as the 1920s, when some Socialist thinkers advocated attacking the cultural base of Western civilization to pave the way for the Socialist transition. Cultural Marxism is thus not something “new.” It has coexisted with economic Marxism for generations, but it received a great boost in the West from the 1960s and 70s onwards. As the Soviet Union fell apart and China embraced capitalism, the economic Marxists joined in on the “cultural” train, too, as it was now the only game in town. They don’t have a viable alternative to present, but they don’t care. They truly believe that we, the West, are so evil and exploitative that literally anything would be better, even the Islamic Caliphate.

The Free Congress Foundation has an interesting booklet online called Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology, edited by William S. Lind. According to Lind, Political Correctness “wants to change behavior, thought, even the words we use. To a significant extent, it already has.” “Whoever or whatever controls language also controls thought.” “Political Correctness” is in fact cultural Marxism. The effort to translate Marxism from economics into culture did not begin with the student rebellion of the 1960s. It goes back at least to the 1920s and the writings of the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci. In 1923, in Germany, a group of Marxists founded an institute devoted to making the translation, the Institute of Social Research (later known as the Frankfurt School). One of its founders, George Lukacs, stated its purpose as answering the question, “Who shall save us from Western Civilization?” Lind thinks there are major parallels between classical and cultural Marxism: “Both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness can be seen on [University] campuses where ‘PC’ has taken over the college: freedom of speech, of the press, and even of thought are all eliminated.” “Today, with economic Marxism dead, cultural Marxism has filled its shoes. The medium has changed, but the message is the same: a society of radical egalitarianism enforced by the power of the state.”

“Just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness certain groups are good,” for instance feminist women. Similarly, “white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic Marxism.” Both economic and cultural Marxism “have a method of analysis that automatically gives the answers they want. For the classical Marxist, it’s Marxist economics. For the cultural Marxist, it’s deconstruction. Deconstruction essentially takes any text, removes all meaning from it and re-inserts any meaning desired.”

Raymond V. Raehn agrees with Lind that “Political Correctness is Marxism, with all that implies: loss of freedom of expression, thought control, inversion of the traditional social order and, ultimately, a totalitarian state.” According to him, “Gramsci envisioned a long march through the society’s institutions, including the government, the judiciary, the military, the schools and the media.” “He also concluded that so long as the workers had a Christian soul, they would not respond to revolutionary appeals.” Another one of the early cultural Marxists, Georg Lukacs, noted that “Such a worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries.” At a meeting in Germany in 1923, “Lukacs proposed the concept of inducing “Cultural Pessimism” in order to increase the state of hopelessness and alienation in the people of the West as a necessary prerequisite for revolution.”

William S. Lind points out that this cultural Marxism had its beginnings after the Marxist Revolution in Russia in 1917 failed to take roots in other countries. Marxists tried to analyze the reasons for this, and found them in Western civilization and culture itself. “Gramsci said the workers will never see their true class interests, as defined by Marxism, until they are freed from Western culture, and particularly from the Christian religion – that they are blinded by culture and religion to their true class interests. Lukacs, who was considered the most brilliant Marxist theorist since Marx himself, said in 1919, “Who will save us from Western Civilization?”

John Fonte describes how this cultural war is now being played out in the USA in his powerful piece “Why There Is A Culture War: Gramsci and Tocqueville in America.” According to him, “beneath the surface of American politics an intense ideological struggle is being waged between two competing worldviews. I will call these “Gramscian” and “Tocquevillian” after the intellectuals who authored the warring ideas — the twentieth-century Italian thinker Antonio Gramsci, and, of course, the nineteenth-century French intellectual Alexis de Tocqueville. The stakes in the battle between the intellectual heirs of these two men are no less than what kind of country the United States will be in decades to come.”

Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), Marxist intellectual and politician, “believed that it was necessary first to delegitimize the dominant belief systems of the predominant groups and to create a “counter-hegemony” (i.e., a new system of values for the subordinate groups) before the marginalized could be empowered. Moreover, because hegemonic values permeate all spheres of civil society — schools, churches, the media, voluntary associations — civil society itself, he argued, is the great battleground in the struggle for hegemony, the “war of position.” From this point, too, followed a corollary for which Gramsci should be known (and which is echoed in the feminist slogan) — that all life is “political.” Thus, private life, the work place, religion, philosophy, art, and literature, and civil society, in general, are contested battlegrounds in the struggle to achieve societal transformation.” This, according to Fonte, “is the very core of the Gramscian-Hegelian world view — group-based morality, or the idea that what is moral is what serves the interests of “oppressed” or “marginalized” ethnic, racial, and gender groups.” “The concept of ‘internalized oppression’ is the same as the Hegelian-Marxist notion of ‘false consciousness,’ in which people in the subordinate groups ‘internalize’(and thus accept) the values and ways of thinking of their oppressors in the dominant groups.” “This is classic Hegelian-Marxist thinking — actions (including free speech) that ‘objectively’ harm people in a subordinate class are unjust (and should be outlawed).”

He tracks how the ideas of Gramsci and cultural Marxists have spread throughout Western academia. Law professor Catharine MacKinnon writes in Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (1989), “The rule of law and the rule of men are one thing, indivisible,” because “State power, embodied in law, exists throughout society as male power.” Furthermore, “Male power is systemic. Coercive, legitimated, and epistemic, it is the regime.” MacKinnon has argued that sexual harassment is essentially an issue of power exercised by the dominant over the subordinate group.” At an academic conference sponsored by the University of Nebraska, “the attendees articulated the view that ‘White students desperately need formal “training” in racial and cultural awareness. The moral goal of such training should override white notions of privacy and individualism.’”

This can sometimes amount to virtual brainwashing disguised as critical thinking. Fonte mentions that at Columbia University, “new students are encouraged to get rid of ‘their own social and personal beliefs that foster inequality.’ To accomplish this, the assistant dean for freshmen, Katherine Balmer, insists that ‘training’ is needed. At the end of freshmen orientation at Bryn Mawr in the early 1990s, according to the school program, students were ‘breaking free’ of ‘the cycle of oppression’ and becoming ‘change agents.’ Syracuse University’s multicultural program is designed to teach students that they live ‘in a world impacted by various oppression issues, including racism.’”

John Fonte thinks that the primary resistance to the advance of cultural Marxism in the USA comes from an opposing quarter he dubs “contemporary Tocquevillianism.” “Its representatives take Alexis de Tocqueville’s essentially empirical description of American exceptionalism and celebrate the traits of this exceptionalism as normative values to be embraced.” As Tocqueville noted in the 1830s, Americans today are “just as in Tocqueville’s time, are much more individualistic, religious, and patriotic than the people of any other comparably advanced nation.” “What was particularly exceptional for Tocqueville (and contemporary Tocquevillians) is the singular American path to modernity. Unlike other modernists, Americans combined strong religious and patriotic beliefs with dynamic, restless entrepreneurial energy that emphasized equality of individual opportunity and eschewed hierarchical and ascriptive group affiliations.”

This battle is now being played out in most American public institutions. “Tocquevillians and Gramscians clash on almost everything that matters. Tocquevillians believe that there are objective moral truths applicable to all people at all times. Gramscians believe that moral ‘truths’ are subjective and depend upon historical circumstances. Tocquevillians believe in personal responsibility. Gramscians believe that ‘the personal is political.’ In the final analysis, Tocquevillians favor the transmission of the American regime; Gramscians, its transformation.”

“While economic Marxism appears to be dead, the Hegelian variety articulated by Gramsci and others has not only survived the fall of the Berlin Wall, but also gone on to challenge the American republic at the level of its most cherished ideas. For more than two centuries America has been an ‘exceptional’ nation, one whose restless entrepreneurial dynamism has been tempered by patriotism and a strong religious-cultural core. The ultimate triumph of Gramscianism would mean the end of this very ‘exceptionalism.’ America would at last become Europeanized: statist, thoroughly secular, post-patriotic, and concerned with group hierarchies and group rights in which the idea of equality before the law as traditionally understood by Americans would finally be abandoned. Beneath the surface of our seemingly placid times, the ideological, political, and historical stakes are enormous.”

Britain’s Anthony Browne writes in The Retreat of Reason of how the Politically Correct are more intolerant of dissent than traditional liberals or conservatives, since Liberals of earlier times “accepted unorthodoxy as normal. Indeed the right to differ was a datum of classical liberalism. The Politically Correct do not give that right a high priority. It distresses their programmed minds. Those who do not conform should be ignored, silenced or vilified. There is a kind of soft totalitarianism about Political Correctness.” “Because the politically correct believe they are not just on the side of right, but of virtue, it follows that those they are opposed to are not just wrong, but malign. In the PC mind, the pursuit of virtue entitles them to curtail the malign views of those they disagree with.” “People who transgress politically correct beliefs are seen not just as wrong, to be debated with, but evil, to be condemned, silenced and spurned.” “The rise of political correctness represents an assault on both reason and liberal democracy.” Browne defines Political Correctness as “an ideology that classifies certain groups of people as victims in need of protection from criticism, and which makes believers feel that no dissent should be tolerated.” He also warns that “Good intentions pave the road to hell. The world is not short of good intentions, but it is too often short of good reasoning.”

However, Anthony Browne focuses more in the geopolitical situation to explain the rise of PC than on Marxist strategies: “Political correctness is essentially the product of a powerful but decadent civilisation which feels secure enough to forego reasoning for emoting, and to subjugate truth to goodness. However, the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, and those that followed in Bali, Madrid and Beslan, have led to a sense of vulnerability that have made people far more hard-headed about the real benefits and drawbacks of Western civilisation.”

“To some extent, the rise of the eastern powers, China and India, will ensure in coming decades that western guilt will shrivel: finally having equal powers to compare ourselves to, the West will no longer feel inclined to indulge in self-loathing, but will seek to reaffirm its sense of identity. (…) in the long-run of history, political correctness will be seen as an aberration in Western thought. The product of the uniquely unchallenged position of the West and its unrivalled affluence, the comparative decline of the West compared to the East is likely to spell the demise of political correctness.”

Lee Harris in his article “Why Isn’t Socialism Dead?” ponders whether Socialism isn’t dead because Socialism can’t die. The Peruvian economist, Hernando de Soto, has argued in his book, The Mystery of Capital, that the failure of the various socialist experiments of the twentieth century has left mankind with only one rational choice about which economic system to go with, namely, capitalism. However, says Harris, “the revolutionary socialist’s life is transformed because he accepts the myth that one day socialism will triumph, and justice for all will prevail.” Thus there is “an…analogy between religion and the revolutionary Socialism which aims at the apprenticeship, preparation, and even the reconstruction of the individual — a gigantic task.” “It may well be that socialism isn’t dead because socialism cannot die. Who doesn’t want to see the wicked and the arrogant put in their place? Who among the downtrodden and the dispossessed can fail to be stirred by the promise of a world in which all men are equal, and each has what he needs?”

Maybe Socialism is a bit like the flu: It keeps mutating, and as soon as your immune system has defeated one strain, it changes just enough so that your body does not recognize it and then mounts another attack.

Political Correctness can reach absurd levels. Early in June 2006, Canadian police arrested a group of men suspected of planning terror attacks. The group was alleged to have been “well-advanced on its plan” to attack a number of Canadian institutions, among them the Parliament of Canada, including a possible beheading of the Prime Minister, and Toronto’s subway. However, the lead paragraph of newspaper Toronto Star’s story on the arrests was: “In investigators’ offices, an intricate graph plotting the links between the 17 men and teens charged with being members of a homegrown terrorist cell covers at least one wall. And still, says a source, it is difficult to find a common denominator.” Royal Canadian Mounted Police Assistant Commissioner Mike McDonell said that the suspects were all Canadian residents and the majority were citizens. “They represent the broad strata of our community. Some are students, some are employed, some are unemployed,” he said. However, there was one common denominator for the suspects that wasn’t mentioned: They were all Muslims. The front page article in the New York Times (June 4), too, was a study in how to avoid using the dreaded “M” word. The terrorist suspects were referred to as “Ontario residents,” “Canadian residents,” “the group,” “mainly of South Asian descent” or “good people.” Everything conceivable, just not as “Muslims.”

Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair noted proudly during the press conference following the arrests, “I would remind you that there was not one single reference made by law enforcement to Muslim or Muslim community.” Before launching the anti-terror raids, Canadian police received “sensitivity training” and were carefully instructed in Islamic traditions such as handling the Koran, the use of prayer mats, and blowing oneself up in the course of an arrest. As Charles Johnson of blog Little Green Footballs noted: “Do the Canadian police extend such considerations to Christian, Jewish, Hindu or other faiths? If they don’t, then the Moslems have already won important recognition as a ‘special’ people.” Commenting on the arrests, the Globe and Mail stated that “It may have been the most politically correct terrorism bust in history.” Canada’s secret security apparatus had been “putting serious effort into softening its image” among Muslims for much of the previous years.

The federal government in Canada was considering changes to the Anti-Terrorism Act to make it clear that police and security agents did not engage in religious profiling. The Calgary Sun interviewed a Canadian criminologist, Professor Mahfooz Kanwar, who stated that “Multiculturalism has been bad for unity in Canada. It ghettoizes people, makes them believe, wrongly, that isolating themselves and not adapting to their new society is OK. It is not.” “Political correctness threatens us because we can’t fight something we refuse to label and understand.” Kanwar said the amount of political correctness during the arrests of 17 Muslims in the Toronto area was “sickening.” “Political correctness has gone too far. Political correctness threatens our society,” said the Pakistani-born Kanwar. “It is the responsibility of the minorities to adjust to the majority, not the other way around,” added Kanwar. Meanwhile, the Canadian Islamic Congress blamed the Canadian government for not showering enough money on the problem. They wanted more funding for research “to scientifically diagnose problems and devise solutions.”

They also wanted a nation-wide “Smart Integration program,” whatever that means. Given the fact that Muslims in Canada had quite recently been pushing for the partial implementation of sharia laws in the country, one would suspect that “smart integration” would mean that non-Muslims should demonstrate a little more appeasement. After all, if Canadian authorities listen to the advice of their compatriot Naomi Klein, these planned mass-killings of Canadian civilians were all due to Canadian racism and because the country wasn’t Multicultural enough. Muslims want to kill Canadians, Canadians smile back, tell them how much they “respect” them and ask what more they can do to please them.

This is what Political Correctness leads to in the end. It’s not funny and it’s not a joke. Political Correctness kills. It has already killed thousands of Western civilians, and if left unchecked it may soon kill entire nations or, in the case of Europe, entire continents.

As I have stated before, Islam is only a secondary infection, one that we could otherwise have had the strength to withstand. Cultural Marxism has weakened the West and made us ripe for a takeover. It is cultural AIDS, eating away at our immune system until it is too weak to resist Islamic infiltration attempts. It must be destroyed, before it destroys us all.

The Leftist-Islamic alliance will have profound consequences. Either they will defeat the West, or they will both go down in the fall. We never really won the Cold War as decisively as we should have done. Marxism was allowed to endure, and mount another attack on us by stealth and proxy. However, this flirting with Muslims could potentially prove more devastating to Marxists than the fall of the Berlin Wall.

As William S. Lind points out: “While the hour is late, the battle is not decided. Very few Americans realize that Political Correctness is in fact Marxism in a different set of clothes. As that realization spreads, defiance will spread with it. At present, Political Correctness prospers by disguising itself. Through defiance, and through education on our own part (which should be part of every act of defiance), we can strip away its camouflage and reveal the Marxism beneath the window-dressing of “sensitivity,” “tolerance” and “multiculturalism.”

Political Correctness is Marxism with a nose job. Multiculturalism is not about tolerance or diversity, it is an anti-Western hate ideology designed to dismantle Western civilization. If we can demonstrate this, an important part of the battle has already been won.

Calling Fear By Its Right Name

The redoubtable Zonka has translated this Danish editorial from today’s Jyllands-Posten:

It has been widely noted that one of the shrewdest and most distinctive politicians has stated openly to the Sunday Edition of Jyllands-Posten that he fears the consequences of his statements.

“As a politician these days you don’t want to be quoted for something that can make you a hate-object. I have been put in the number one position on the hate list, and I would not like to end up having to be placed under police protection, as it has happened to several of my colleagues in Parliament. We have all heard how it bothers Naser Khader. And of course I am not immune to this; feel free to call that self-censorship,” said the Minister of Education and Church to the Sunday paper.

That of course immediately got some people to show their wit by stating that it always is a good thing to think before talking, and that it is better that Bertel Haarder starts later rather than never.

Bertel HaarderHowever, one must assume that Bertel Haarder had given the issue plenty of thought before making the quoted statements, and, in addition, must consider those witty remarks to be the least of his problems.

The same day that Bertel Haarder presented his views in Jyllands-Posten, the former Minister of Foreign Affairs Uffe Ellemann-Jensen, of the same party, stated in Berlingske Tidende that he wanted an official investigation of the tone of the political debate.

Which was of course, as so much else from him, rubbish — what would the purpose of such an investigation be, if not to silence all those people whose opinions you don’t like?

Thus Uffe Ellemann-Jensen in his political retirement has become a steady source of bizarre statements and views.

It is more interesting to dig into what the participants in the debate mean in reality when they use the expression “self-censorship”.

If you mean by this expression that you believe it is important to speak properly to each other and not try to win arguments with profanities, verbal punches below the belt, and other means of degrading each other, then most likely all would agree.

But that is not what the expression covers when Bertel Haarder talks about self-censorship — he talks about fear. Ice cold, physically present fear.

There are people who aren’t satisfied with the chance to write letters to the editor, participate in public meetings, or in other ways make their views known in a civilized manner when they encounter views that they oppose.

There are people who make threats or commit violence or murder, when they encounter statements that they oppose.

Bomb? What bomb?We experience that here at Jyllands-Posten, as did the 12 cartoonists who last September gave their view on how each of them sees the prophet Mohammed, and still have to live in fear every single day. Despite the fact that the previously mentioned Ellemann-Jensen on several occasions has tried to ridicule this threat, the fact is that the Police Intelligence Service still has to monitor and evaluate the safety of the cartoonists. Middle Eastern psychopaths regularly issues fatwas against them, and neither they nor the Police Intelligence Service can ignore the possibility that one or more local psychos will try to follow up on the threats.

The crime of the cartoonists is that they, in full compliance with Danish law, Danish Press Ethics, and Danish newspaper tradition, were doing their job.

The Social Liberal politician Naser Khader and several other politicians and ministers have to live with daily police protection because of loose maniacs who don’t want to limit themselves to words when they try to argue.

Even so, these confused beings — none mentioned, none forgotten — say that freedom of speech isn’t and never was threatened in this country.

Everybody who has the ability and the will to open their eyes and engage their brain will see the self-censorship clearly: A Music CD was cancelled, because the artist on the cover appears in a burka; a conference leaflet was withdrawn for fear of offending Muslims; Banedanmark (a railway company — ed) removed a poster of a book about Islam; a theater cancelled a performance by an artist critical of Islam, Maribo Revyen (a comedy show –ed) cancelled a sketch which might have been considered offensive to Muslims, Kåre Bluitgen’s book, which was the thing that started it all, will not be on the shelves of school libraries, and a picture of a black butcher with two pigs was banned from a photo competition. And as if that weren’t enough, bishops in the Danish People’s Church (the state church –ed) want to edit the Augsburg Declaration of Faith, because it promotes Christianity at the expense of Islam. The rhetoric about “condemning the Mohammedans and their ilk” is rather tame compared to what you’ll see from the other camp.

The bigmouth imam Ahmed Abu-Laban declares that after the Mohammed controversy it is easier to be a Muslim in Denmark, because there is more respect for Islam. Now, we have all learned to take that man’s statements with a grain or two of salt, and perhaps even today his message might be that it has become more difficult to be a Muslim in Denmark; but if he is right, it is obvious that he mixes up the notions of fear and respect.

In connection with the news of his non-existent emigration to Gaza, he stated as evidence for his peaceful intentions that he “could have made a rebellion and created a hell here in Denmark, and could make Muslims hit hard.”

This “peace-loving” man thus states openly and frankly that he is in possession of the violent resources to create hell in this country.

Such a person one has to be very careful not to offend. Some will say that we should speak nicely to each other out of courtesy. Bertel Haarder talks with admirable clarity and calls the phenomenon by its right name: FEAR!

Zonka offers the following comments to go with the editorial:

A very blunt commentary on the general situation and particularly the multiculturalists (Uffe Elleman-Jensen in particular — who must either be in the pay of the Muslims or gone bonkers in his retirement). Don’t be too hard on Bertel, he is actually a man of integrity and a shrewd politician, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the whole story is actually meant to be a wakeup call for the Danish political elite and the people of Denmark… and a vehicle to get the debate started. I have no doubt that his fear is genuine, but I have never before seen him being intimidated by anyone, and he has been through a lot in his long political career.

Why Denmark Matters

Map of DenmarkLet’s see what’s on Gates of Vienna this morning — Heck, they’re nattering on and on about the Danes again! What is it with them and Denmark?

It may be that some people are tired of hearing about Denmark and the fallout from the Great Cartoon Crisis. Readers who have an opinion should feel free to vent it in the comments.

But Danish reader (and translator) kepiblanc, in the comments to last night’s post, seems a little nervous about all the attention that Denmark has been getting in this space:

Lately I feel that Danish affairs are being a little over-exposed here, but — on the other hand — I’m pretty sure we are at the front line in this war and — maybe — “last nation standing”.

Denmark is not so much the “last nation standing” in Europe as the only one fighting back. It can’t even claim the role of “canary in the coal mine”, since it has steadfastly refused to keel over and die the face of the Islamists’ demands.

In fact, if you read the rest of kepiblanc’s comment, you’ll find very interesting news about a poll of Danish opinion concerning Islam. See if you’re surprised by the results.

In any case, we’ll continue reporting the news from Denmark, as long as we keep receiving material from kepiblanc, Zonka, Exile, Rune, and anyone else who can turn Danish into English.

Denmark represents our future. Or, to be more precise, it represents one of two possible futures. The other future, the one represented by Sweden and France, is the path of surrender, passivity, and fatalism. It is the path of cowardice and dhimmitude.

Anyone who thinks that the issue of radical Islam is overblown, who thinks that it is a scare tactic or a fantasy dreamed up by Islamophobes and neocons, should consider the following fact: A minister in the Danish government has publicly admitted that he censors himself because he fears violent retribution from Muslims.

Do you think he’s deluded? Or a fool? Or a hysteric? Or is he close enough to Ground Zero in Eurabia to know what’s really going on?

The significance of this event cannot be overstated: Bertel Haarder believes that the government of Denmark — the same government of which he is a member — cannot protect him from people who would kill him because of what he says. He believes that the police, the laws, and the courts of the sovereign democratic state of Denmark are of no use, and are unable to defend him from his country’s enemies.

And all this is happening because Denmark is fighting back against political correctness, multiculturalism, and Islamic fascism.

The alternative is to be, like Sweden, a whole nation full of Bertel Haarders, to be voluntarily enslaved by multicultural cant, and thus in thrall to Islam.

The choice can’t be any clearer than that: those are the two doors, and we must walk through one of them.

Which one will we choose?


Reader Zonka has translated this editorial from Ekstra Bladet, June 12, 2006:

Bertel Haarder (Venstre) told Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten, yesterday that he has changed his behavior:

Bertel Haarder“We have all learned from the Mohammed Crisis so that we now exercise self-censorship, or at least think carefully before making any statements. There are things that I would have said previously, which I’m not going to say today. I believe that this is true for all of us!”

One must reach the conclusion that the Minister of Education and Church previously didn’t think carefully before making a statement, but he does now, and nobody can oppose that.

Bertel Haarder’s reason for limiting his statements of opinion is, on the other hand, hair-raising.

He believes the same things as before. He just keeps them to himself. Not because of the feelings of religious people. Not out of respect for other people’s beliefs.

The minister of education in Denmark has put a gag on himself, because he doesn’t want to expose himself to threats from rabid Muslims. He would rather not have to live under police protection, as several of his colleagues from Parliament have to.

Most people can empathize with Bertel Haarder’s feelings. Police protection is a daily reminder of one’s own vulnerability, and the worries of the minister don’t arise out of thin air, either. Ekstra Bladet revealed a little under a month ago that the Association of Islamic Belief (Det Islamiske Trossamfund) has a hate list, at the top of which Bertel Haarder’s name can be found.

Now the Muslim extremists can chalk up another victory: the threats are working.

Bertel Haarder underscores the fact that, of course, he still holds steadfast, when it’s about important issues. But that is to no avail.

Freedom of speech in its nature is the same freedom to offend. So far nobody has yet been punished for talking about the weather.

The right to free speech is the quintessential right of freedom, and it is not given by nature. We can only defend it by using it. We can choose to keep our opinions to ourselves not to hurt others unnecessarily, but if it’s done out of fear against threats, then we have abandoned the fight.

A lot of people have been busy declaring that the freedom of speech in Denmark isn’t threatened. This is a lie. Nobody binds our mouth or our hands, this is true, but it’s not necessary either if we do it ourselves.

Bertel Haarder has capitulated, and according to him he is not alone. Which is both sad and scary.

Remember: Denmark is the least Islamized of the European countries with large Muslim minorities. Denmark has so far resisted mightily the incursions of Eurabia. Its Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, refused to give in to Islamist demands, and will not be mau-maued into dhimmitude.

But, as Wilfred Owen said, Courage leaked, as sand/From the best sandbags after years of rain. Drip by drip, the violence and threats of violence have their effect. The murder of a filmmaker here. The capitulation of the Minister of Education there.

Our freedoms will not be taken from us: we shall relinquish them voluntarily.

What’s happening in Denmark may not come to America until next year, or next decade. It may take a generation. But make no mistake: it will get here.

We have been warned.

The Motoons: Unintended Consequences

The Muslim boycott on Danish products seems to have backfired. According to this DR Nyheder/Inland article (kindly translated by from the Danish by commenter kepiblanc):

Buy Danish or Else!The Mohammed Cartoon affair has become a trade advantage for Denmark

The turbulence in the wake of the publication of the Mohammed cartoons did not harm Denmark’s exports — probably quite the opposite, says Joergen Tulstrup, senior researcher at the Danish Institute for Economic Analysis.

The relatively insignificant setback noticed in trade from Arabic countries is by far outweighed by our reputation in important markets around the world, Joergen Tulstrup writes in Today — The Danish Industy’s Daily.

That fact is reflected in the high expectations for growing employment in the industry — higher than at any previous time during the past four years, the analysis shows.

That doesn’t mean we can relax our vigilance, folks. Keep stuffing your faces with Havarti and Danish ham, and washing it down with Carlsberg.

I know it’s tough, but there’s a war on.

Update: Commenter Zonka supplies this link to a pdf document, in English, of the full report.

Mohammed Book Banned in Danish School Libraries

Allah go Boom!In the cast of characters from the Danish Motoon controversy, the name Kåre Bluitgen is not as well known as that of Kurt Westergaard (one of the cartoonists), Flemming Rose (editor of the newspaper Jyllands-Posten, which published the cartoons), or Anders Fogh Rasmussen (the Danish prime minister, who displayed a spine of tempered steel in the face of Islamist threats). But Mr. Bluitgen is the man who started it all.

He had written a children’s book about the life of Mohammed, and was having trouble finding an illustrator for it. Danish artists were mindful of Theo Van Gogh and Salman Rushdie, and were reluctant to touch Islam with a ten-foot pole.

And with good reason. Jyllands-Posten solicited cartoons of Mohammed from Danish artists, and published twelve by artists willing to participate. The resulting violence has left a number of people dead, and forced the cartoonists into hiding.

Well, somehow Mr. Bluitgen found an illustrator, and his book was eventually published. Unfortunately, not all Danish schoolchildren will be able to read it. According to last Thursday’s Ekstra Bladet (kindly translated by reader Zonka):

Several school libraries will not let the students borrow the most talked-about book this year — Kåre Bluitgen’s The Qu’ran and the Life of the Prophet Muhammed (Koranen og profeten Muhammeds liv).

The Danish daily Kristeligt Dagblad today reports that several Danish school libraries are keeping Kåre Bluitgen’s book about Mohammed off the shelves and away from the school kids.

Kåre BluitgenThe book that inspired Jyllands-Posten to print the Mohammed cartoons has sold more than 7000 copies since it was printed in January, and has had good reviews, even in the school libraries’ own newsletter, which described it as “a gift to all school libraries both for Muslim children and the rest of us”.

Still, many school libraries are hesitating to put the book on the shelves, and in other places it is kept away entirely. At the school “Parkskolen” in Struer, where the book has been bought, it is only for the teachers’ library, says Kristeligt Dagblad.

Not Censorship

“It is not because of the Mohammed controversy, or that we want to exercise censorship, but it is a very violent book, and if it is read without conversation with an adult, it will give a wrong impression of Islam, not the least the Muslims’ view on other religions. Therefore we have chosen to let the book be for the teachers, who then can use parts of it in the classes.” says school librarian Søren Langkjær, who hasn’t chosen to leave the Bible off the shelves!

“Yes, the Old Testament contains a lot of tough stories as well, but I don’t think that it will be read as an image of the religion in the same way as it would in the Mohammed Book.” says Søren Langkjær.

Hellig Kors Skolen on Nørrebro in Copenhagen has not yet bought the book, and don’t expect to make it available for the school’s students either, where 80% are immigrants.

Kåre Bluitgen himself, finds it hard to understand the libraries.

“If there is anything wrong with the book it is rather that it is not critical enough about Mohammed, since I have only used the traditional Muslim sources. And when you see that the libraries have no problem with the Bible, it seems like a misplaced consideration for Islam.” says Kåre Bluitgen.

Make a note of this explanation: It is not because of the Mohammed controversy, or that we want to exercise censorship, but it is a very violent book.

But how could that be true, when it is based on the scriptures of the Religion of Peace?

Déjà Jenin All Over Again?

Update (thanks to linearthinker, in the comments) : Intuition in this instance simply meant knowing the evil mind of Hamas. They kill children, they shoot innocent people in the back and blame the Israelis. Hamas’ version of honor and courage is a twelve year-old suicide martyr.

Hamas’ moral universe is so far from ours that they might as well be living on Mars. Unfortunately, they inhabit Earth with the rest of us, and they work tirelessly to bring everyone down into the sinkhole where they reside.

It won’t work anymore; this is a massacre too far this time. Too far, too transparent, and too obviously covered with Hamas fingerprints, right down to removing the evidence from Gaza Beach and refusing to cooperate in an open investigation.

Here’s the news from Israel:

An Israel Defense Forces intelligence officer has confirmed that the explosion that killed eight Palestinians on Friday, was caused by a stockpile of Hamas explosives.

“Shortly after we stopped defensive firing at Hamas rocket launch pads which were deployed behind Palestinian human shields, members of Hamas scrambled to fire more rockets at our positions,” said Col. M. “We have eyes on every meter of Gaza, from the sky, from the ground and from the sea. One of their rocket tripods collapsed inadvertently setting off an explosion of a stockpile of Qassam rockets. The Palestinians killed their own children. And this was not the first time.”

Hamas terrorists fired rockets and mortar bombs from a crowded Gaza beach at southern Israel. Some of the rockets fell near the Israel city of Ashkelon. Some 17 rockets were fired between Saturday and Sunday morning. A man at a school in the Israel town of Sderot was wounded, Israel officials said.

Israel Maj.-Gen. Yoav Galant said today that the Israel Defense Forces has additional evidence that it wasn’t Israel artillery that hit the beach in Gaza. Galant, who commands Israel’s southern command, said Israel stopped firing 15 minutes before the explosion. It’s all on secure videotape from both sides of the conflict. Israel Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said he was sorry about the deaths, which included three children.


The Israel Colonel who confirmed that a Hamas explosives stockpile killed innocent Palestine children on a Gaza beach, added: “It should be noted that the Hamas rockets which killed those kids came from Iran. For many in Palestine, Iran and Syria, those children are now merely good “martyrs” and serve as blood food for the Islam terror propaganda machine.”

It was either a deliberate sacrifice of unwitting Palestinians or it was simple incompetence in handling explosives meant for Israel. Either way, Hamas is despicable and anyone who funds them is wrong.

Giving money to Hamas means funding the death of children for the purposes of propaganda. Those who refuse to see that are willfully blind.

Gaza beachBy now everyone has seen the video about the heartless IDF shelling those harmless Palestinian victims – innocent families on the Gaza beach for a happy outing – killed by a vicious attack from the Evil Entity.

So tell me, why was there a cameraman on the beach, set up and waiting for the tragedy to happen? Was it simply fortuitous, this camera filming the horrible events?

Or is there perhaps a mole in IDF who reports to Palestine when some atrocity is about to happen? Yes, that’s it: a mole in IDF, unable to prevent the tragedy but at least able to let the Palestinian authorities know so they can warn everyone to leave the beach set up the camera in time to catch the perfidy on film.

Palestinian taqiyya is so clunky sometimes that they don’t even bother to hide the little man behind the curtain. Funny thing is, whether or not the curtain is in place, the MSM can’t see Professor Marvel back there pulling the levers. And should you remove the curtain, why, they’ll keep on claiming that their “facts” are truer than reality any day. After all, they’re the BBC (in this case), or the New York Betimes, or whichever organ of dissembling is extruding their news of the moment.

The IDF, unfortunately, does sound like the Bush administration sometimes when it responds to these taqiyya moments. One wishes for some direct talk here, not apologies, or scratching their heads and pretending to puzzle over how such a thing could have happened. Come on, folks, pull the curtain back. A great many of us are willing to look.

Over at The History News Network, they have several developments on the story, including the fact that – surprise! – the PA is refusing to cooperate in the investigation. No time, place, or details are being given out to aid in the inquiry. However, there is lots of hot air belching forth about the “earthquake” they’re going to give Israel in return for this incident.

In our brief vale of tears, the unremitting, over-the-top Palestinian taqiyya rhetoric is about as close as we come to glimpsing the eternal.

Hat tip: At Level Ground: Life and Times in Israel

Hitler’s Underworld

Führerbunker floor planFor the first time ever, Adolf Hitler’s underground hideaway, the infamous Führerbunker, is to be marked with a historical sign.

Construction of the Führerbunker, which was located beneath the garden of the Reichskanzlei (Reichschancellery) in Berlin, was completed in 1939, and the structure remained intact throughout the war.

According to the AP story:

The bunker’s buried ruins lie below a parking lot, playground and adjacent apartment building. The Berlin Underworlds Association unveiled its new marker — a sign bearing graphics, photos and a chronology of events in both German and English — at the edge of a sidewalk alongside the tree-dotted parking lot.

Former SS Staff Sgt. Rochus Misch“This is one of the most symbolic places in Berlin for the crimes the Nazis committed, and we want to make sure people know the whole truth about it,” said Sven Felix Kellerhoff, an expert who works with the private group and wrote the book “The Fuehrer Bunker: Hitler’s Last Refuge.”

Former SS Staff Sgt. Rochus Misch, a Hitler bodyguard throughout the war, attended the unveiling and recalled his experiences.

“During the last 12 days of the war, I was down here with Hitler and the other bodyguards all the time,” said Misch, 88, pointing to the place where Hitler killed himself on April 30, 1945, as Soviet troops closed in.

Hitler with his dog Blondi in the Reichskanzlei gardenHitler’s last days at the end of April 1945 were confined to the bunker and the garden above it. During that time he alternated between fatalistic depression and manic raving, ordering counter-attacks by armies that did not exist and screaming at his staff.

After Göring and Himmler abandoned him, and with the Soviets just a few blocks away, Hitler realized that the game was up at last. After testing a cyanide capsule on his favorite dog, Blondi, he retired to his quarters, gave a cyanide capsule to Eva Braun, and then shot himself in the head.

Führerbunker entrance with exhaust shaft towerHearing the shot, Göbbels and the others entered Hitler’s chambers and found him dead. They carried his body and Eva’s up to the garden, doused them with gasoline, and burned them thoroughly, burying the remains.

Göbbels and his wife killed each of their six children with cyanide, and then went up to the garden and ordered the guards to shoot them both in the back of the head. After this had been done, their bodies were also doused with gasoline and set on fire. In this case, however, the corpses were not fully incinerated, and were left lying on the ground in the garden.

The remaining staff and soldiers were left to make their way out of Berlin as best they could, in order to escape the approaching Soviet troops.

As a macabre postscript, when the Russians discovered Göbbels’ half-burned corpse, they took a close-up photo of it to use for propaganda purposes after the war.

But now back to the present:

Berlin officials had been hesitant about pointing out the location because they feared that neo-Nazis could turn the site into a place of pilgrimage.

But Kellerhoff said city guides often stop at the site of the bunker and tell tourists myths about it, and that it was important to make the truth known. One of the incorrect stories claims that the bunker had 12 floors and an underground highway that Hitler used to cruise the city underground.

“That’s all complete nonsense,” said Kellerhoff, explaining that the bunker built in 1935 contained several rooms and was fortified by walls nearly 14 feet thick.

Sgt. Misch does not agree with those who would suppress public recognition of the location of the bunker:

“History can be good or bad, but even if it’s about a devil, people must be informed of history,” he said.

I’m with Sgt. Misch: we all need to be informed of history.

But what about the history of the bunker itself? What happened after 1945?

The story of the Führerbunker is fascinating. Much can be gleaned from the Berlin Underworld site, although only part of the site is in English, and you will have to pick your way through the German part to read about the bunker. There are, however, many fascinating photos.

Führerbunker interior, after Soviet despoilingFirst of all, Soviet troops went through the place, removing everything that could be at all useful (even the commode) and vandalizing what was left. In 1947, just before the Russians blew the bunker up, an East German newspaper reporter descended the steps into the fetid darkness and waded through a foot of oily, scummy water to see what was there. He found trash, broken furniture, missing doors, and graffiti in Russian scrawled across the walls.

And that was it for the Führerbunker. The Russians blew it up and filled in the hole. Many years later, in the 1960s, The East Germans needed a firm fill under the area to build a parking lot, so they partially excavated it to compact the rubble and fill it again, and then paved over the area.

The last time any portion of the Führerbunker saw the light of day was in the 1980s, when the apartments now visible on the site were built. Once again, in order to ensure a compact fill, the forward section of the bunker was excavated, filled, and then covered with dirt.

So now, when you look at those grassy areas, the parking lot, and the apartments, imagine that fifty feet below is the 4.2 meter thick steel reinforced concrete foundation plate, and maybe the stumps of some of the walls. That’s all there is left.

Assuming that Germany somehow staves off the arrival of Eurabia, I expect that in a hundred years or so the Führerbunker will be accorded the same treatment as the McClean House in Appomattox, where General Lee surrendered to General Grant. The site will be carefully excavated to the foundation plate, and then the bunker will be lovingly rebuilt exactly according Speer’s original plans. Period furniture will be brought in or re-created, all the fixtures installed, and audio-animatrons (or holograms) of Hitler and his mistress and his dog will be set in place to entertain tourists.

And if Eurabia comes, the project might start even sooner, with a much more celebratory atmosphere.

An Apocryphal Note

When Soviet troops arrived at the garden of the Reichskanzlei in May of 1945, there was a thorough forensic examination of all the remains and the bunker itself. After the war the Soviet Union kept its findings secret because… well, because they were the Soviets and that’s the way they did things.

The Soviet reticence helped fuel all the rumors about Hitler’s purported escape from Berlin and his relocation to Argentina, along with some of the other top Nazis.

But in 1968, for some reason, the Russians released part of their Führerbunker archives to the public. I was in England at the time, and remember reading about them in the (London) Sunday Times Magazine. There were pictures of the bunker and the garden, and photocopies of the autopsies of Hitler and Eva Braun.

One of the strange things in the report was the disclosure that Soviet pathologists had discovered from Hitler’s charred corpse that the late dictator possessed only one testicle, thus proving that all those British enlisted men had somehow known the truth when they sang (to the tune of “Colonel Bogie”):

Hitler has only got one ball!
Göring has two, but they are small,
Himmler has something similar,
And Göbbels has no balls at all!

As I say, this is quite apocryphal. Not only am I going by a 38-year-old memory, it was Soviet information, after all. If anyone has any corroboration or refutation of this little historical factoid, please put in a comment.

Hat tip: Non Imprimatur.

Remember the Cole

USS ColeRemember the Maine!

But do you remember the Cole?

Most of our readers probably do remember the USS Cole, which was badly damaged in a terrorist attack on Columbus Day of 2000, when the ship was refueling in Yemen during the prodromal stage of the current war. Seventeen sailors were killed in the explosion.

Yesterday the USS Cole set sail again for the Middle East for the first time since then, and every time the crewmembers gather for a meal, they remember their fallen predecessors:

USS ColeEvery day the sailors aboard the Cole walk across a reminder of the attack that made the destroyer the most famous ship in the U.S. Navy fleet.

The floor in the corridor leading to the dining area has 17 gold stars — one for each sailor killed when terrorists bombed the Cole as it was refueling in Yemen’s port of Aden on Oct. 12, 2000.

None of the current crew was there on that fateful day, but they are well aware of what happened, and of the dangers facing their ship in the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf:

Sailors in the current crew of 320 — including many who asked to be assigned to the Cole — say they’re unafraid to deploy to that region.

“You’re looking over your shoulder, maybe a little nervous pulling into ports and stuff like that,” Chief Robin Guy said Tuesday on the ship, docked at Norfolk Naval Station.

“But I think right now throughout the world we have to be like that on any of our ships,” said Guy, 35, of Virginia Beach. “That threat is there, whether you’re here or overseas.”


Former Cole crew member Master Chief Paul Abney, who lost friends when the guided missile destroyer was bombed, said it’s the right thing for the ship to return to the Middle East.

“It sends a message in and of itself that we can be hurt but not broken,” Abney, 49, said in a phone interview Tuesday.

Abney said he considers himself blessed because he only suffered a black eye in the attack and inhaled smoke. He left the Cole in February 2001 and now is stationed at a command in Norfolk.

The dedication of the Cole’s current crew is impressive:

Command Master Chief Pat Reynolds, 44, of Lubbock, Texas, has been in the Navy for 25 years but has been aboard the Cole for only three weeks. He requested duty on the Cole in part because he was impressed with the crew’s ability to come together to save the ship.

“The ship is metal. It’s the living, breathing crew that makes it special,” he said, adding that he has no doubt every member of the current crew would perform as well if something should happen to the ship.

Reynolds said he can’t wait to deploy to protect U.S. interests and show “the world we’re professional and that we mean business.”

As the confrontation with Iran heats up, the Cole’s presence in the Middle East is likely to be more than symbolic. Best keep the ship and its crew in your prayers.

USS Cole MemorialIf you need help remembering, visit the Cole Memorial website.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

And while you’re remembering the Cole, it’s important to remember a few other things:

  • The Clinton administration response to the Cole bombing was… essentially nothing. Send the FBI, collect some evidence, and pressure Yemen to co-operate.
  • When the Iranian revolutionaries overran the American embassy in Tehran in 1979 and seized American citizens as hostages, the Carter administration response was… essentially nothing. Freeze Iranian assets. One botched rescue attempt. Twenty-seven years of unremitting bellicose behavior on the part of the mullahs.
  • When Hezbollah blew up the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, killing 241 American servicemen, the Reagan administration response was… to withdraw the Marines from Lebanon.
  • When U.S. Army Rangers were ambushed and eighteen were killed in Mogadishu in 1993, the Clinton administration response was… to withdraw from Somalia.
  • When Islamic terrorists bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, killing six people, the Clinton administration response was… to treat it as a domestic law enforcement matter, initiating a protracted criminal proceeding and essentially ignoring the potential connections with Saddam Hussein’s intelligence services.
  • When terrorists bombed the Khobar Towers complex in Saudi Arabia in 1996, killing nineteen U.S. Air Force personnel, the Clinton administration response was… to let the Saudis control the investigation and dispense justice, pleading with them to throw the FBI some crumbs of information.
  • When the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Al Qaeda in 1998, killing hundreds of people, the Clinton administration response was… to bomb an aspirin factory in Sudan and an empty terrorist camp in Afghanistan.

After 9-11 everything changed, right? We overthrew the Taliban, invaded Iraq, captured Saddam Hussein, and killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Yes, but…

  • When the Palestinians elected members of Hamas — which is among the most vicious and ruthless terrorist groups in the world — the Bush administration response was… to give some more money to the Palestinians and beg them to play nice this time.
  • When Islamists organized carefully staged riots and violence to protest the Danish Mohammed cartoons, the Bush administration response was… to say that the Danes were out of line when they published the cartoons.
  • When the Iranians deliberately and publicly demonstrated their intention to obtain nuclear weapons, the Bush administration response was… to offer the Iranians nuclear technology, attempt to engage them in talks, and beg them to abide by previously-signed treaties.

You’d think we’d have learned by now, but apparently we haven’t.

Although we all wish it were otherwise, the fact remains that our displays of weakness — doing little or nothing in the face of terrorist atrocities, or withdrawing when attacked, or equivocating in the face of threats, or obsequiously offering inducements when threatened with violence — only generate more violence against us.

Until we reclaim our martial virtues, we can only expect more of the same. We would do well to emulate General William T. Sherman:

My aim, then, was to whip the [enemy], to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.

Remember the Cole!

Hat tip: Reader TJP.

We Educate Terrorists

Always On Watch has a post on the members of Hamas who have been educated in the halls of higher learning in the United States. The list is enough to make you xenophobic, angry, and fed-up with the administrators of what passes for our system of higher education. American taxpayers helped fund the “education” of these moral cretins – at least the part that Saudi Arabia’s deep pockets didn’t take care of.

Commencement, DSU 1970Go see the post, and let’s talk about why all the trillions of dollars in oil money aren’t being spent on free universities in the Middle East so that its citizens can come out of the Middle Ages. Let’s have them do it over there where they can murder one another over there.

But who, even the devotees of Hamas, wants to go to a school where the best you can do is a major in the minutiae of Islamic Studies? When you’re done, no doubt you can count the devils on the head of a pin, but what else can that kind of academic focus prepare one to do? Nope, in order to take over the world you need a technical, Western education.

Don’t you wonder how many of those ammonium-nitrate wielding Canadians went to Canada’s colleges? That is, in addition to their vocational training in Pakistan, de rigueur for any self-respecting terrorist scumbag.

One can only hope that our domestic intelligence bureau has the names of every single Middle Eastern student in its files — not to mention the reactive, offensive-and-easily-offended Muslim student groups on our college campuses.

I haven’t checked, but I’d be willing to bet that there’s a correlation between the number of Muslim activists in a given college (or the amount of Saudi money flowing into the college’s coffers) and the level of free speech operating there. Islamic money and free speech are not willing bedfellows. Just ask ex-Professor Klocek, formerly of DePaul University.

CNN Reaches for the Clue Bag

Abu Musab al-ZarqawiI assume that by now everyone has heard about the glorious martyrdom of that renowned freedom fighter and beheader of infidels, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

What caught my eye this morning was the usual cluelessness (or disingenuousness) of CNN:

A Web site used by Al Qaeda in Iraq confirmed al-Zarqawi’s death and urged its followers to continue the insurgent fight.

Another Web site used by the group issued a statement: “People of Islam, God will not let our enemies celebrate and spread corruption in the ground. Expect the right that was stolen to come back to us and destroy the Crusaders” — an apparent reference to U.S. troops in Iraq.

Ya think?

Comrades, Let’s Dance!

Soviet dancingThe EU Observer reports that gala festivities are planned for the European Union’s 50th birthday next year.

One can be forgiven for picturing a parade of missiles and soldiers marching past a reviewing stand in downtown Brussels, with beefy apparatchiks watching in stolid approval.

Of course, since the EU’s military capability is all but non-existent, the parade would be over blissfully soon, and we could all adjourn to the nearby cafés and drink state-regulated alcoholic products served by barmaids with statutorily restricted décolletage.

Actually, what the authorities are planning is more like a post-modern pop festival, a bread-and-circuses approach to the daunting task of winning back popular approval of the EU:

The celebrations are part of Brussels’ drive to win the public’s sympathy after French and Dutch citizens voted down the EU constitution last year, according to Reuters.

“We have big plans to make the EU more punter-friendly,” one EU official told the agency.

“Punter-friendly”, eh? That’s an interesting choice of word. Instead of the toiling workers of yesteryear, we’ve got punters.

“Punter”, as you may know, is British slang, and means “customer or client, especially of either a bookmaker or a prostitute.” Is that really what the EU means to evoke as the image of a citizen?

Or maybe the celebrants will be out on the canals, poling flat-bottomed boats…

Anyway, to continue:

The campaign begins this month with the launch of a competition to find a logo and slogan for the EU’s 50th birthday.

Back in the EUSSRWell, not to blow my own kazoo or anything, but I’ve already got a logo for you, as readers will remember from yesterday. Simple, but effective! So I’m ready to claim the prize.

As for a slogan, how about “Socialism Without a Face”?

Or maybe we should stick with something tried and true, like “The Will of the Workers is Expressed in Untiring Support of the Production Goals Set by the Party.”

The article continues:

But new member states in particular are reportedly unhappy with the song and dance contest idea.

“They feel people are being forced to dance and sing, like they were by the communists,” said one EU diplomat according to Reuters.

It’s not surprising that the Poles and the Czechs are sensitive to state-managed revelry.

The article concludes with this:

The European Commission has also recently put particular emphasis in its press briefings on issues directly affecting citizens, such as tariffs for mobile phoning abroad and a blacklist of unsafe airlines.

So these are the issues that directly affect Europe’s citizens?

  • Not the problem of how to fund their generous pension and welfare system when they only have 1.09 children per couple?
  • Not the fact that Islamic barrios in their major cities have become no-go zones for police and emergency workers?
  • Not the threat of bodily harm and death against those who speak out against the coming of Eurabia?

Nope. Cell phones and air travel. Cheese and bratwurst. These are the important things!

May I have the next dance, Tovarisch?

Hat tip: EURSOC.