Five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor languish in a Libyan prison, a sentence of death hanging over them. They’ve been there for eight years now, subject to torture and privation. The doctor’s injuries are such that even if he is ever set free, he will no longer be able to practice medicine.

This is not a new story. It has been covered widely on both sides of the blogospheric divide. Interestingly, this is one case when the liberal and conservative factions are in agreement: these people are being held on trumped-up charges, for purposes of revenge and an exactment of tribute. In fact, America has been dealing with “the shores of Tripoli” since her very beginnings. Definitely this is merely another phase of an ancient enmity. I hope to make the case that even though the country most vitally and hurtfully involved at the moment is Bulgaria, the USA figures largely in the background. Demon America.

Gates of Vienna hasn’t covered this story much. The Baron posted briefly on it back in December, and we discussed it on occasion as the various “trials” dragged through what passes for jurisprudence in the despotic nightmare Colonel Muammar al-Ghaddafi has built. Then, yesterday, a doctor in the Middle East emailed us, asking that we look at some links about what Bulgaria is doing to ease its national pain.

The website’s English portal lays out plans for a national demonstration, beginning in Sophia and centering on St. Alexander Nevsky Cathedral. Under the aegis of three leading Bulgarian MSM members, a campaign called “You Are Not Alone” will allow what has been a low-level movement to synergize. It will become something more akin to solidarity with their suffering fellow citizens, imprisoned unjustly, grossly mistreated, and so far from home. The movement has a name, a ribbon, and a national song, all bearing that same title: “You Are Not Alone” [we hope to find a clip of the music. Many of the foremost singers, across a wide spectrum of genres, have contributed performances for this. It is a recognition that music has the power to heal, to bring people together, and to provide the necessary spirit to overcome injustice].

I spent a long time looking at the various strands in this story, curious as to what had transpired to bring about the end result: those innocent nurses now condemned to death. Or at least with Damocles’ sword hanging over them. Normally I avoid in-depth reports on such events. They seem too opaque, too hopeless, too full of cynical manipulation to dwell on very much. But, as the case of Nazanin in Iran proves, international pressure can be effective. Besides, the doctor’s plea to look at the story overcame my reluctance.

This is a large story with many players and it ventures into areas where Gates of Vienna has little or no expertise. However, it is my hope that our many knowledgeable readers will arrive to fill in the blanks, to modify the existing information, or to contradict what we think with verifiable fact. I will simply be presenting what I was able to find prior to the deadline for posting this story before the big demonstration in Sophia tomorrow (February 9th).
– – – – – – – – – –
First of all, the story needs some context. We are sure of certain conclusions; some of our surmises are based on partial information. And in the end there is more than one villain – i.e., not just Colonel Muammar al-Ghaddafi – and at least a few cynical operators. When we finish, there will be unanswered questions. I hope they spur all of us on to find some practical solutions.

Let’s go back twenty two years to 1985. That’s when Libya was accused of sponsoring the attacks on the airports in Rome and Vienna. As you can see, the Colonel and his cronies have been at this a long time. They’re good at it. From there, we can follow the trail of events that enmeshed six medical personnel in a hellhole thirteen years later:

1986: In March, the US decided to “send a message to Libya re its support of international terrorism.” To do so, a carrier task force was ordered into international waters in the Gulf of Sidra. Though it did not violate the twelve-mile limit of international maritime law regarding sovereign boundaries (the Gulf of Sidra extends far out into international waters), the expected aggressive response from Libya was forthcoming. In the end, Libya’s radar systems and her missile attack boats were destroyed.

Three weeks later, in April, a disco in Berlin was bombed, killing three people and wounding two hundred. Two of the fatalities were American servicemen. The US obtained information that Libyan agents in East Germany were behind the attacks.

That same month, following President Reagan’s orders, an air strike on Libya hit five military targets (collateral damage included a French consulate which was accidentally hit during the raid).

There was sporadic biteback: two British hostages held by the Abu Nidal Group in Lebanon were hanged; an American journalist in Jerusalem was assassinated.

1987-88: Things quieted down some. The Colonel had to quell some internal mutiny — problems he blamed on the US. Who knows? Our intelligence services may well have been behind the unrest. But it was also a period in which Ghaddafi was busy increasing his arms shipments to international terrorist groups. The provisional IRA in Northern Ireland was grateful for his help.

Then came December 21, 1988 and the Pan Am Lockerbie disaster. Eventually it was seen as an attack on the USA, since 189 of the 270 dead were American citizens headed home for the Christmas holidays.

1991: Indictments for murder were issued on November 13, 1991, against Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, a Libyan intelligence officer and the head of security for Libyan Arab Airlines (LAA), and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, the LAA station manager in Luqa Airport, Malta.

1999: After protracted negotiations and UN sanctions against Libya, Ghaddafi handed over the two accused.

2001: Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was found guilty and sentenced to twenty seven years in prison. His co-defendant was acquitted and returned to Libya.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

That, briefly, is the chronology of the hostilities: Libya vs. the civilized world, and America in particular. Much detail has been omitted, but is widely available elsewhere, including the embellishment supplied by all the conspiracy theorists.

What the timeline does is establish some of Ghaddafi’s possible motives for imprisoning the Bulgarian nurses. Notice that this event took place in 1998, before he turned over al Megrahi to stand trial. And the nurses were taken fully three years before he formally accepted his financial compensation to the families of the 270 dead in the Lockerbie disaster. Even in 1998, he must have known his intelligence officer was going down for the count. Perhaps this move against the nurses was his preparation for that event.

According to the film Injection, Ghaddafi tried several other gambits before settling on the Bulgarian nurses. One Hungarian nurse was imprisoned and then let go. Some Filipina nurses were also detained and then released. Next, he took Polish nurses – one of whom “accidentally” fell six stories to her death. The rest were let go. Finally thirty-eight Bulgarian health workers were detained. Eventually, all were released except for the five nurses currently in prison, and the Palestinian doctor.

They are still there. And now their fellow citizens are rising to the occasion. The demonstrations will begin in just a few hours. Who knows what will develop from the experience, what national spirit will evolve to aid in the release of these women?

Meanwhile, there are many unanswered questions about the spread of the AIDS virus in the Children’s Hospital where they worked. Not only questions about the particularly virulent strain which infected children admitted there, but how it was transmitted so quickly and so prevalently.

We will address those issues in the next installment. There will be questions about the role of the World Health Organization in the spread of AIDS in Africa, questions about the practices of some medical supply companies that led to antitrust charges, and questions about how AIDS is really spread in African countries. Is “safe sex” enough to prevent the spread of AIDS, particularly among children?

Stay tuned.

The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.
For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.

The first time I read Bat Ye’or’s description of the Eurabian networks, I found it hard to believe that something that big could go on despite the fact that I had never heard about any of it. But then I started checking the available documents myself, and discovered that it was all true. Perhaps the greatest betrayal in modern Western history, yet largely ignored by Western media.

The EU Commission and senior European officials at the very highest levels, frequently diffused through various innocent sounding and semi-official organizations, create agreements with Arabs and then quietly implement them later as federal EU policy.

This is accomplished because tens of billions of Euros paid by European taxpayers are floating around in an EU system with very little control. Europeans are thus financing their continent’s merger with — in reality colonization by — the Arab and Islamic world without their knowledge and without their consent. If average Europeans understood the implications of what’s going on, there would be explosions of anger from tens of millions of people all over Europe, and the entire European Union would immediately disintegrate and collapse. However, most people don’t yet understand the full scale of this, since our so-called critical and independent journalists remain suspiciously quiet about the issue.

Here’s an example from Italy. Romano Prodi, Prime Minister and leader of the current left-wing Italian coalition government, is a former leader of the European Commission, the EU’s government, and has been identified by Bat Ye’or as a particularly passionate Eurabian. Upon taking office as PM last year, one of his first announcements was that he would speed up the implementation of Eurabia. Well, it looks like he’s a man of his word, as his Minister of Health is now announcing a massive transfer of knowledge and technology to Arab countries:
– – – – – – – – – –

Italy’s health minister Livia Turco on Thursday launched an intiative by Mediterranean and Middle East countries to co-operate in health care, including sharing research facilities, computer databanks and identifying best practices and excellence in service provision. “The plan is diplomacy in health care through which Italy wants to contribute to peace and development in the Mediterranean region,” Turco said speaking at an international conference in Rome to implement the project.

[…]

The project will also involve the creation of a “command room” that will co-ordinate initiatives between, national, regional and local governments in the region as well as with universities and other research and education institutions and the private sector, Turco said.

I have written previously about Romano Prodi:

Super-Eurocrat Romano Prodi wants more cooperation with Arab countries. He talks about a free trade zone with the Arab world, but this implies that Arab countries would enjoy access to the four freedoms of the EU’s inner market, which includes the free movement of people across national borders. This fact, the potentially massive implications of establishing an “inner market” with an Arab world with a booming population growth, is virtually NEVER debated or even mentioned in European media. Yet it could mean the end of Europe as we once knew it.

[…]

In June 2006, then newly elected Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi stated that:

“It’s time to look south and relaunch a new policy of cooperation for the Mediterranean.” Prodi was outlining a joint Italian-Spanish initiative which sought to provide countries facing the Mediterranean with “different” political solutions from those offered in the Euro-Mediterranean partnership. The prime minister then explained that the Barcelona Process — whose best known aspect is the creation of a free trade zone by 2010 — was no longer sufficient and a new different approach was needed. “The countries on the southern shores of the Mediterranean expect that from us” he added.

Notice how Prodi, whom Bat Ye’or has identified as a particularly passionate Eurabian, referred to what the Arabs expected from European leaders. He failed to say whether or not there was great excitement among Europeans over the prospect of an even freer flow of migrants from Arab countries and Turkey, which is what will result from this “Euro-Mediterranean free trade zone.”

Here’s an update on Tuesday’s decision by the Charlotte County Board of Supervisors to retain Sheikh Gilani Lane. Most of the material in this story from The Richmond Times-Dispatch is similar to yesterday’s WSET news story, but there are a few interesting additions.

First of all, our congressman, the Hon. Virgil H. Goode, Jr., has made his feelings on the issue very clear:

Rep. Virgil H. Goode Jr., R-5th, said in a statement that he had no vote or voice in determining the name of any road in Charlotte County, but if he did, he had an opinion.

“If I did,” Goode said in the statement, “I would vote against naming a road for Sheikh Ghilani, based upon my knowledge of Sheikh Ghilani and his background.”

The RTD also talked to Martin Mawyer:

Martin J. Mawyer, president of Christian Action Network, yesterday called the supervisors’ action “outrageous and an act that borders on cowardice.” His group says it is a nonprofit lobbying organization dedicated to protecting traditions of the American family and defending the nation against radical Islam.

But my favorite snip is this one:

In the supervisors’ discussion, a question also was raised as to whether the road sign may have referred to someone who lived in the 6th century.

This little tidbit is so rich in ignorance that it’s hard to know where to begin.
– – – – – – – – – –
The residents of a Muslims of America compound, for some reason, decided to name their road for a guy who lived a hundred years before Islam began?

The organization known as “The Muslims of America” was founded in New York in 1980 by Sheikh Syed Mubarik Ali Shah Gilani. The Jamaat ul-Fuqra compound in Red House has a prominent sign at its entrance that reads, “The Muslims of America”. Yet there’s no connection between between MOA’s Sheikh Gilani and the name on the road sign, right?

Does the Board of Supervisors also have some prime Florida swampland that it wants to sell us?

If you’re new to this issue, start with my first JF post and follow the links to the sources. Or look down our left sidebar to find links to more Jamaat ul-Fuqra stories. Or visit CP’s place and look through his archives; he has more data on Sheikh Gilani, the Muslims of America, and Jamaat ul-Fuqra than anyone else on the web — and maybe more than the FBI.

The amount of information available about the nefarious activities of Sheikh Gilani is extensive and still growing. After you read it, see if you think that the Red House compound is just a retreat for peaceful religious believers.

See if you think that Sheikh Gilani deserves to be recognized by the Commonwealth of Virginia with an official road sign bearing his name.

It’s official. Charlotte County, Virginia wants to keep Sheikh Gilani Lane.

The Board of Supervisors voted last night to retain the infamous road sign at the entrance to the Jamaat ul-Fuqra compound in Red House:

Charlotte Co., VA — The road name stays put. Sheikh Gilani Lane in Charlotte County has caused some controversy. The Justice Department says the person it’s named for is a terrorist.

The Christian Action Network and Congressman Virgil Goode have been asking the county to change the name that leads up to the Red House Muslim community. But Tuesday the board of supervisors voted unanimously to keep it as is.

The county Administrator tells us they took the vote because it has been board policy not to change road names for anybody.

The issue wasn’t on the agenda , but the Christian Action Network forced the supervisors’ hands by announcing plans to hold a demonstration against the road sign at Charlotte County Courthouse on February 20th.

I talked to Martin Mawyer, the President of Christian Action Network, on the phone tonight. He says that the supervisors’ decision was no surprise to him.

“They heard the demonstration was coming, and they just wanted the problem to go away,” he told me. “They wanted to get it over with.”

The supervisors are in a difficult position. They have to live with the Red House compound all the time — it’s not just a theoretical problem; it’s right down the road. And some Charlotte County residents are afraid.

The last time the Board of Supervisors discussed the issue was on November 21st, after the Christian Action Network made the problem public.

“I was really surprised,” said Martin. “There were about thirty guys from the Red House compound that showed up at the meeting. Big, threatening-looking guys. They wanted to make their presence known.”

And they did. At first the Board kicked the can down the road by referring the issue to their legal counsel, in case they might be violating anti-discrimination laws if they took the sign down. But Martin’s group caused them to make their decision early.

They ignored the opinion of Virgil Goode (pdf format), their own Congressman, and decided to stick with Sheikh Gilani.
– – – – – – – – – –
The supervisor whose district includes Red House is Nancy Carwile. According to an article in today’s Charlotte Gazette (not available online, alas), Ms. Carwile told her fellow supervisors that she had exhausted all the resources to be found on federal government websites, and seen nothing that indicated that the Muslims of America were anything other than a peaceful religious group pursuing their faith in a rural retreat.

She advised her colleagues not to trust websites with URLs that end in anything besides “.gov” — there are no restrictions on them; they can say anything they like, whether it’s true or not.

She said that she had heard some crazy things said — some people might want to “drop bombs”.

It’s obvious to me that Martin and his group are being set up as the “real terrorists” in this drama, the usual game plan followed by CAIR and its ilk. Sheikh Gilani’s followers are men of peace, simple religious folks who mean no harm to anybody. It’s those nasty Christians you have to watch out for, ready to impose their theocracy on America by force, if necessary.

Never mind the data that CAN has collected — Ms. Carwile has obviously not read the information on Jamaat ul-Fuqra here at Gates of Vienna, or at the Politics of CP, or at the South Asia Terrorism Portal, or at Bharat Rakshak, or at any of the other terrorism-monitoring websites.

Oh, that’s right — all those loony websites have URLs that don’t end in “.gov”. We can safely ignore them.

She must not have heard that the State Department — whose website most assuredly does end in “.gov” — declared Jamaat ul-Fuqra a terrorist organization back in 2000. But, then again, she’s not the type of person to let facts stand in the way of her opinion.

She’s the supervisor who approved the “Sheikh Gilani Lane” sign in the first place, so she’s got a lot at stake here.

But Martin Mawyer is sanguine about all the brouhaha.

“We’re going ahead with the demonstration on the 20th,” he said. “It’s even more important now.”

Charles Martel, who runs a website called Laughyourheadoff.org, sent me an email this morning.

Dear Baron,

Laughyourheadoff.org is announcing today the winners of the first International Islamic Cartoon Contest. It comes on the day a French magazine is going on trial for publishing cartoons.It just so happens that our winning entry is from Denmark!

Once the Jihadi Internet brigades see our winning pictures, they will take our site down: PLEASE post these three winning pictures on your blog or website and consider publishing the press release for the event. We are hoping the MSM does not censor or news this time, and you can help make sure the public sees these winners.

We are fighting for the survival of our civilization, and art plays its part!

Thank you,
Charles Martel

I won’t post all of the winning entries here; otherwise, what reason would anyone have for visiting Laughyourheadoff.org?

The Danish entry, which won in the “Clintonian Category”, is quite amusing. My personal favorite is “MOshroom”, shown at right. It was the winner in the “Satanic Category”.

Charles Martel (who uses a pseudonym because of ongoing death threats by Islamists) is also running a poetry contest, the Asma b’Marwan Poetry Prize: “A Call To Poets Supporting Free Speech”.

We’re launching this literary contest to bring attention to the plight of Danish cartoonists who live in hiding for fear for their lives because they exercised their freedom of expression, and we’re calling for poets and artists to speak out for intellectual freedom.

Most people don’t realize that Mohammed ordered the murder of a poet who poked fun at him and then sanctioned the stabbing of Asma b’Marwan because she dared to criticize such crimes with her own poetry.

Just like Mohammed praised the assassin who butchered Asma one night while her 5 children watched, there are fanatical Muslims who agree with the call for death against the 12 Danish cartoonist because of so-called “blasphemy” against their prophet.

– – – – – – – – – –
Martel’s efforts are part of a general European response to violent Islamic intolerance.

The poetry contest follows the declaration last week of the Manifesto Against Terror, which was signed by well-known European artists and intellectuals, some of whom are also in hiding because of Islamic death threats. The Manifesto, which is gaining signers worldwide, declared:

“We reject ‘cultural relativism’, which consists in accepting that men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secular values in the name of respect for cultures and traditions. We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of ‘Islamophobia’, an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers.”

If anything, the climate and support for free speech in the defense against Jihadist propaganda and pressure in Europe and the US is worse than last year,.

Look at the bizarre and dangerous trial, starting today, brought against the French magazine Charlie Hebdo for merely printing cartoons in a free nation!

Reporters Without Borders has expressed “unconditional support” for the magazine:

By publishing the cartoons, Charlie Hebdo chose to resist the attempt to impose silence by means of threats. This is what counts. The public arena must remain free.

Swedish reader LN wrote us this morning with this news about Charlie Hebdo:

According to Danish Radio 1215 CET, on entering the court this morning Charlie Hebdo editor Philippe Val said, “If necessary I will raise heaven and hell in this case.”

BRAVO!

Some of our readers are in the habit of proclaiming that “Europe is lost”; others can see new resistance stirring within the somnolent salons of Old Europe.

We’ll continue to keep an eye on European events to see who’s right…

Think Positive!

That’s the motto that comes up from time to time in 910 Group discussions. We need a proactive and positive agenda, and not just “How can we counter CAIR effectively?” or “Islam is evil!”

Whenever someone solicits suggestions for a positive meme, I answer with one word:

DENMARK.

The Danes are light-years ahead of the rest of the West when it comes to dealing with Islam, multiculturalism, mass immigration from the Third World, and all the other issues that generate PC plaque and clog the arteries of the body politic.

Everyone knows the “Swedish Model”: the perfect prototype of the Socialist state, the folkhemmet, the Home that everyone longs for, the all-encompassing cradle-to-grave welfare system, the warm and inviting Scandinavian womb.

But Sweden has morphed from a Utopia to a Dystopia in just two generations. It has become a soft totalitarian state in which dissent, rather than being silenced, is simply never voiced. The Swedish social fabric is disintegrating in the face of a sclerotic high-tax welfare state coupled with a flood of unassimilated third world immigrants, but the Swedes fastidiously avert their glance. In another generation Sweden is likely to join the ranks of failed states.

The Danes may have to dynamite the Øresund Bridge from København to Malmø in order to avoid infection by the Swedish Disease. But I’m sure they’ll do whatever is necessary…

So let’s look at the “Danish Model” instead.

Queen Margrethe has written a book in which she demands that immigrants to Denmark assimilate. She insists that Danish cultural values are important, and that newcomers must adopt them if they want to become Danes.

The Danish system of jurisprudence now charges and convicts the entire family of anyone who commits an “honor killing”. The extended family of a wayward Muslim girl usually selects a teenage boy to carry out the deed, precisely because minors are treated relatively lightly by the Danish courts. Now the boy’s father, mother, uncles, and brothers face hard prison time for his violent act. This revolutionary method is timely, effective, and appropriate — and hell will freeze over before the same practice is adopted in Britain or the United States.

The Danes have tightened immigration rules so that the flood of illiterate Muslims from the Middle East and Africa has been reduced to a trickle. Some Islamic radicals are being deported, and others are leaving voluntarily in order to escape the newly unfavorable climate in their adopted home. At the same time, the number of well-educated and hard-working immigrants arriving in Denmark has increased — and, needless to say, most of these productive newcomers are not Muslims.

And now consider the story of Karen Jespersen. Zonka tells her story:

Karen Jespersen started out in Women’s Liberation, then joined Venstresocialisterne (hardcore socialists), then later joined the Social Democrats, where she became first Minister of Social Affairs from 1993 until 2000, and then Minister of the Interior for a year until the fall of the Social Democratic government.

So Ms. Jespersen is your common-or-garden European socialist, ready to run your life and take your cash, right?

Well, not quite:
– – – – – – – – – –

In the last couple of years she came under intense fire from the left-leaning faction of the Social Democrats for being a heartless hardliner, because she tried to stem the tide of the very open immigration policy, and for trying to impose strict measures against criminal immigrants, earning her the nickname “Island-Karen”, because she suggested that criminal immigrants be isolated on an uninhabited island.

Oh-oh. That’s doubleplusungood behavior, to speak ill of immigrants!

But it gets worse — in the end she realized:

that the Social Democrats could not be trusted to keep a strict immigration policy, despite their word to the contrary… So it came as no surprise that she left first the parliament, and then finally in October 2006, resigned from the party, having abandoned all hope that the Social Democrats could be trusted on the immigration issue should they regain power after the next election. Today it was announced that she has joined Venstre…

Venstre is the party of the current Danish government. It is the party of Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Prime Minister, that is, the man who stood up to the rampaging Muslims during last year’s Motoon crisis. Ms. Jespersen has recently announced her support for the Prime Minister.

As a rough equivalent, imagine that Nancy Pelosi spoke out against radical Islam and open borders, quit the Democrats, joined the Republicans, and announced her support of George W. Bush.

Yes, I know. It burns out all your cyber-circuits when you try to think about it, doesn’t it?

It definitely can’t happen here.

Ms. Jespersen, in collaboration with her husband, Ralf Pittelkow, has written a book entitled Islamists and Naïvists. According to an article in The International Herald Tribune from last September:

“Islamists and Naivists,” by Karen Jespersen and Ralf Pittelkow, …is causing a sensation in Denmark — in part because the authors are establishment figures previously known for their progressive attitudes toward Islam and integration.

The book is also gaining notice because Denmark, a country celebrated for its fairy tales, is on the front line of the culture wars between Islam and the West following publication in a Danish newspaper late last year of cartoons lampooning the Prophet Muhammad.

The book’s main argument is that Europeans who ignore the threat posed by Islamists belong to a new and dangerous tribe of “naivists,” a term coined by the authors. This may not sound so radical at a time when the pope has upset the Islamic world by quoting a medieval passage calling Islam “evil and inhuman” and when Islamic terrorist plots have put Europe on edge.

But the book also equates Islamic fundamentalists with Nazis and Communists — a provocative stand on the heels of the cartoon crisis, which strengthened a backlash against immigrants that was already brewing here.

Remember: George W. Bush caved into Saudi pressure and retracted the term “Islamofascist” as a description of the enemy we face. But in Denmark the Socialists are proclaiming it.

“The threat is that the Islamists and their values are gaining ground in Europe, especially among the younger generation,” [Pittelkow] said in an interview. “They try to interfere in people’s lives, telling them what to wear, what to eat, what to think and what to believe. They warn Muslims to create their own societies within Europe or risk disappearing like salt in water.”

Muslim leaders here have denounced the book, accusing Pittelkow and Jespersen of giving Muslim-bashing a respectable face in Denmark, a country that views itself as a tolerant and open society.

Well, then, you know they must be doing something right.

Pittelkow says that Denmark’s cherished openness is under attack by Islamists due to a clash of values epitomized by the cartoons. He argues that Islamic radicalism nearly triumphed during the crisis because many editors and political figures in Denmark and elsewhere accepted Islamic arguments that publishing the caricatures was an affront to Islam, turning their backs on free speech.

“The mixture of political correctness and fear all too often leads to compliance with Islamism,” Pittelkow writes in the book. “The fatal mistake of the naivists was to cave into demands for Islamic-style censorship.”

All across the rest of Europe governments are caving in and engaging in PC self-censorship to appease their angry imams. But not in Denmark.

And here’s the punch line:

“Denmark and the rest of Europe need to integrate their existing Muslim communities,” Pittelkow said. “Multiculturalism has gone too far.”

Multiculturalism has gone too far. Amen, Brother!

The Danes have successfully bridged the gap between Left and Right on the issue of Islam. They’re by no means unanimous, but a general agreement is developing across the broad center of Danish society about what needs to be done.

The Danish model is a simple one; it’s not hard to understand. Yet no other Western country seems to be anywhere close to adopting it. Why?

The Danes are a lot like Americans or Britons. They are open-minded, tolerant, and revere freedom of speech. They value the rule of law and cherish their traditional institutions. Above all, they have a great sense of humor.

Yet we’re more likely to re-establish public flogging than we are to take up the Danish model.

If I ever figure out the reason for the chasm between Denmark and the rest of us, I might be well on the way to finding an effective strategy for the Counterjihad.

Something is rotten everywhere but in Denmark.

The hat tip for this topic goes to Zonka, and to Steen for the IHT article. As far as I know, none of the photos was taken by Steen, but if I’m wrong, I’m sure he’ll tell me.

I stole this little image from Quid Nimis. I don’t know where she got it, but I really like it. She has a slightly larger version on her sidebar, but it’s not a hotlink to anything.

I’ll go on record as a staunch supporter of Visibility for Babes Equality for Women.

Update: Tom Pechinski has identified the source for this delightful image:

Dear Baron — here’s the source for the pic ‘ burqa free zone’ [Amsterdam blogger Arjan Dasselaar]

See Tim Blair, Burqa Queen.

[Nothing follows]

PJ Media has a strong essay introducing us to Hillary Clinton’s energy plan.

PJM provides this caveat:

According to this anonymous writer who has worked for a decade on energy and environment policy on a national and international level, Senator Clinton’s plan for energy independence means that you will “have less, make less, and do less.” Here’s how it came to be and who’s behind it.

Given that, Anonymous nonetheless has some worrying things to say about H. Rodham C. Especially since some of her purported proposals are outrageously unconstitutional: [my emphases below]

Last week ExxonMobil posted record-breaking profits. This news provoked an immediate reaction from Senator Hillary Clinton at the Democratic National Committee in Baltimore on Friday. “I want to take those profits,” Clinton said, “and put them into an alternative energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy alternatives that will actually begin to move us toward the direction of independence.”

Get that? Senator Clinton wants to break into a private corporation and steal their money. Her socialist gall is breath-taking.

But Anon has more — a little history, and a bit of an economics warning:

Clinton’s remarks are the first time that a nationally known Democrat has openly called for the government seizure of an industry since President Harry Truman tried to nationalize the steel industry in 1952. The U.S. Supreme Court slapped back Truman’s takeover in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. et al. v. Sawyer. (Like Senator Clinton, Truman also championed a national health-care scheme.)

While other politicians have suggested establishing an alternative energy fund, Clinton is the first to advocate funding it by taking the earnings of a publicly held American company. ExxonMobil has some eight-hundred thousand shareholders, many of whom depend on these earnings to fund their retirements.

Mrs. Clinton, of course, has a lock on her retirement scheme. There won’t be any imperial fingers dipping into her pension plan or her investments.

This woman has just proved what we already knew: she is sand-poundingly ignorant about economics and about Constitutional Law. Someone in her electoral campaign would do well to put a sock in her mouth before she becomes any clearer about her intentions.

Meanwhile, here’s a website that wants to expand the energy market into new areas without breaking the law or bringing down the stock market or rifling your pension plan:

Terra Rossa: Where Conservatives Consider a New Energy Future

Here’s an example of what they’re about:

Hats off to the CEOs of GE, DuPont, BP America, and Alcoa! Yesterday, these heavy hitters, among others, came out in favor of a market-based system to cap carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. In his post below, Tucker Eskew calls this a tipping point in the climate change debate. This is no doubt true. But it’s also a tipping point in our country’s move towards a new energy future.

New technologies created by these companies will lead to cleaner energy right away, and will also speed up the development of renewable, clean, efficient, and cost-effective sources of energy in this country. And cost is the crucial variable. As I’ve said before, the U.S. simply will not see widespread use of alternative energy sources until they are as cheap as (or at least competitive with) fossil fuels. A market-based carbon cap that is embraced by our largest companies will help move these new energy technologies forward, thus bringing ever-closer the day in which they are affordable.

– – – – – – – – – –

The world is not going to stop using fossil fuels anytime soon, nor should it. The affordable energy that oil, coal, and natural gas provide fueled the growth of the U.S. and the rest of the developed world, and will do the same in the developing world. But here in the U.S., we’re ready to take the next step. It’s up to first-world nations to develop the next generation of alternative energy, and we’re wealthy enough to afford to do it (not to mention smart enough to figure it out). This carbon cap is just the type of catalyst we need to get moving.

It’s an interesting, vital website. They are asking for your ideas and input. Be sure to visit.

Meanwhile, back at PJM, Anonymous is not done disseciting the agenda of Dictator Clinton:

Hillary Clinton, the obstructer-in-chief….and her underwriters, have contributed greatly to the abdication of a basic function of government: the obligation to manage natural resources in a way beneficial to its citizens and in concert with national security.

Since the 9-11 attacks, Clinton and a sizable faction of Congress have halted every effort at energy independence through new energy production.

The environmental movement serves as the enforcer. Congressmen are targeted on local energy issues within their congressional districts. Congressmen in Massachusetts are pressured to vote against public works projects in Alaska, Congressmen in California are lobbied to vote against energy projects in the Gulf of Mexico, and so on. The process repeats itself cycle after cycle, bill after bill. The environmental movement does not lay out a cohesive national strategy or make any attempt to balance competing goods such as environmental protection and energy independence. As a reward for participating in this disjointed pandering process, Congressmen are hailed as “environmental champions.”

The Sierra Club’s support for Clinton has never wavered. [and indeed, why would it? She’s a done deal -D]The Sierra Club has lobbied against every bill aimed at increasing the amount of energy available to Americans. They are against the construction of new refineries, have consistently blocked the construction of LNG terminals, adamantly fight the development of natural gas reserves in the Gulf of Mexico, oppose the construction of nuclear power plants, and don’t want ANWR explored.

We have bountiful resources which the environmentally unhinged have successfully blocked us from using. Even 9/11 has not been enough to wake us up to take these hard-core Greens in hand. They don’t care if the economy falls in the toilet (an environmentally friendly toilet, of course) as long as the earth is not disturbed.

Hillary Clinton’s energy fantasies are a national threat. And so are her friends and their unfounded, unscientific, and fundamentally hostile ideas. If she and her ilk have their way, Hillary’s hand will be in your wallet and your pension fund in 2008. Of course, it’s for your own good. Just ask her. While you’re at it, see if you can touch her up for a loan to tide you over the recession she is determined to create.

What is it with Democrats? Why do they need to create crises? Is it in order to have something to fix? And why do they insist on applying tired, tried-but-failed poultices as “solutions” to their messes. They remind me of witch doctors, incantations and all.

Obviously, when God was handing out Chaos, the Dems weren’t paying attention and thought he said “Creative Solutions.” Being Democrats, they immediately took more than their share. While they reached into the bucket with both hands, they lectured the rest of us on greed.

Vote for Hillary and reap the whirlwind. Or is that world whine? With Hill, they’re about the same.

We have never seen a Super Bowl game. In fact, we didn’t even know the annual occasion had rolled ‘round again until we saw a mention of it on the Fox website.

Baron: This was Super Bowl Sunday. Did you know the Colts aren’t in Baltimore anymore?
Dymphna: Where are they?
Baron: I’m not sure. But they played the Super Bowl this year.

Which reminds me of the time I brought the fB to a friend’s house. At the time he was about eight years old and, as you know, hadn’t been exposed to television much. He saw an ad for the Super Bowl and asked me how big this “super” bowl was, because it sure did seem to have a lot of taco chips in it.

Needless to say, our friend was horrified. She warned me against the folly of having the fB grow up ignorant of important cultural events. I’m sure I said something polite at the time. However, now free to hang it out on our blog, I will admit similar sentiments to those of Maverick Philosopher, who calls it “Stupor Bowl Sunday.” Wish I’d thought of that.

Here’s his outlook:

I won’t be watching the game. I don’t even know which teams are playing. Undoubtedly there is more to football than I comprehend. But the games are nasty, brutish, but not short, and I know all I need to know about the implements of shaving.

As for the buxom wenches who strut their stuff during the half-time show, the less I stoke the fire below the better.

I am no fan of spectator sports in general. We have too many sports spectators and too many overpaid professional louts. I preach the People’s Sports, despite the leftish ring of that.

Remove your sorry tail from the couch of sloth and start a softball league with your friends and neighbors.

He has a bit more to say about our sloth and indolence, but I’ll leave it to you to go see his final suggestion.

Meanwhile, it’s nice to know we have kindred spirits out there.

Thanks, Bill.

By the way, does anyone remember Andy Griffith’s routine, “What It Was, Was Football”? That about sums up the subject.

[nothing further]

The Episcopal Church is an institution steeped in tradition, and one of its traditions is to embrace the trendiest of liberal causes in a tasteful and appropriate way.

The Diocese of Southern Virginia — the oldest diocese in the country — is no exception. We have a venerable tradition of knock-down drag-out fights at our Annual Council, usually about one or more of the following topics: race, gender, sexuality, and pacifism.

The 115th Annual Council is coming up this weekend, and I’m glad I’m not going, because there are two fights on the agenda, one on sexuality and one on race.

The sexuality fight will be sparked by Resolution #3, “Concerning The Windsor Report”. The strange thing about this resolution is that it never once mentions what the Windsor Report is about or what the contentious issue is. You can go to the diocesan website and download the full Word document, read the whole thing, and never be the wiser about what’s going on.

So I’ll give you a précis of the issue:

• A priest who left his wife to live with another man was installed as the bishop of New Hampshire.
• The House of Bishops moved to affirm him as bishop.
• The Anglican Communion — the worldwide church of which the ECUSA is a branch — voted to condemn the actions of the ECUSA, and issued the Windsor Report on the topic.
• The General Convention of the ECUSA did not move to implement the recommendations of the Windsor Report.
• Some members of our diocese are unhappy with the ECUSA, and want to pass a resolution that requires our interim bishop to express explicit support the Windsor Report, and to urge our new and very butch Presiding Bishop to do the same.

Does that make it clear?

The race fight is another matter, and Resolution #2 was undoubtedly brought to the table by a very different faction within our diocese:

Resolution 2: Concerning Our Commitment to Anti-Racism Training

Submitted by the Anti-Racism Commission

Resolved, that this 115th Council of the Episcopal Diocese of Southern Virginia has consistently recognized that the sin of racism needs to be continually addressed within and beyond this Diocese.

And be if further resolved, that the 109th and 112th Annual councils committed to conducting anti-racism training of all Diocesan staff and lay/clergy leaders serving on the Standing Committee, Executive Board, and Commission on the Ordination Process.

– – – – – – – – – –

And be if further resolved, that due to low participation and leadership turnover in the intervening years since 2004, approximately 75% of diocesan leadership has yet to participate in the anti-racism training program.

And be if further resolved, that the Diocese of Southern Virginia reaffirms and extends its commitment to anti-racism training of diocesan leadership.

Rationale: With the House of Bishops ‘call to covenant’ March 2006, encouraging the larger church to continue and expand its work of anti-racism training, the diocesan Anti-Racism Commission recognizes that the anti-racism training of lay and clergy leadership in 2004 and 2005 needs to be continued to cover the ongoing turnover of diocesan members among staff, Boards, Committees, Commissions and Departments. Only about 25% of the leadership populations have had the prescribed national church anti-racism training to date, and only one training session was held in 2006. Along with training by convocations in 2007, the Anti-Racism Commission is asking for funding in the 2007 Budget to provide more flexible training options for those leaders functioning in a variety of organizational settings.

Our diocese has been riven by terrible strife, is close to bankruptcy, and yet is still concerning itself with this sort of claptrap.

I was a delegate to Annual Council for many years, and have seen variants of this resolution submitted and passed over and over again.

We’re racists! We’re all racists! We just can’t help ourselves.

Underneath the veneer of a tolerant, urbane, sophisticated, liberal Episcopalian there rages a Bull Connor, a George Wallace, a slavering David Duke just waiting for the opportunity to clap African-Americans back into their chains.

I spent nine years as the Senior Warden at our church, and during that time I was one of the 75% of diocesan leaders who steadfastly refused to attend anti-racism training. And with good reason — I’d been to enough planning meetings to pick up the gist of what happens in a re-education camp an anti-racism training session.

A good Christian acknowledges the sin of racism within himself. Even if he is unaware of it, even if on the surface he is an open-minded and tolerant fellow, underneath the façade there lurks a racist beast. We know it’s there because… Well, because God says so!

Everyone is guilty of the sin of racism, and it requires unceasing prayer and vigilance to hold this particular sin at bay.

But only if one is white. You see, a black person in America can’t be racist, because racism comes along with being a member of the dominant power structure. Black people are excluded from the dominant power structure, so only white people can be racists. In fact, according to orthodox multiculturalism, all white people must be racists, simply by their participation in the dominant power structure.

Back in September 2005 Dymphna remarked:

Those who would condemn others for their failures to think correctly simply don’t understand the hard-wiring in the human soul. We are born with a capacity to prefer our own kind. Watch any child encounter a stranger and you can experience the primitive startle effect that leads to a preference to be with one’s own. This inclination toward the known is neither sinful nor wrong; it is human.

Game theory has shown that when members of a community are left to their own devices, groups of similars will collect or ‘bunch’ together. It is not deliberate segregation, it is congregation. Ask the black students on any campus who they prefer to hang with. And then ask them if this preference is racist.

In the continuing rush to right thinking, it is the children who lose out. The Law of Unintended Consequences is easily seen in the effects on children of both no-fault divorce and mandated diversity. The idea that culture can be sorted out and regulated is surely one of the most pernicious legacies from the 20th century. It is past time to move beyond this dated, statist thinking.

I’ll be the first in line when a commission is formed to investigate the harm which accrues to children from illegitimacy and illiteracy. With all the oxygen in the room being consumed by correct thinking, though, it seems there isn’t any left over for the kids. Bill Cosby had it right when he said the main problems facing black children have nothing to do with racism and everything to do with poor decisions. Now whose fault is that?

But appeals to reason and sanity don’t work with Episcopalians. A guilty knee-jerk liberal member goes to these brainwashing sessions, gets down on his knees, confesses how awfully, irredeemably bad he is, and asks for forgiveness.

Anybody else — a normal, sensible person, in other words — naturally avoids them like the plague.

And many of the latter group are seriously considering finding something else to do on Sunday mornings. Congregants are leaving the Episcopal Church in droves, and those who remain are hardly breeding at a rate that will sustain their numbers.

To paraphrase John Cleese in the famous Monty Python sketch: This church is no more. It has ceased to be. It’s expired and gone to meet its maker. This is a late church. It’s a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. If you hadn’t nailed it to the perch, it would be pushing up daisies. It’s rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. This is an ex-church.

The Episcopal Parrot is nailed to its perch by its accumulated capital assets and the presence among its members of respected and powerful people. But it’s still bleedin’ demised.

Having promised the future Baron a plug for Dinesh D’Souza’s latest book, here is the fulfillment of that pledge.

The book is called The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11. Obviously, as any regular reader of Gates of Vienna knows, we agree with the title.

What makes Mr. D’Souza’s take on the current situation a little different from the usual writer of political books is that his childhood background was truly a “multicultural” setting:

I grew up in Mumbai in a community almost equally divided among Hindus, Muslims and Christians. The families I grew up with had different religions, but they had common aspirations and their values were very similar. They disagreed on theology but agreed on morality.

Note the last sentence. “They… agreed on morality.” And that morality was essentially conservative:

I realized in reading the Islamic radical thinkers that they were speaking not just to Muslims in the Middle East but to the great mass of traditional people in China and India and South America and Africa. These cultures are all religious, patriarchal, and culturally conservative. And what the radical Muslims were saying to them is that our religion and our morality is under attack. In the Middle East this translates to “Islam is under attack.” It is under attack by America, the fountainhead of global atheism and moral depravity. According to this critique, America is using its power around the world to thrust its values on the world’s people against their will. The effect will be to dilute religious faith, undermine the traditional family, and corrupt the innocence of the children. I found myself facing a totally different critique of America than the one we are accustomed to in the West.

Mr. D’Souza differentiates between what conservatives and leftists think are the root causes of Islamism. The former, he says, view radical Muslims as opposed to our freedoms and want the advent of the Ummah in order to take us back to some dark age enslavement. I’d agree with that. Given that I’ve read it repeatedly in Islamic tracts, I also think it’s true.

The understanding of the Left, he sees as “so off-base as to be largely irrelevant”: the radical Muslims are upset because of the Crusades.” [so goes the Left’s mantra -D]

Mr. D’Souza retorts:

But the Crusades were a belated, clumsy and unsuccessful effort to block the Muslim conquest of Christian territory—the holy land—and Muslim invasion of Europe. The Crusades failed, and Muslim historians hardly mention them because they are considered an insignificant chapter in much bigger story of the spread of Islam to three continents.

Then the Left claims “they are upset because of America’s history of colonialism.”

To which Mr. D’Souza responds:

But America has no history of colonialism in the Middle East. In fact, after War II, America used its influence to send the British and the French colonists home. “They’re upset because American foreign policy is so pro-Israel and anti-Muslim.” Yes, Israel is a source of Muslim irritation and embarrassment, largely because every few years Israel stands up and pistol-whips the entire coalition of Muslim countries in the region. But despite its unwavering support for Israel, America’s foreign policy has hardly been anti-Muslim.

He calls his new book “provocative”:

…it gives a new and disturbing interpretation to the post-9/11 world, and it names “the enemy at home”—the people and institutions in this country who sowed the seeds of 9/11, and who are working in league with the enemy to defeat the “war on terror.”

Yes, I am speaking of none other than the cultural left, such people as Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank and George Soros and Al Franken and Michael Moore. Throw in the ACLU and the radical feminist groups and the gay rights groups and the so-called human rights groups and you get the general picture. My contention is that without the influence of the cultural left in America over the past couple of decades, 9/11 would not have happened.

[…]

The Enemy at Home is not just a book about 9/11. It is also about the left’s campaign—so far successful—to undermine the war on terror and ensure that America retreats in humiliation from Iraq, just as it did in Vietnam. This “war against the war” has now assumed a new dimension with the Democrats seizing both houses of Congress. In effect, some of the people who want America to lose, and lose big, now have their hands on the levers of power.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Provocative? Undoubtedly. However, there is at least one serious flaw: Mr. D’Souza says that his ideas, as presented in his new book, are a “new and disturbing interpretation of the post 9/11 world.”
– – – – – – – – – –
But this line of thought was being laid down immediately after 9/11 by… you guessed it: blogs. The Belmont Club has been beating this here particular drum for some years now, with fine analyses of the problems that are informed by Wretchard’s observations as a young man in the Philippines, and his understanding of history, military strategy, and literature. It takes that kind of breadth to generate synthesis.

Here at Gates of Vienna, we’ve been discussing the treasonous beliefs and behaviors of the Left for over two years now. Compared to some of our predecessors, we’ve not been at it long.

That said, I’d like to read this book to see if Mr. D’Souza may entertain the notion that radical Islam could be projecting when it claims, as he says, that “America is using its power around the world to thrust its values on the world’s people against their will.” That’s an ideology and a behavior. Both can be argued on their merits (or lack of them). But America is not a place that beheads dissenters or trains its children for shahid martyrdom (though the Left might claim that’s what our military amounts to). We have created no Beslans, no Taliban societies. Though the Left is certain that this is the Christian Plan.

Those perfervid theories aside, there are indeed behaviors that have been performed before cameras and watched by billions of people all over the world. The sales of beheading snuff films, not to mention the movement of illegal drugs and slavery, have financed the Islamists’ killing fields — or deserts, as the case may be.

The amoral behaviors of the mullahs in Tehran, with its rampant child prostitution, its growing HIV-AIDS population, and its horrible poverty, homelessness, and lack of jobs are all testaments to the huge chasm between radical/fundamentalist Islam’s rhetoric and its reality. Such gaps go beyond hypocrisy to some realm of calculating cynicism we haven’t seen since Communism was in full flower.

It may be that radical Islam simply picked up the bloody sword that Communism dropped. Perhaps it is filling some necessary void — some essential manifestation of evil — that is inherent in humanity at our current level of development. As long as there are those who believe in some kind of Utopia — a place where perfection reigns — we will have evil loose in the world, determined to delude the Believers that paradise can be had, or enforced, in this mortal realm.

Name your fantasy: a physical environment without flaw, a polity without unfairness, a faith without sin, a science with all the answers. In those directions lie madness. And in the alliance of the America-hating Left and the America-hating Islamists you have the perfect storm of destruction.

What will be left standing?

Last month I quoted my avatar, the fictional Unspiek, Baron Bodissey, on the topic of evil:

The evil man is a source of fascination; ordinary persons wonder what impels such extremes of conduct. A lust for wealth? A common motive, undoubtedly. A craving for power? Revenge against society? Let us grant these as well. But when wealth has been gained, power achieved and society brought down to a state of groveling submission, what then? Why does he continue?

The response must be: the love of evil for its own sake.

The motivation, while incomprehensible to the ordinary man, is nonetheless urgent and real. The malefactor becomes the creature of his own deeds. Once the transition has been overpassed a new set of standards comes into force. The perceptive malefactor recognizes his evil and knows full well the meaning of his acts. In order to quiet his qualms he retreats into a state of solipsism, and commits flagrant evil from sheer hysteria, and for his victims it appears as if the world has gone mad.

— from The Face, by Jack Vance, p. 51 (DAW edition)

A reader in Israel emailed me to point out a resonance between the Baron’s words and a recently posted essay on the blog Hirhurim Musings. In “The Two Faces of Evil,” Gil Student cites rabbinical authority on the subject of human evil, and then muses on the topic himself:

Evil has two faces. The first — turned to the outside world — is what it does to its victim. The second — turned within — is what it does to its perpetrator. Evil traps the evildoer in its mesh. Slowly but surely he or she loses freedom and becomes not evil’s master but its slave.

Pharaoh is in fact (and this is rare in Tanakh) a tragic figure like Lady Macbeth, or like Captain Ahab in Melville’s Moby Dick, trapped in an obsession which may have had rational beginnings, right or wrong, but which has taken hold of him, bringing not only him but those around him to their ruin. This is signaled, simply but deftly, early in next week’s sedra when Pharaoh’s own advisors say to him: “Let the people go so that they may worship the Lord their G-d. Do you not yet realize that Egypt is ruined?” (10: 7). But Pharaoh has left rationality behind. He can no longer hear them.

It is a compelling narrative, and helps us understand not only Pharaoh but Hitler, Stalin and other tyrants in modern times. It also contains a hint — and this really is fundamental to understanding what makes the Torah unique in religious literature — of why the Torah teaches its moral truths through narrative, rather than through philosophical or quasi-scientific discourse on the one hand, myth or parable on the other.

– – – – – – – – – –

Compare the Torah’s treatment of freewill with that of the great philosophical or scientific theories. For these other systems, freedom is almost invariably an either/or: either we are always free or we never are. Some systems assert the first. Many — those who believe in social, economic or genetic determinism, or historical inevitability — claim the second. Both are too crude to portray the inner life as it really is.

The belief that freedom is an all or nothing phenomenon — that we have it either all the time or none of the time — blinds us to the fact that there are degrees of freedom. It can be won and lost, and its loss is gradual. Unless the will is constantly exercised, it atrophies and dies. We then become objects not subjects, swept along by tides of fashion, or the caprice of desire, or the passion that becomes an obsession. Only narrative can portray the subtlety of Pharaoh’s slow descent into a self-destructive madness. That, I believe, is what makes Torah truer to the human condition than its philosophical or scientific counterparts.

Pharaoh is everyman writ large. The ruler of the ancient world’s greatest empire, he ruled everyone except himself. It was not the Hebrews but he who was the real slave: to his obstinate insistence that he, not G-d, ruled history. Hence the profound insight of Ben Zoma (Avot 4: 1): “Who is mighty?” Not one who can conquer his enemies but “One who can conquer himself.”

The idea of being enslaved to evil is an ancient one, but it is still hard to keep it in mind when regarding a monster such as Saddam Hussein. It may well be that Saddam deeply enjoyed the torture and slaughter he visited on his unfortunate victims. But was he acting out of what we would call free will? Or was he simply applying a shrewd intelligence to make the most effective choices among evil possibilities, without ever having the choice of forsaking evil itself?

Turning to a Christian perspective on the same issue, there is no one who wrote more lucidly on the topic of human evil than the great theologian C.S. Lewis.

But first: we have been taken to task recently by commenters for presuming to write essays on theological matters instead of simply citing Scripture. Here’s what Lewis had to say on this issue:

It is Christ Himself, not the Bible, who is the true word of God. The Bible, read in the right spirit and with the guidance of good teachers, will bring us to Him. We must not use the Bible as a sort of encyclopedia out of which texts can be taken for use as weapons.

One of the main tenets of Christian doctrine is that Christ is the sole mediator between oneself and God. The Bible is not the mediator; it is a guide to help us find our way to Him. Unthinking reliance on the Bible is form of idolatry, to my mind.

But back to C.S. Lewis. Here is an excerpt from The Screwtape Letters (Note: “the Enemy” in this book refers to God, since the letters in question are written from one devil to another):

In peace we can make many of them ignore good and evil entirely; in danger, the issue is forced upon them in a guise to which even we cannot blind them. There is here a cruel dilemma before us. If we promoted justice and charity among men, we should be playing directly into the Enemy’s hands; but if we guide them to the opposite behaviour, this sooner or later produces (for He permits it to produce) a war or a revolution, and the undisguisable issue of cowardice or courage awakes thousands of men from moral stupor. This, indeed, is probably one of the Enemy’s motives for creating a dangerous world — a world in which moral issues really come to the point. He sees as well as you do that courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point, which means, at the point of highest reality. A chastity or honesty, or mercy, which yields to danger will be chaste or honest or merciful only on conditions. Pilate was merciful till it became risky.

When virtue reaches a testing point, it makes a choice. If the evil path is chosen, both virtue and the range of additional options are reduced. Evil becomes progressively easier to choose, until the path of life has no more forks, and only the route of evil is left.

Or, as Lewis put it in Mere Christianity:

People often think of Christian morality as a kind of bargain in which God says, ‘If you keep a lot of rules I’ll reward you, and if you don’t I’ll do the other thing.’ I do not think that is the best way of looking at it. I would much rather say that every time you make a choice you are turning the central part of you, the part of you that chooses, into something a little different from what it was before. And taking your life as a whole, with all your innumerable choices, all your life long you are slowly turning this central thing either into a creature that is in harmony with God, and with other creatures, and with itself, or else into one that is in a state of war and hatred with God, and with its fellow creatures, and with itself. To be the one kind of creature is heaven: that is, it is joy and peace and knowledge and power. To be the other means madness, horror, idiocy, rage, impotence, and eternal loneliness. Each of us at each moment is progressing to the one state or the other.

And human beings — contrary to modern secular-humanistic doctrine — are not born with the innate ability to make moral choices. This faculty must be learned, practiced, and consciously maintained.

Telling us to obey instinct is like telling us to obey ‘people.’ People say different things: so do instincts. Our instincts are at war…. Each instinct, if you listen to it, will claim to be gratified at the expense of the rest…

The forms that evil takes in the modern world can be quite subtle. Not every incarnation of it is as recognizable as Saddam or Stalin. From the preface to The Screwtape Letters:

I live in the Managerial Age, in a world of “Admin.” The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid “dens of crime” that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the offices of a thoroughly nasty business concern.

And now we reach the quintessence of modern bureaucratic evil, Socialism. From “God in the Dock”:

Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

The greatest achievement of evil in our time is to have convinced us of its non-existence. To the modern mind, citing evil as a motive behind anyone’s behavior is to make a categorical error. People are victims of circumstances, in need of counseling, suffering from an addictive disease, or denied moral agency by forces beyond their control. No one is evil.

With the possible exception of George W. Bush, of course.

But to deny Lucifer is to make him stronger. Is it any wonder that the greatest and most virulent form of evil in recorded history has reared up before us now, at the dawn of the 21st century?

We stand before our secular altars, muttering incantations that deny it, but Evil will surely have the last word.

Hat tip: J B-D, via email.

The quotes from C.S. Lewis were obtained from a variety of online sources.

According to a poll:

92 percent of all Egyptians agree, that Israel is hostile toward Egypt. 60 percent agreed that Denmark is hostile, followed by Britain, [and] leaving the US at a measly fourth place!

Wow! Denmark is more unfriendly than even the US — though of course not more hostile than that Zionist entity. Everybody knows those Zionists are irrationally hostile towards everyone: Egypt… and Jordan, and Lebanon, and Syria and Yemen, and so on and on and on and on…

And let us not forget the Palestinian Entity — some real hostility is being beamed there from Tel Aviv. Poor Pals are always being picked on by those mean Hebrews. Must be some kind of twisted Jewish thinking, hmm?

Think about it. Which country goes around making the most noise? Which country has companies that refuse to sell to the Middle East? Which country talks out loud about its Muslims’ refugees’ hateful treatment of the Jews within its own borders?

Here are a few items to ponder about Denmark from the blog of Turban Bomb:

From November — Danish Troops in Afghanistan(video):

The fiercest fighting Danish troops have been engaged in since 1864. Official estimates: at least 70 Taliban who [won’t] bother anyone anymore.

From December, in Jyllands-Posten — Danish Jews Harassed by Muslims [translation by Turban Bomb]:

The international tensions between Jews and Muslims are reflecting in the Danish society. Danish Jews feel intimidated by the Muslims and are afraid to reveal their identity when walking the streets of Copenhagen.

Jewish parents choose not to send their children to public schools with a large percentage of children with Muslim background, and outside the synagogue in Copenhagen the security guards are asking the attending Jews to remove their skullcaps and Stars of David before leaving the temple.

There is a fear among Jews for the Muslim minority. They are afraid of being harassed physical and verbally, says Jacques Blum, spokesman of the Mosaic Faith community.

Do you think a similar story would make it through the MSM filter in this country?

From January, Al Gore refuses to meet Bjorn Lomborg:

Bjørn Lomborg [aka “the skeptical environmentalist”— D], together with Jyllands-Posten’s culture editor Flemming Rose [the man behind the Motoon-crisis] was supposed to have interviewed Al Gore on Thursday. However, though his agent Wylie Agency in London, Al Gore announced Wednesday that the presence of Bjørn Lomborg was unwanted.

“This is not the first time this has happened. Several people have tried unsuccessfully to set a dialog-meeting between the two of us. It is deeply troublesome that he doesn’t dare to be challenged and only wants to speak to his followers”, says Bjørn Lomborg.

[…]

The agent and Flemming Rose subsequently agreed that the interview would be done by Rose alone and that the subject would be the book and the movie.

However, an hour later Flemming Rose received an e-mail from the agent with the wording:

“We regret to announce that we have to cancel the interview.”

No reason was giving but when the editor contacted the agent by phone, the agent said the cancellation was due to the fact that Lomborg had even been part of the process.

According to Bjørn Lomborg he’s willing to debate Al Gore on global heating any time and anywhere.

By the way, were you aware that Al Gore almost flunked Environmental Sciences in college? Here are his grades, according to an article which appeared inThe Washington Post in 2000 [cited by “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming” on page 238]:
– – – – – – – – – –

		Natural Sciences 6:
		(Man’s Place in Nature)		D
		Natural Sciences 118		C+

Now that’s an inconvenient truth, Mr. Gore. No wonder you didn’t want to meet with a skeptical scientist — you probably couldn’t pass his class, either.

Since Al’s conversion to Greeniedom, there’s no talking to him, period. He does the talking; you listen. Losing your ability to listen often happens with fundamentalists, especially those of the political sect.

And here’s my favorite entry, from February: A Non-Dhimmi Danish Dairy:

The co-operative dairy “Bornholms Andelsmejeri” has stopped its export of dairy-products to the Middle East.

“It’s all about being able to look at your self in the mirror each morning. I will not be judged on what some Danish paper writes, but on my products and my services. We have no intention to take up trade and have turned those who have approached us down”, says Peter Olesen [head of the dairy].

Turban Bomb says if you want to buy some of their cheese, look for Saint Clement’s.

Let’s face it: the Danes are way cool. To paraphrase the song from South Pacific:

There is nothing like a Dane.
Nothing in the world.
There is nothing you can name
That is anything like a Dane…

[…]

There are no drinks like a Dane.
And no books like a Dane.
And nothing looks like a Dane.
And nothing acts like a Dane.
Or attacks like a Dane.
There ain’t a thing that’s wrong with any state here
That can’t be cured by a manly, forthright, tell-it-like-is…DANE!

The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.
For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.

[A note from the Baron: Dymphna reminds me that she refers to Tariq Ramadan as “Taqiyyah Ramadan”.]

Tariq Ramadan is perhaps our most dangerous enemy right now. I consider a person such as Mullah Krekar to be an ally. He wants to crush and subdue the West, supports Osama bin Laden and says so openly. It’s the Tariq Ramadans we have to watch out for.

Notice how slick and clever he is at reaching out to the Western Left. I sometimes get criticized for having a conservative bias when writing about Islam. Right-wingers can be very naïve and short-sighted when it comes to mass immigration, including by Muslims, and even so-called “conservatives” keep parroting the “Islam is peace” mantra these days.

However, it is impossible to ignore the fact that by far the most eager allies Muslims find in the West tend to be among the hard-Left groups. There’s a reason why Ramadan reaches out to them by talking about “Islamic Socialism” and capitalist oppression. They have become ideological orphans after the Cold War, and are searching for a new Cause. Muslims see this as an opportunity.

Notice also that Tariq Ramadan systematically talks about how “Islamic values” are identical with “universal values.” I personally think all Europeans who still believe Eurabia is a conspiracy theory should read the Algiers Declaration for a Shared Vision of the Future and A Common Action Plan issued at the Algiers Congress, both from 2006 and available online as pdf files.

Here’s a quote from the Algiers Declaration for a Shared Vision of the Future from 2006. It states that: “It is essential to create a Euro-Mediterranean entity founded on Universal Values.” “Universal Values” sounds ok, doesn’t it? Well, the problem is, for Muslims the only universal values are Islamic values. As Tariq Ramadan has said, “Muslim identity is the only true source of universality.”
– – – – – – – – – –
In other words: Arabs will see this as an admission by their EU counterparts that Europe should in the future be based on Islamic values. So a betrayal of breathtaking proportions, which is selling out an entire civilization and the freedom of half a billion people, is made to sound entirely innocent, and is tucked away in boring-looking documents that 99.99% of EU citizens have never heard of. In the odd chance that an outsider might read one or two of them, he would still have to penetrate layers of incomprehensible Eurabian Newspeak to decipher their true significance. It’s clever and it works, especially if the most plainspoken agreements are not made public or put in print. It then takes a person of Bat Ye’or’s intellectual stature and trained eye to connect the dots.

Tariq Ramadan Has an Identity Issue

By IAN BURUMA

Some of Ramadan’s critics, most notably the French journalist Caroline Fourest, who wrote a sharp attack on him titled “Frère Tariq” (Brother Tariq), draw a direct line from Hassan al-Banna, through Said Ramadan and Tariq Ramadan himself, to the militant Islamism threatening the West today. Such was the disquiet in France about Islamist violence that Ramadan was barred from that country in 1995. The ban was eventually lifted. Ramadan prefers to see the family legacy in terms of “Islamic socialism, which is neither socialist, nor capitalist, but a third way.” In this reading, his father’s friendship with Malcolm X is much more significant than any Saudi Arabian connection. This is why Ramadan was a popular speaker with African-American Muslims before his visa was revoked.

“Western Muslims and the Future of Islam” throws some light on Ramadan’s idea of “Islamic socialism,” an ideology, combining religious principles with anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist politics, that goes back to the time of the Russian Revolution. (Libya’s strongman, Muammar el-Qaddafi, is one who claims to rule according to these principles.) The murderous tyranny to be resisted, in Ramadan’s book, is “the northern model of development,” which means that “a billion and a half human beings live in comfort because almost four billion do not have the means to survive.” For Ramadan, global capitalism, promoted by such institutions as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, is the “abode of war” (alam al-harb), for “when faced with neoliberal economics, the message of Islam offers no way out but resistance.”

The question is how far secular society should be pushed to accommodate Islamic principles. “We are in favor of integration,” Ramadan says in a recorded speech, “but it is up to us to decide what that means. … I will abide by the laws, but only insofar as the laws don’t force me to do anything against my religion.” A Muslim must be able to practice and teach and “act in the name of his faith.” If any given society should take this right away, he continues, “I will resist and fight that society.”