From Ex-Patica News:

12 April 2007

AMSTERDAM – Islamic arrestees who are being held at the Segbroek police station in The Hague have a compass in their cell. This way they can always check which way is east so that they know which direction to face when praying. A spokesperson for the police confirmed this on Thursday after a report in the AD.

The compass is painted on the ceiling of the cells. An employee at the Segbroek station recently saw the compass on the ceiling of cells at another police station. He thought it was such a good idea that he proposed providing the compass on the ceilings of cells at his police station as well.

OOPS!

From The Brussels Journal:

Muslim arrestees held in a windowless cell in The Hague have been praying West instead of East, facing Washington DC instead of Mecca. The Dutch press agency ANP revealed today that the compass which the Dutch police painted on the ceiling of the cells in the Segbroek police station to enable Muslim criminals to pray towards Mecca pointed in the wrong, opposite, direction. A police spokesman said a mistake had been made. The mistake has meanwhile been rectified.

Perhaps we could round up a few Boy Scouts, complete with compasses? The boys could organize an orienteering class for the Dutch police. For those who pass — and manage to find their way home — perhaps a similar badge could be designed for their uniforms?

Can’t have disoriented Muslims crowding your jails and praying to Washington D.C. for surcease.

Remember Gitmo, fellows…at the very least that’s mental abuse.

Anyone have a copy of the EU laws on this one?

[the orientation ends here]

While the Baron is away, Dymphna has decided to have a bit o’ fun…

(Note to the Headmistress: please cover the smaller children’s eyes for this post)

This video clip could be the start of a great musical. And since Wahhabis don’t do music, why…they’ll never see it, will they?

Like Mark Steyn, I’m a sucker for good lyrics. For example, in the song, “Cry Me a River,” Julie London carries this one off beautifully:

Remember, I remember all that you said
Told me love was too plebeian
Told me you were through with me and
Now you say you love me…

Ella Fitzgerald’s version is mighty fine, too, but with London you always imagine she’s really pitching it to Jack Webb, the old “Dragnet” robo-man.

My favorite rhyme in this one occurs right at the end. Who would have thought to pair up that word with “Saudi Arabia”?

Yea, I know this dates back to last October, but I only saw it today at Infidels are Cool

You go, girl.

[the fun ends here. We return your to our regular programming]

Part the Second
by Mr. Weston

In which he further explains his reasoning behind the ides that Civil War is coming to Europe, and requests that those who would argue against this notion present their defense in cogent, coherent terms, refraining from ad hominem attacks or diatribe.

A reasonable requirement.

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

Part one of this article was an explanation of why our ratio of combat age native Europeans versus European Muslims could decline from 18:1 today, to 2:1 by 2025. These figures are largely irrelevant if one believes that Islam can peacefully co-exist within the West, but if such a scenario is simply a multicultural fantasy then we will shortly face a situation unprecedented in the history of mankind.

Europeans have been conditioned from an early age to celebrate diversity and multiculturalism, resulting in our genuine ability to co-exist with peoples of significantly different cultures. But, rather than what we want, is this what Islam wants? Islam is as mono-cultural as mono-cultural gets. How can they possibly live in a liberal, multicultural society?

Islam expanded via the sword. Within decades of erupting out of the deserts of 7th Century Arabia it had conquered Palestine, Persia, Egypt, India, North Africa and Spain; its opponents were paralysed in the face of fanatical violence. It was only in 732 that Charles Martel stopped this frenetic Islamic expansion at the battle of Tours, in France.

In the 13th century Islam rose again. In 1452 they finally conquered Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, and within 100 years added Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia, Albania, Romania and Hungary to their empire. Attempts to take Vienna failed twice, before Jan Sobieski finally routed the Ottoman’s Islamic army in 1683 at the Gates of Vienna. The Ottoman Empire gradually fell apart after this defeat, and most occupied European countries reclaimed their independence. Christian Europe had largely prevailed.

But now, in the 21st Century, Islam is back and wants what it has always wanted; a global caliphate. This time, unlike their previous military attempts to overthrow the West, instead they are already within Europe, well funded, radicalised and rapidly expanding. As their numbers grow, so grows the violence they perpetrate — as we have seen all over Europe within the last few years.

And not only within Europe; Islam is engaged in religious conflict all around the world, from America, Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan, Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, Kashmir, India, Russia, the Lebanon, Palestine, etc, etc. Wherever Islam comes into contact with non-Islam there is conflict.

In each and every country, one glaring reality stands out. It is always Islam as the aggressor, even when they are in a minority. In Thailand, where they represent five per cent of the populace, we have a country sliding inexorably toward civil war.

Such is the prevalence of Islamic violence that Samuel Huntingdon, author of The Clash Of Civilisations, coined the phrase “Islam’s bloody borders” the violence of which is represented by Gates Of Vienna’s animated Bloody Borders project which identifies Islamic terrorist activity just since 9/11.

Why do Islamists do this? Because they are commanded to, it is as simple as that. To be a Muslim means to obey the Koran, within which there are numerous commands to wage Jihad, or Holy War, against the infidel. Granted, there is no single explicit command, but it is possible to interpret many exhortations this way, which is exactly what radical Imams are doing all across the West. Unlike a modern day Christian’s tenuous relationship with the Bible, Muslims adhere to every edict of the Koran as slavishly as they did in the 7th Century. Unfortunately for us, the principal edict is to conquer or remove all non-believers.

To this end there are now some 2,000 Mosques in Western Europe, many of them funded directly by Saudi Arabia to the tune of 90 billion dollars. In these mosques are Imams — trained or imported from Saudi Arabia — preaching extreme Wahhabism. They call for the overthrow of the West, and promote suicide bombing and martyrdom. Channel Four recently sent an undercover reporter into various Mosques in the UK. The result was an exposure of these Imams in their call for Holy War against the West. It can be seenhere on Youtube. CNN also ran an interview with Al-Muhajiroun’s Anjem Choudray, where he calls for Sharia law in Britain. This is the same man whoprophesised that the Islamic flag will fly over 10 Downing Street.

Despite the clear warnings, the concept of Sharia is still not fully understood by most Europeans. Under its laws they could either be killed for refusing to convert to Islam or they could accept that second-class status known as Dhimmitude. Homosexuals could similarly be killed, apostates killed, adulterous woman stoned to death, whilst limbs could be amputated for stealing. Forty percent of British Muslims wish this to be introduced.

What percentage of those who desire this are young males? Muslim women have a great deal to be unhappy about under Sharia law, whilst older Muslims are far less radicalised than the young. It is quite possible therefore, that for young males with a favourable view of Sharia, the percentage of those who favour Sharia in Britain is far higher than this.

So, Islam has a history of attempted Western conquest, and a present day policy of global domination. In countries such as Sudan, they are efficiently perpetrating genocide to achieve that end. In the West, their Jihadist rhetoric is accompanied by large-scale violence and lesser atrocities guaranteed to catch our attention. (Leaving out the violence in India and Pakistan and the Taliban) just in the years since 2001, there have been numerous incidents in the West:

• 9/11, of course;
• the London tube bombings;
• the Madrid train bombings;
• the lesser violence such as the murder of Theo Van Gogh;
• the indescribable torture and murder of Ilan Halami;
• the rape of European women as described by Fjordman,
• the civil unrest in France, where policeclaim they are in the midst of a civil war;
• and the death threats made against politicians who speak out against them, such as Gert Wilders.

Faced with this relentless tidal wave of Islamic aggression, what is the response of Europe’s ruling elites? Craven submission is the answer. In France the politicians promise more money for the banlieus, within which Sharia law operates and where no white European dare set foot. In Spain they gathered in squares after the Madrid train bombing and held candle-lit peace vigils, before voting out their Government and replacing it with one more in tune to the Islamists demands. In Holland, the Dutch justice minister, Piet Hein Donner has no objection to Sharia law being imposed, providing it is done democratically, and in Sweden, integration minister Jens Orback declared: “We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.”
– – – – – – – – – –
After the London tube bombings, the government’s immediate response was to worry not about the English, but about the terrible oppression the perpetrators must have suffered from in order to commit such a crime. Much to our rulers’ dismay, the “fabulous four” were educated and middle class; their drive had come from Islam, not from oppression.

In British schools the Holocaust is no longer taught because it runs counter to the Holocaust denial beliefs of Muslims, whilst British historian David Irving was imprisoned for holding the same views as that of the Muslims. Our teaching unions are also of the opinion that the idea of teaching British values is racist, and the BBC is so viciously anti-Christian and pro-Islamic that there is simply not the space here to detail it. The BBC treachery requires an article all its own, and a lengthy article at that (This is one of the more imponderable pathologies the BBC exhibits, considering the corporation has sheltered and encouraged a high number of homosexuals and feminists. As you know, both groups are on the Islamic extermination lists).

There are many more examples of Islamic aggression and of the consequential European appeasement. It is clear that so far we are impelled toward overwhelming submission. European politicians are clearly terrified of Islam. As well they might be. So, what can be done? Can Islam be contained, or is Europe drifting inexorably to all-out civil war?

Essentially, there are five options.

The first is that Islam integrates within Europe’s liberal democracies and we all live happily ever after This scenario takes no account of the moral sewer that Liberal policies have turned Europe into; a Europe which Islam, quite understandably, views with revulsion. Nor does it take into account that Islam today is the same as Islam in the 7th century. Why should they reform now? Given the increasing radicalisation of Muslim youth and the disturbing numbers whoagree with terrorist activity, this scenario is only possible within the mindset of deluded, ignorant liberals, whose naiveté is suicidal in the extreme. Option one can therefore be discounted.

The second option is that Islam quietly takes over demographically through sheer weight of numbers, and Europe is islamised under Sharia law. Bernard Lewis and Mark Steyn think this inevitable, Steyn being of the opinion that any country capable of the type of appeasement prevalent in Europe today, is also a country incapable of rousing a defence. Although this is a possibility, it is unlikely we will not fight back, so option two can also be discounted.

The third option is that Europe wakes up to the danger it is in and expels all its Muslims. This is not going to happen; the European Union positively embraces Islam, as noted in Bat Ye’or book Eurabia (thankfully abridged by Fjordman). Not only does the EU have no intention of such an action, they will not even stop further Islamic immigration. The 2.2 million predominately Muslim immigrants they wish to bring into Europe each and every year up to 2050 is a done deal as far as they are concerned.

Indeed, in an extract from this disturbing report published by the European Policy Centre, the EU seeks immigration not only for economic reasons but also for social reasons:

“However, the arguments against immigration remain dominant in the political debates of many European countries, and must be taken seriously and challenged if immigration is to keep its place on the social and economic agenda.”

Whilst this attitude prevails we can discount option three.

The fourth option is that moderate Muslims reclaim their peaceful religion from the “fundamentalists”, who, as we are told over and over again by our media, are not representative of Islam. But where exactly are these moderate Muslims, what power do they wield within Islam as a whole? When have we seen marches and protests organised by them, waving banners reading “Not in my name” or “Not in the name of Islam?” They are as cowed by the radicals as are our politicians, or perhaps they are in agreement with them, but are squeamish when it comes to spilling blood. The only face of Islam we see or hear in the West is that of the violent Jihadist. As such, option four can be discounted.

The fifth option is that we resist the Islamic take over, and fight back. I disagree with Lewis and Steyn, who both appear to think Europe will roll over and submit. The wholesale and unprecedented racial and cultural transformation of a continent with a history of violent warfare will simply not happen without confrontation.

As options one, two, three and four can therefore be discounted; we are left only with option five: to fight. Whilst it is unfortunate that we should be confronted by an expanding, youthful culture with a set of beliefs they will die for, just at the time we are demographically declining, ageing, and apparently believe only in shopping, celebrity and alcohol, does not mean that we will not fight. We will simply have to. Not for domination, but for survival.

E. Raymond Hall, professor of biology at the University of Kansas, is the author of the definitive work on American wildlife, Mammals of North America. He states as a biological law that, “two subspecies of the same species do not occur in the same geographic area.” (Emphasis in the original) Human races are biological subspecies, and Prof. Hall writes specifically that this law applies to humans just as it does to other mammals: “To imagine one subspecies of man living together on equal terms for long with another subspecies is but wishful thinking and leads only to disaster and oblivion for one or the other.”

The history of man is essentially a history of warfare, where territory, tribe or religion drives the impetus for conquest. That our ruling liberal elites in the West today believe that history, current reality and the law of nature no longer apply to us, does not mean the end of warfare. Rather, their wishful thinking simply makes it easier for those who are determined to wage war against us. The idea that wars are a thing of the past is so fantastical that only liberals, who cannot distinguish ideological fantasy from historical reality, could possibly believe that war will ever be vanquished.

Islamic terrorist activity is being constantly thwarted by European intelligence services, but over the next ten years some of these Jihadists will slip through the net and carry out their next very large atrocity. Although most Europeans are still in a deep liberal sleep regarding Islam, this will not last. By 2017 the tensions between Europeans and Islam will have become nerve jangling. Impotent officials will employ ever-stricter government controls in a futile attempt to preserve the façade of societal order.

Somewhere between 2017 and 2030, during a period of heightened tension, Islamists in France, Holland or Britain will blow up one church, train or plane too many. Retaliation will begin and they, in turn will respond. So will the spiral begin.

The police are unable to cope now; they will be even less prepared then. The army will be drafted in, and members of the military who are even willing to carry out orders against their neighbours will find themselves massively outnumbered and outflanked. Civilians will be massacred. And so begins the civil war.

When the violence reaches a tipping point every person — be they moderate or extremist in their views — will be forced to take sides in this war. There will be no bystanders, and no civilians. Moderate Muslims will in all likelihood take the sides of the extremists. This war will resemble none of Europe’s previous conflicts, with their standing armies massed along clearly delineated lines. In the coming conflagration, it will initially be civilians, armed not with tanks and machine guns, but with knives, bombs and terror, who will call out the dogs of war.

I say “initially” because although the army will be of little use in the beginning, it will certainly be capable of forming an impregnable line behind which the native Europeans, unused to knife fighting, will flee and re-group.

And then, enter America — as always— Europe’s saviour. Whilst Europe’s navies blockade the ports, America will deliver technical weaponry to the organised Europeans, weaponry against which Islam will have no response. Whilst they are being annihilated in response to the butchery they carried out in the early days of the war, Muslim countries such as Pakistan and Iran will threaten a nuclear response. If they do, they too will be annihilated.

Such is the future brought about by multicultural liberals. Not only will they be responsible for bloodshed unseen even in the last century, they will also be responsible for the extinction of Islam. In 1907 no one could see the coming carnage, whereas in 2007 all educated people with some knowledge of history can see the inevitable. Quite how large this war becomes is of course beyond any prediction. However, it will not be limited to a merely European conflict. Our civil war could well become a global nuclear war against Islam; and one the Islamists have no hope of winning.

Such a scenario is unimaginable to the vapid multiculturalists, but it is their actions, past and present, which will bring about this nightmare. One can hardly blame Islam for wishing to dominate the world, but one can certainly blame liberals for giving them the geographical means and ideological confidence whereby they feel confident that it is actually possible. Will they attempt it? On a small scale, with their ratio of 18:1 they are attempting it now. How do you think they will behave with a ratio of 5:1 let alone 2:1?

The liberal response to an essay such as this is to make accusations of hysteria and paranoia. To those, I would say only one thing: rather than leave sneering one line comments, give us a thousand word, closely reasoned article explaining why the scenario outlined above is not likely. Use reality-based arguments rather than simply repeating outmoded ideology.

As much as I wish you could present such a case against my scenario, I believe the war is inevitable, and it will be a tragedy for the West, for Islam, and for all of mankind.

Please refute it. I really would like it another future than the one I have outlined.

But it’s not the fifty states anymore. Can you sing “God Bless American…and Mexico and Canada”? If not, too bad, because it’s the number one hit song of below-the-radar appointed personnel who are even now at work on bringing this nightmare to your waking, working hours.

It’s not enough that we have had to watch the helpless citizens of Europe steamrollered by the Brussels Bureaucrat Brigade. We’re going to have the same blesséd experience ourselves.

A number of readers have emailed Gates of Vienna with their concerns, and with links to the problem. As history repeats itself this wolf in sheep’s clothing is being trotted out all gussied up as an “economic” agreement among the three nations of the North American continent.

It is nothing of the sort; this is a very broad-based attempt by unelected officials who are actively planning to run roughshod over our sovereignty and our constitution. There are several components and many players behind the scenes. Let’s start with just one: a superhighway running from Canada all the way down to the Mexican ports.

Let’s start with the basics:

The Independent Task Force on North America was a project organized by the United States Council on Foreign Relations, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, and the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations. It was chaired by former Canadian politician John Manley and advocates a greater economic and social integration between Canada, Mexico, and the United States.

It was launched in October 2004 and published two documents: Trinational Call for a North American Economic and Security Community by 2010 (March 2005) and its final report Building a North American Community (May 2005).

The final report proposed increased international cooperation between the nations of Canada, the United States, and Mexico, similar in some respects to that of the European Union.

One part of this nefarious scheme is well on its way, despite citizen opposition. It’s a superhighway – and I do mean “super”: this baby has lanes for cars, lanes for trucks, rail lines, and another section devoted to the electronics it will take to keep everything running smoothly…

Quietly but systematically, the Bush Administration is advancing the plan to build a huge NAFTA Super Highway, four football-fields-wide, through the heart of the U.S. along Interstate 35, from the Mexican border at Laredo, Tex., to the Canadian border north of Duluth, Minnesota.

Once complete, the new road will allow containers from the Far East to enter the United States through the Mexican port of Lazaro Cardenas, bypassing the Longshoreman’s Union in the process. The Mexican trucks, without the involvement of the Teamsters Union, will drive on what will be the nation’s most modern highway straight into the heart of America. The Mexican trucks will cross border in FAST lanes, checked only electronically by the new “SENTRI” system. The first customs stop will be a Mexican customs office in Kansas City, their new Smart Port complex, a facility being built for Mexico at a cost of $3 million to the U.S. taxpayers in Kansas City.

As incredible as this plan may seem to some readers, the first Trans-Texas Corridor segment of the NAFTA Super Highway is ready to begin construction next year. Various U.S. government agencies, dozens of state agencies, and scores of private NGOs (non-governmental organizations) have been working behind the scenes to create the NAFTA Super Highway, despite the lack of comment on the plan by President Bush. The American public is largely asleepto this key piece of the coming “North American Union” that government planners in the new trilateral region of United States, Canada and Mexico are about to drive into reality.

Of course we’ve been asleep. It is so far under the radar that no alarm clock exists that could wake up us.

Consider the “public hearings” in Texas. These were widely attended by dissenters — but was it on the news anywhere except at local stations? Did the national news ever pick up on this? Nope. But it’s all hidden in plain view.

Many of the links are several years old, so we know that at least the information was there. It’s just that not many of us were listening: we’d been deafened by 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. While Bush was busily making the country “safe” from terrorism, his minions were even busier with this decades-long project that seems to have been passed on to him and he is determined to run it straight through the undefended middle of our country. No wonder the man so passively-aggressively ignores the unrest of his citizens as plans go forward. Even now they are well past the planning stage. Here’s the “Report to Leaders“ (George Orwell, where are you?) from June, 2005:

Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America

Report to Leaders

On March 23, 2005, you [this “you” refers to Bush, Fox, and Martin, who all signed off on the plan —D] announced the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. At that time, you instructed Ministers to create an architecture which would further enhance the security of North America while at the same time promote the economic well-being of our citizens and position North America to face and meet future challenges. This effort builds on the excellent, long-standing relations among our three countries. The response to your request is attached.

In carrying out your instructions, we established working groups under both agendas of the Partnership — Security and Prosperity. We held roundtables with stakeholders, meetings with business groups and briefing sessions with legislatures, as well as with other relevant political jurisdictions. The result is a detailed series of actions and recommendations designed to increase the competitiveness of North America and the security of our people. While the Security and Prosperity agendas were developed by separate teams, we recognize that our economic well-being and our security are not two separate and distinct issues. In that spirit, we have worked together to ensure that the appropriate linkages are made between security and prosperity initiatives.

Upon your review and approval, we will once again meet with stakeholders and work with them to implement the work plans that we have developed. We will also encourage them to continue to provide us with new ideas and proposals which will help shape our forward agenda and our vision for North America.

To make North America secure for the future, we need integrated, coordinated and seamless measures in place at, within, and beyond our borders to provide our people and our infrastructure with the highest possible common level of protection from terrorists and other criminal elements, as well as from the common threats of nature.

To make North America prosperous for the future, we need to improve the efficiency of the movement of people, goods and services crossing our borders. We must remove barriers to trade, investment, research and education. We must protect our environment and promote the health and safety of our people.

Increased economic integration and security cooperation will further a unique and strong North American relationship — a relationship that meets your stated goals while preserving our political and cultural identities.

We recognize that this Partnership is designed to be a dynamic, permanent process and that the attached work plans are but a first step. We know that after today, the real work begins. We will now need to transform the ideas into reality and the initiatives into prosperity and security.

The success of our efforts will be defined less by the contents of the work plans than by the actual implementation of initiatives and strategies that will make North America more prosperous and more secure. We will report back to you semi-annually, highlighting progress on implementing our commitments and making recommendations for further initiatives to be pursued under the Security and Prosperity Partnership.

Much has been accomplished in the preparation of this report. We want to commend the work of each of the working group chairs and working group participants for their creativity and their ability to work as a cohesive team with their colleagues from the other countries. We believe that if the dedication and hard work shown to date are carried forward, this Partnership can only succeed in providing the security necessary to develop a strong North American platform highlighted by sustained economic growth and job creation, and improved standards of living for our citizens.

Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Commerce
Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security

Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State
Fernando Canales, Secretario de Economía
Carlos Abascal, Secretario de Gobernación
Luis Ernesto Derbéz, Secretario de Relaciones Exteriores
David L. Emerson, Minister of Industry
Anne McLellanDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Pierre Stewart Pettigrew, Minister of Foreign Affairs

Meanwhile, the Canadian press reported late last year on Tom Tancredo’s opposition to this steamroller:

A U.S. legislator who backs tough anti-immigrant measures and more security at the Canada-U.S. border is warning Americans that President George W. Bush is plotting to integrate the continent.

And he says Prime Minister Stephen Harper “buys into it.”

Colorado Republican Tom Tancredo, revered by some U.S. conservatives for his efforts to staunch the flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico, said this week that Bush is a dangerous internationalist.

“He is going to do what he can to create a place where the idea of America is just that, it’s an idea. It’s not an actual place defined by borders. I mean this is where the guy is really going,” he told WorldNetDaily, a controversial conservative website.

– – – – – – – – – –

“I know this is dramatic, or maybe somebody would say overly dramatic. But I’m telling you that everything I see leads me to believe that this whole idea of the North American union, it’s not something that’s just written about by right-wing fringe kooks,” said Tancredo, who is considering a run at the presidency.

“It is something in the head of the president of the United States, the president of Mexico, I think the prime minister of Canada buys into it…”

Tancredo followed up with an interview on the conservative Fox News network, where he said the borders will lose all their significance, serving merely as “speed bumps” in the flow of goods, services and people.

In October, Tancredo demanded the United States suspend work on the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) signed last year by Canada, Mexico and The United States until Congress examines its goals and agreements, which include standardizing regulations and dismantling other barriers to trade.

The deal to collaborate on a wide range of trade and security issues is part of a larger plot to merge the countries in a European Union-like arrangement using a common currency, he said, with no oversight from legislators.

The congressman, who wrote a book on the border security issue called “In Mortal Danger,” is one of four members of Congress who’ve signed a resolution opposed to a union or a free trade “superhighway system.”

They’re not the only ones worried about closer ties between the three countries.

A coalition of American conservatives is organizing a grassroots effort to make it an issue in the 2008 presidential race and vow to campaign against any candidate, Republican or Democrat, who won’t side with them.

[A] group is calling for a congressional investigation into the SPP and full disclosure of all documents when the new Congress run by Democrats begins in January. They’re getting support from the Minuteman Project that monitors the borders to deter illegal crossings, a group Bush has called vigilantes.

And now you know why he calls them “vigilantes” – Bush doesn’t want this planned union sundered by a bunch of American citizens.

Supporters of the anti-union stand point out that a prominent three-country task force backed by Canada’s business elite has promoted an elaborate vision of a common economy and security perimeter.

The plan, released last year, drew fire from some Canadians who saw it as a dangerous surrender of sovereignty designed to benefit big business.

Tancredo, who has often talked about the “porous” Canada-U.S. border, stirred up controversy last year when he mused on a Florida radio show that America could destroy Islamic holy sites like Mecca if there’s another terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

By the way, this article closed off by saying that Tancredo has been voted “one of the ten worst US congressmen by…Rolling Stone magazine.” Now doesn’t that lack of endorsement just ruin his credentials?

There is far more in this story than I can report here. Readers are welcome to dig up the links – Lord knows they are out there in abundance. For example, who, besides Kansas City’s citizens’ three million dollar outlay, is actually financing this project? I had the information late last night, but now I can’t find it.

And besides China’s ownership of both ends of the Panama Canal, how deeply is it involved in this scheme?

The whole thing is cloaked in economic terms – can you say “amero”? That is the monetary exchange planned to replace the peso, dollar, and the loon. Next comes the supranational laws, which will eventually replace our Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. Finally, any laws passed by our Congress can be trumped by whatever legislative body is pieced together by Dr. Frankenstein. Once vivified, this creature will spew out legislation that makes American law superfluous, American jurisprudence excess baggage, and the American Executive Office anachronistic. They will become part of the compost of history trash heap.

Such a prognosis would be paranoia, except we have the EU to serve as an example. And we’re headed there the same way Europe went – by stealth, by bureaucratic fiat, and by citizen inattention. They didn’t know what the elites had in mind for them, but with their current plight, we do have the horrible adumbration of what is to come.

What is to come is toll roads, incredible costs (borne by foreign investors and the American taxpayer), and the soul-deadening loss of identity. All done in the name of economic efficiency.

This is the devil’s spawn, and Bush is hand-feeding it.

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

Many thanks to readers who have sent in information on this, including Fjordman. There will be more forthcoming as I have time.

Sigh. Now Nancy wants to visit Tehran.

After her clueless trip to Damascus, where she cooled her heels waiting for a photo op (Boy Assad had a soccer game to attend with a Turkish politician first), Nancy Drew Pelosi now wants a cozy chat with A-jad.

As Kesher Talk asks, is this woman a Karl Rove mole?

Oh, wait a minute…Grandma represents a district in San Francisco. They love dialogue in San Francisco. And homeless people. They gather the mentally ill homeless to their streets. A lot of them look suspiciously like damaged leftovers from the last generation’s Love-In. Come to think of it, so does our speaker, except for the face lift. The scarf goes nicely, though — bagwomen will fight for that one.

Perhaps this new dialogue compulsion of hers is left over from that period, too. Instead of flashbacks, Madam Speaker is suffering from logorrhea. Nancy just wants to talk…and talk, and talk, and talk. When she stays in Washington, no one notices, since the highly ambitious folk who land there and immediately begin jostling for position appear to suffer from a similar urge: lip-flapping before microphones.

Only now the Speaker has a portable lectern and will travel wherever there is a dictator willing to exploit a useful idiot. They can certainly employ her more effectively than the U.S. House of Representatives does.

Maybe we could dig up Saddam, Stalin, Mao… she’d be kept busy for months, maybe years. And we would have her safely out of the country for long periods of time.

Way to go, Karl.

[Nothing further]

Thee article below was posted today by Christine at the 910 Group Blog.

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

Here’s the latest alert from Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR):

CAIR SEEKS FBI PROBE OF ‘HATE CRIME’ AT TN MOSQUE

Political, religious leaders asked to repudiate growing Islamophobia

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 4/10/07) — A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group today called on the FBI to investigated what Tennessee law enforcement authorities are calling a “hate crime” targeting a mosque in that state.

The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations CAIR said worshipers at the Islamic Center of Clarksville found a defaced copy of the Quran, Islam’s revealed text, on the front steps of the mosque just before communal prayers (Jummah) on Friday. Two strips of bacon, which is prohibited for Muslims to eat, were smeared in the Quran. Local police are investigating the incident as a hate crime.

SEE: Muslims on Alert After Hate Crime (Leaf-Chronicle)

“We once again urge local, state and national political and religious leaders to repudiate the growing level of anti-Muslim rhetoric in our society that can lead to such troubling incidents,” said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad.

According to the Clarksville Leaf Chronicle, two hours before the 1 p.m. Friday service, the Koran was found on the front steps of the Islamic Center. Someone had written “Mohammad pedophile” on the front, and an (unnamed) expletive was on the inside, smeared under two strips of bacon. Not only did the local police report it as a hate crime, but they said they would contact the FBI. Mosque representatives are meeting with the City Mayor Johnny Piper to see what he can do as well.

This is a clear example of how hate crime laws are being used to impose sharia law, in the guise of religious special accomodations, and in place of U.S. federal or state laws. I’m not a lawyer, so correct me if I’m wrong — that’s why we have a comments section — but under the current laws in Tennessee and the U.S., these are facts of the case:

1. The Koran — simply a book under our laws, rather than “Islam’s revealed text,” and therefore not subject to the special treatment required by sharia law — belonged to whoever put it on the steps. So no theft or defacement of someone else’s property was involved. If I had left a Bible on their steps, would that have been a hate crime? Or a Koran from Yemen, not accepted by the Wahhabi cult?

2. Leaving a Koran on a property’s steps — again, just a book like any other, under our law rather than sharia law — does not vandalize that property. Maybe you can define it as littering, but “hate crime littering” seems a bit of a dhimmitude stretch when it’s a single book and two pieces of bacon, neatly placed inside the book.

3. Writing in a book, including a Torah, New Testament, Bible, Lolita, The Pentagon Papers, the Yellow Pages or the Koran (again, just a book under any laws other than sharia) is permitted under the First Amendment. Writing an expletive in a book is permitted under the First Amendment. Writing that Mohammed was a pedophile is permitted under the First Amendment, and is also amply documented by both Islamic and other scholars of the Koran.

[Scriptural Evidence] Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64: Sahih Bukhari [the most venerated and authentic Islamic source]

Narrated ‘Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

4. Bacon is not illegal in Tennessee, and putting bacon in a book is not illegal in Tennessee. It’s a waste of good bacon, but it’s not illegal. In fact, Tennessee is the new home for the Pig Improvement Company, the world leader in genetic pig stock production (“Selling breeding stock and boar semen is a profitable business…”):
– – – – – – – – – –

In 2005, the Tennessee pork industry had over $52 million in cash receipts and ranked 24th in the United States in pork population. Tennessee’s 1,300 pig farms take up 51,876 acres of land and constitute the state’s 10th most lucrative agricultural industry.

Where was the underlying crime that must exist for this to be a “hate” crime, under U.S. or Tennessee laws? Or was the underlying crime one that exists only under sharia law, followed with meticulous political correctness by the Clarksville police in reporting it as a hate crime? Will leaving a book on the steps of a mosque become criminal trespass, in order to find some underlying crime to make it “hateful” under the National Incident Based Reporting System (pdf format) of the Department of Justice? The methodology for gathering hate crime statistics uses 3 categories of crimes: against people, against property and against society. Since this was not a crime against property or people, under U.S. and state laws, should we assume that the Clarksville police department has found it to be a crime against society under sharia law?

Or are we in the never-never land of searching for or inventing underlying crimes, to criminalize hostile and critical speech, so that it can be prosecuted as a hate crime? The 2005 Department of Justice “Study of Literature and Legislation on Hate Crime in America” (pdf format) warned of the risks:

Over the past 25 years, the federal government and all but one state have passed pieces of legislation addressing hate crime in some way. Still, there remains no national consensus about whether hate crime should be a separate class of crime, and among those supporting hate crime statutes, there is disagreement about how these statutes should be constructed and focused. The keys issues in the debate include:

(1) the necessity of considering hate or bias motivation when the core offenses(e.g., assault, vandalism) are already covered by criminal law;

(2) whether there is a danger in basing additional penalties for crimes upon the thoughts motivating offenders, rather than keeping the focus of criminal law on the behavior itself;

(3) whether it is possible to determine with legally-acceptable levels of certainty the motive behind a person’s criminal acts;

(4) whether, in practice, hate crime laws result in crimes against certain groups of people being punished more severely than equivalent crimes committed against other groups, and if so, whether that is fair and legally defensible;

(5) whether having hate crime statutes deters potential offenders; and

(6) whether having these statutes hinders law enforcement’s ability to investigateand prosecute crime.

Until we determine otherwise, assume that Clarksville, Tennessee is operating under sharia law regarding the First Amendment. Make sure you don’t criticize the violent verses in the Koran while jaywalking, owing time on your parking meter, or buying bacon at Target. You don’t know who in Clarksville’s finest may be watching and reporting you for hate crimes.

Mark Humphrys, do you know about this?

The Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland has just achieved official dhimmi status, sliding by under the banner of “Accommodation.” Caving in can take any number of forms, but this one seems particularly bizarre in a modern hospital.

Marked Manner reports:

The Royal College of Surgeons has confirmed that it is planning to build new facilities on its premises so that Muslims do not have to face Mecca while sitting on the loo.

The Islamic toilets, which will be situated in the Smurfit Building in Beaumont Hospital, will have the same specifications as Muslim toilets throughout the world.

The toilets are being built in accordance with the Islamic faith to facilitate the sizeable number of Muslims who regularly use the Royal College of Surgeons building.

Speaking about the new plans, a spokesman for the College said: “The wash room facilities proposed for the new building in Beaumont Hospital have been specifically designed in order to accommodate the cultural diversity of all of our students.

“We have received no formal requests. It is just to respect the cultural diversity of our student population.”

Hmmm… I wonder what Saudi prince is funding this operation?

Did you know there’s a whole wiki page devoted to Muslim toilet habits? Don’t convert or you’ll feel like you’re being potty-trained all over again:

The Islamic faith has particular rules regarding personal hygiene when going to the toilet. This code is known as Qadaahul Haajah and is extremely prescriptive. The rules were established during times before the invention of toilet paper or toilet seats. In many parts of the Muslim World, squat toilets are the norm and toilet paper remains rare and its use a matter of dispute.

“Prescriptive?” Good heavens, is there no place you can go where Allah is not watching? Here are the rules his followers have devised to keep people in line (this stuff is not found in the Koran; it’s just busywork for imams who need to get a real job):
– – – – – – – – – –

• Say before entering the toilet: In the name of Allah, O Allah! I seek refuge with You from all offensive and wicked things (Al-Bukhaaree)
• One should enter the toilet with the left foot and leave with the right foot.
• It is not permissible to enter the toilet whilst carrying or wearing anything bearing the name of Allah, such as the Quran, or any book with the name of Allah in it, or jewelry such as bracelets or necklaces engraved with the name of Allah.
• One should remain silent whilst on the toilet. Talking, answering greetings or greeting others is forbidden.[2]
• One should not face nor turn your back on Al-Qiblah whilst relieving yourself.[3]
• One should be out of sight of people when going to the toilet
• It is considered forbidden to relieve oneself whilst standing up, lying down or if you are completely nude.
• One should avoid going to the toilet anywhere where people may take rest or gather for any purpose.
• Do not raise clothes until you get close to the ground and do not uncover the body any more than is needed.
• One should sit on the feet (e.g. squat) keeping thighs wide apart with the stress on the left foot.
• Do not look to the private parts of the body nor the waste matter passed from the body.
• Do not sit more than needed.
• Do not spit, blow nose, look hither and thither, touch the body unnecessarily nor look towards the sky but relieve oneself with the eyes downcast in modesty.[citation needed]
• After relieving oneself it is essential to perform Istinjaa (washing with water) of the anus and/or genitals with the left hand and water. The precise mode of performing Istinjaa has also been defined by religious leaders: “At the beginning of Istinja, it is preferable to use toilet paper three times. If Istinjaa is being done on a hot day, then the person should start from the front to the back and then from the back to the front and the third time from the front to the back. If Istinjaa is being done on a cold day, then he should begin from the back to the front. After wiping, he should wash his hand first and then he should cleanse himself with two fingers and three fingers if necessary together with ‘pouring’ water. When using the two fingers, one should keep the middle finger in front and the ring and index finger behind it. After beginning with the fingers in this position, he should bring the ring finger forward and rub with the middle finger and ring finger. Thereafter, he will wipe with the index finger, if necessary. He should continue until all the impurity and smell is removed. The left over water after Istinjaa is paak only if there is no impurity in it.” (Mufti Ebrahim Desai) And further: “To wash the orifice with water, even though no filth is stuck to it after relieving oneself, is desirable. If the filth is sticking to it (less than a Dirham or equal to it) then the use of water is ‘Sunnah’ (optional) and in the case the filth stuck to the orifice is more than a Dirham then its washing with the water is ‘Fard’. (obligatory)” (Islamic Academy)
• Other than toilet paper, water and the left hand Istinjaa can be performed with earth, grit, stones and worn-out cloths provided they are all clean. It is forbidden to perform Istinyaa with bone, any edible item, dry dung, baked brick, potsherd, coal, fodder, writing paper and anything which has even a small value.
• After this process the hands should also be washed.
• When leaving the toilet one should also say a prayer, “Praise be to Allah who relieved me of the filth and gave me relief

This informative wiki has this proviso:

Note that it is known that many of these rules are not compulsory to all Muslims and fall into the category of the Sunnah, though it may be compulsory to just the Muslims that are in Mecca itself near the Ka’aba. As a further note many people believe that many points mentioned today are outdated since in modern times toilets have become clean tiled areas compared to thousands of years ago when they were confined areas in the desert.

Right. But I’ll bet the group of Wahhabists who funded the useful idiots at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland didn’t let on to those in charge that there was any optional part of this complicated routine.

God help the good citizens of Michigan if Conyers catches wind of this “innovation.”

Hat Tip: Lux et Libertas

Remember the days when socialists and progressives championed human rights for all oppressed people? Remember when you could count on the Left to oppose totalitarian thugs?

Of course, the only thugs that were beyond the progressive pale were those who received at least tacit support from the United States. Castro has had a free pass since the first day his cigar smoke filled the presidential palace in Havana. Daniel Ortega still remains a darling of the Left.

As long as the Taliban were ignored by the West, progressives and feminists were outraged over the oppression of the people of Afghanistan. But as soon as troops commanded by George W. Bush entered the country, a strange silence descended. The victims of the Afghan Islamists fell down the memory hole.

’Twas ever thus.

Tyrants cease being tyrants when they are opposed by the United States under a Republican Administration. Murderous despots are then numbered among the Victims of Imperialist Aggression.

But, strangely enough, leftists in countries groaning under Islamic oppression don’t feel the same way about the United States. In this article, published last week in New York Post, Amir Taheri describes the new pro-American Popular Front that has emerged among leftist groups in the Middle East and Central Asia. Their views are diametrically opposed to those of their comrades in the West:

• In Iraq, two rival Communist parties, along with Social Democrats and other center-left groups, supported the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and continue to play a significant role in the new pluralist system. They are resolutely opposed to a premature withdrawal of American and allied forces, as demanded by the U.S. Congress.
• In Lebanon, Walid Jumblatt’s Progressive Socialist Party is at the heart of the democratic movement to against the Islamic Republic’s attempt to dominate the country through its Hezbollah surrogates. The Lebanese democratic movement includes other parties of the Left, notably the Socialist Salvation Movement (Inqadh) and the Movement of the Democratic Left.
• In Iran, virtually the whole of the Left rejects President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s anti-Americanism and calls for normalization of ties with the United States. The recently created independent trade-union movement is emerging as a vocal challenger to Khomeinism.

It seems that the principles of the Western Left are — ahem — flexible when it comes to supporting the victims of oppression. It all depends on what your definition of “oppression” is:
– – – – – – – – – –

Iraq’s parties of the Left were shocked when the new Socialist government in Spain decided to withdraw from the U.S.-led coalition in 2004. “We had hoped that with a party of the Left in power in Madrid we would get more support against the Islamofascists, not a withdrawal,” says Aziz al-Haj, the veteran Iraqi communist leader.

Tareq al-Hashemi, vice president of Iraq, has also gambled his impeccable progressive record on the success of the pluralist experiment in his country. “Our enemy is al Qaeda, not the United States,” he says.

[Walid] Jumblatt, the Lebanese leader, says he realized that his life-long anti-Americanism had been misplaced when he saw “long lines of people, waiting to vote in Iraq, in the first free election in an Arab country.”

Samir Qassir, a Lebanese center-left leader murdered by the Syrians, often spoke of anti-Americanism as “the last refuge of the scoundrel” in the Middle East. “Politics is always a question of choice,” Qassir said in one of his last articles. “Here in the Middle East, we face a choice between democracy and alliance with the United States on one hand and surrender to religious fanatics and terrorists on the other.”

But not all voices in the Middle East speak out against Western progressives. Our leftists have some support in that part of the world, but — surprise — it comes from the hard-core Islamist groups, the most fervent enemies of human rights on the planet:

Skimming through the Middle Eastern press these days can produce unexpected results. It’s not rare to see a virulently anti-American article by an American or Western European leftist — and, alongside it on the same page, a pro-American article from an Arab, Iranian or Afghan progressive figure.

In Iran, for example, Hussein Shariatmadari — the ultra-Islamist editor of the daily newspaper Kayhan and a theoretician of the extreme right — often admiringly cites such American leftist figures as Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore and Jane Fonda.

Having all but abandoned its traditional opposition to capitalism and the bourgeois democratic system, much of the Western Left is forced to cling to anti-Americanism as its backbone.

In Eastern Europe during the revolutions of 1989, it was the United States that inspired people who longed to emerge from the grip of tyranny. The same is true today of people forced to endure Muslim despotism:

“Anti-Americanism is a luxury we cannot afford in the Middle East,” says Adnan Hussein, a leftist Iraq writer recently picked by the Financial Times as one of the 50 most influential columnists in the world. “Blinded by anti-Americanism, the Left in the West ends up on the same side as religious fascists and despots.”

[…]

While Chomsky and Moore see the United States as “an evil power,” many leftists in the Middle East see it as a force for good that ended the tyranny of the Taliban in Afghanistan, dismantled the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and forced the Syrians out of Lebanon after 30 years of occupation.

“In our region, the United States has become a force for the good,” says Jumblatt, who recently met President Bush at the White House for a surprise meeting.

I suppose Mr. Bush has to take his allies where he can find them. Strange bedfellows and all that.

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

For some reason, Mr. Taheri’s article reminded me of this post by Exile about the bottomless perfidy of the BBC towards its own government, its country, and the West in general:

Private Johnson Baharry is the latest and youngest surviving member of a very exclusive club. He has won the Victoria Cross. The VC is the highest possible award for bravery on the field of combat that is given by the British military. It was instigated by Queen Victoria, hence the name. An independent production company working with the BBC was preparing a documentary to tell Pte. Baharry’s story. Not one, but two, acts of unbelievable bravery whilst under enemy fire in Iraq which finally caused him serious injury, were duly rewarded with the VC. The BBC has decided to drop the project because the story is “too positive”. Pte Baharry would not speak out against the war.

Go over to On the Wing and read the rest.

I’ve often said that the self-loathing of the progressives seems to have entered the realm of mass insanity. Bush Derangement Syndrome has metastasized into a generalized condition, something that might be called West Derangement Syndrome. No thug is too odious to be co-opted in service of opposing Republicans, Conservatives, Tories, Nationalists, or anyone else who is not a Leftist Progressive. Nothing that is good and glorious about our own people is worth extolling until the Socialists have regained power — and maybe not even then.

The Left has lain down with dogs, and now the fleas are everywhere.

Hat tip: JM, via email.

This small item of twisted news has been sitting on my desk for a few weeks. Since it’s not the kind of thing that stale-dates very quickly, you may find the emphases more interesting than the actual statistics, though the numbers themselves are done with the usual MSM accuracy.

First the headline from al-Reuters:

Many Americans see little point to Web?

Here’s the lead paragraph:

A little under one-third of U.S. households have no Internet access and do not plan to get it, with most of the holdouts seeing little use for it in their lives…

Notice that it does not say that a clear majority of households – 69 percent, to be precise – do have Internet access. In fact, what it chooses to emphasize is that 29 percent of us are not connected and don’t plan to pony up for the privilege. Though they express this 29 percent as “a little under one third.”

Then you dig a little deeper and come across this:

“I do all my e-commerce shopping and YouTube-watching at work” was cited by 14 percent of Internet-access refuseniks. Three percent said the Internet doesn’t reach their homes.

So now the “almost one third” has been reduced by 17 percent. And of those people, almost half browse the net at work; that puts them out of the “refusenik” category. Combine them with the number of people whose homes are unable to access the internet, and the number of “refuseniks” drops considerably: from the “almost one third” (i.e., 29 percent) to reality, which is this: only 12 percent of us are “refuseniks”, as al-Reuters optimistically terms them.

It does not give the ages of those who aren’t interested, but I’ll bet the majority are over the age of 70, and simply don’t want the hassle of upkeep on a technology that came too late to allow them to adapt easily. I think of my 80-something cousin, a retired professor of French and a computer phobe to the hilt even though his children are in the industry.

As a counter example, I offer all those people in the library, signed up for their half hour online. Does your library have a section devoted to terminals? At ours when I walk by the first thing I notice is the span of the age groups browsing for information.

For some of the purported “refuseniks”, it’s a matter of poverty. A woman I knew who lived in our rural county in a shack without heat and running water (it was what she could afford while she went to school) had a Hotmail account and used the library to access her messages, or to look up information for her classes.
– – – – – – – – – –
“Almost one third” indeed. In addition to the negative emphasis, look at this bit of carelessness in their accounting. Remember they said 29 percent of households do not have access and don’t plan to get it? Well, further on, (using the earlier numbers I cited) they break down the particulars of this minority as follows:

“I’m not sure how to use the Internet” came from 17 percent of participants who do not subscribe. The response “I do all my e-commerce shopping and YouTube-watching at work” was cited by 14 percent of Internet-access refuseniks. Three percent said the Internet doesn’t reach their homes.

Does that add up to 29 per cent?

Does al-Reuters care?

Give it up guys. Your turn in the sun is passing.

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

Meanwhile, for you Linux lovers out there – or anyone with an animus toward Bill Gates – here’s an article from last November on the “$150.00 Laptop Per Child“ conceived by Nicholas Negroponte for poor countries who need computer literate children and have signed on for the idea.

Of course, the concept has been bashed by Gates, who has his own ideas about a cell phone which could more limitedly function as a computer. Negroponte is using Linux because Gates – definitely a “refusenik” when asked for help – has his nose out of joint. Thus the rush to compete with a good idea with the intention of obliterating it. That boy Gates don’t share, as anyone who has paid through the nose for Windows can tell you.

Apple’s Jobs, on the other hand, did offer his operating system for free, but wisely, Negroponte decided to stay with an open source for this project. So it’s Linux for all those computers going to Indian and Thai and African kids.

Thank you, Finland.

Dr. Sanity, that sane voice in an often babelous sea, has put up Calypso Bill among this week’s freaks at her latest compilation of The Carnival of the Insanities. She ought to subtitle this weekly feature of hers “You Can’t Make This Stuff Up”… except in our case, when the Baron actually did make it up for April Fool’s Day. Or in the entry, “14 Reasons to Allow Drinking on the Job“

While you’re over there be sure to check out her essay, Default Mode Therapeutic Psychobabble. She snips a trenchant comment by Mark Steyn and riffs on his theme.

Steyn first, examining the subtext [heh] of the British hostages’ interviews:

However, the language you deplore — “Some of the Iranian sailors were becoming deliberately aggressive and unstable”, “Throughout our ordeal we faced constant psychological pressure” — seems less a reflection on these men than yet more evidence of how therapeutic psychobabble has become the default mode of our culture — even unto the military.

Doc plays that one on her saxophone like it was 1930 and she is the world’s premier jazz performer:

One of the big pieces of the psychobabble industry is the promotion of “self esteem” at the expense of self control and personal responsibility. But contrary to popular myth self esteem is not the holy grail of psychological health. In fact, it is not necessarily even good for you, and most bullies, tyrants and other dysfunctional people fairly ooze self esteem. [my emphasis…this must be why Moe never, ever cares about Calvin’s situation as he relentlessly steals his lunch money. Stalin was just a Moe Writ Large — D]

– – – – – – – – – –

Most people confuse “self-esteem” with a “sense of self”. It is the latter—not the former, that is so often screwed up in the angry, violent, grandiose, and generally narcissistic people in the world. If you have a healthy “sense of self”, you are likely to have a healthy self-esteem; and a healthy self-esteem is not the same at all as a high self-esteem.

The psychological defect that leads to so many problems for people in their lives is a defective or distorted sense of … SELF. The excessive self-esteem you see in a bully comes from a distortion of reality that person develops with regard to their self. It used to be widely believed that low self-esteem was a cause of violence, but in reality, violent individuals, groups and nations happen to think very well of themselves. Do you really suppose that individuals like Ahmadinejad or the Iranian mullahs suffer from poor self-esteem? Do you think bullies like Saddam or thugs like Zawahiri had “fragile” egos as they made their way through life?

If I hear one more teacher say that stupid, self-serving behavior on the part of a child is simply “low self-esteem” I shall run to my car and grab the Uzi.

The sooner we do away with the Department of Education and all the post-graduate work in “education” imposed on those who would simply like to teach, the sooner our children will cease to suffer from the effects of the evils of bureaucracy. In fact, they might even learn to read. Or — imagine this — master critical thinking. /rant

Do go see the Doc’s whole essay. She rants far better than I, and with more learnéd pizzazz.

The Arabic word dawah means “call”, “summons”, or “invitation”, and refers to the proselytizing of infidels by Muslims in an attempt to convince them to submit to Allah. It is the duty of every Muslim to practice dawah towards the infidel. If dawah fails, then the tenets of Islam require the faithful to wage jihad, or holy war, against the infidel until he submits or is killed.

There’s a little bit of dawah being practiced at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute this week. Over the weekend Dymphna received an email from a woman in Connecticut:

My son is a freshman at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) in Troy, NY. He just told me that since Good Friday, the RPI Muslim students have put signs all over campus saying jihad is peaceful and what a great religion Islam is (proselytizing). I am very upset but because my son is a student there and the school President is a good buddy of Hillary Clinton’s, I cannot speak up. I know there would be retribution against him. I am planning to visit him there tomorrow and will see what it looks like. I will be taking along my little digital camera, too.

Is there anything that can be done to highlight the hypocrisy of this type of blatant proselytizing on the holiest of Christian days? Can you imagine the uproar if on the first day of Ramadan, campus Christians and Jews put up signs saying that “Christianity is Cool” and “Judaism Rocks?” I do not believe I am overly sensitive on most matters, but knowing the efforts underway at educational Jihad, this troubles me.

Yesterday, after she had been to campus and taken the photos, she wrote back to say this:

It wasn’t as egregious as I thought it would be. The RPI MSA had what were copy-paper handouts plastered on the foot bridge on campus and in the windows of some classroom buildings. The only objection I would have is of they chose this week (both Passover and Eastern Orthodox/Catholic/Protestant Easter) to have their Islam Awareness Week. I find the timing suggestive of a poke in the eye.

There’s a bit of a disconnect between the message in the images shown at right and the news which arrives every day from the mujahideen in Thailand, or Somalia, or Iraq, or Rotterdam. The promoters of the IAW would probably assert that true Muslims are peaceful, and that the violent zealots are not practicing true Islam. Unfortunately, there seem to be an awful lot of phony Muslims in the world.

These handbills are recapping the standard propaganda put out out by Muslim lobbying groups all across the West. Jihad means an inner struggle, and not holy war; Islam means peace; etc., etc.

I have some linguistic quibbles with the messages on the posters. The word “Islam” does not come from the Arabic root for “peace”; it comes from a word that means submission or obeisance. It has the same root as salaam, and the individual who performs salaam is engaged in the true practice of Islam — that is, prostration before an overlord.

Moreover, “Muslim” does not mean “anyone or anything that submits itself to the will of God.” The Arabic stem mu- refers to a person, or — more accurately — a man. A Muslim is thus a “man of Islam”, a man who prostrates himself before Allah. Similarly, a mujahid is a “man who performs jihad”, and a mullah is a “man of Allah”.

Women, of course, don’t enter into the picture. Nor do animals or things.

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

But back to Islam Awareness Week at Rensselaer Polytechnic. The event is being sponsored by the RPI chapter of the Muslim Students Association. The MSA is the youth wing of the Islamic Society of North America, and the student organization shares funding and other resources with ISNA. In fact, MSA is often found in association with CAIR, MPAC, and all the other alphabet soup of Islamic lobbying groups in the United States. In my crabbier moments I refer to it as the Jihadjungen.
– – – – – – – – – –
IAW occurs annually, and is held at various college campuses around the country. I did some checking, and IAW appears, like Easter, to be a moveable feast. In 2005 it was held at RPI from March 21-24 (Easter was on March 27), and in 2004 from February 15-28 (Easter was on April 11).

Leaving aside the peculiar length of the “week” involved, you can see that there is no correlation with Holy Week. Not only that, different campus chapters of the MSA hold IAW on different weeks, so there’s no conspiracy at work to subvert Easter or Passover.

The big question is: What would happen if a Christian or Jewish student group plastered the campus with proselytizing posters during Ramadan or on Eid ul-Fitr? We know that the Muslims on campus would be offended — that goes without saying — but how would the college administration react? Would the Christians and the Jews be guilty of “insensitivity”? Would they have to make up for their disrespect by taking down the posters and apologizing?

If not, then I see no problem with all the dawah during IAW. However, I have my doubts that the situation will ever be that symmetrical.

A good project for campus conservative groups next fall woul be to test this hypothesis. If your campus was one of those “celebrating diversity” during Islam Awareness Week, wait until Ramadan, print up some big colorful pictures of Jesus calling for sinners to come home, and and plaster them all over the walls and bulletin boards across campus.

Let’s see what happens.

Here’s a an Easter Day change of pace for everyone: the interaction of Buddhism and Islam, and the fate of Tibetan Buddhists, as reported from Denmark.

Steen recommended this Good Friday article from Sappho, a Danish online magazine. Kepiblanc volunteered to do the translation. Both deserve our thanks.

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

The Buddha Meets Holger Danske

Almost all the harm inflicted upon Buddhism throughout history has been caused by Islam, says Ole Nydahl. He finds it embarrassing that Buddhists never defended themselves. Muslim extremists now threaten Buddhists with renewed violence.

By Lars Hedegaard

It is hard to hide the fact that Ole Nydahl is a Buddhist lama, i.e. a person authorized to convey the teachings carried on from teacher to pupil since the days of Buddha. He holds a prominent position within a special branch of Tibetan Buddhism known as the Kagyu tradition, and Sappho met him in one of the Kagyu Buddhists’ beautiful buildings on Svanemølle Road in the middle of Copenhagen’s embassy district. But with respect to relations with other religions, Nydahl refuses to describe himself as a lama. Buddha lived 2,450 years ago and accordingly didn’t express any opinion on religions such as Christendom and Islam; consequently Ole Nydahl — in his role as a Buddhist teacher — will not do so either. However, as a “responsible, thinking man” Ole Nydahl will happily speak out.

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

Muslims threaten Dalai Lama and “Buddhist pagans”

According to a report dated April 4th. 2007 from the internet portal Asia News the Islamic extremist group Lashkar-e-Toiba, located in the Pakistan-dominated part of Kashmir, issued threats against expatriate leader of Tibetan Buddhism, the Dalai Lama. Lashkar-e-Toiba is among the most powerful Islamic groups in Southeast Asia. It has been connected with several deadly onslaughts throughout India and is allegedly connected to Al-Qaeda.

The threats against the Dalai Lama were surprising because the prominent Buddhist leader on several occasions praised Islam as being a peaceful religion.

The Dharamsala Police in Northern India, where the Dalai Lama lives, take the threats seriously and have enhanced their security precautions.

Those threats are in accordance with the anti-Buddhist campaign mentioned by Osama bin Laden in his speech on the Arabic TV network Al-Jazeera on April 23, 2006. Besides the usual threats against “crusaders”, countries supporting Denmark in its conflict over the Mohammed cartoons, the United Nations, etc., his message contained a specific reference to Buddhists. It was delivered when he spoke about the UN Security Council which Osama bin Laden accused of excluding Islamic nations all the while granting the rights of veto to “Crusaders of the world and Buddhist pagans.”

Lashkar-e-Toiba — a.k.a. Jama’at-ud-Da’awa — was instrumental in the row over Jyllands-Posten’s Mohammed cartoons. The founder of that group, Hafiz Mohammed Saeed, was arrested by Pakistani Authorities in February 2006 in order to prevent further rage among anti-Danish demonstrators.

— LH

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

During our conversation with Ole Nydahl, his wife Hannah — his companion through good times and bad since they both converted to Buddhism during a visit to the Himalayas in the 1960s — was under intensive care in another room. Hannah Nydahl — who, together with Ole, founded 520 Buddhist centers all over the free world and traveled the world for more than thirty years — was terminally ill with cancer and unable to walk anymore.

Hannah Nydahl died on April 1st, 2007.

But Ole Nydahl did not see any reason to cancel the interview. The work — the battle — goes on in spite of all the grief of this world. And that’s the impression one gets when reading his books. In the book Riding the Tiger with the subtitle Twenty Years on the Road: The Risks and Joys of Bringing Tibetan Buddhism to the West, soon to be published in Danish as Over alle grænser he tells about a 1974 visit to Denmark by a delegation of prominent Tibetan Buddhists headed by The 16th Karmapa. Nydahl arranged for his guests to be introduced to the old Nordic gods and the Saga heroes, whose ideals of courage and “the stiff upper lip” he finds more relevant than ever in a time of “empty sensitivity, lack of style, and profound confusion”.

Karmapa was given the opportunity to visit Holger Danske at Kronborg. Holger is — writes Ole Nydahl — “our national guardian and deserves the best only. He defeated the muslim Arabs in the Pyrenees and saved the freedom of Europe .”

Sappho is certainly visiting a religious leader with some “oomph”.

Potentials of the mind

Q: During a lecture you gave a few days ago here in Copenhagen, you expressed the idea that religious and cultural knowledge might be lost?

“Yes, several cultures with different views of the mind’s potential have disappeared in our time. The mind is without borders and sometimes varying circumstances can establish connections between certain characteristics. When the bearers of culture disappear, the knowledge associated with culture dies with them. Just look at our Greenlanders [Danish Inuit citizens — translator’s note].
– – – – – – – – – –
“We live in times characterized by incredible trivialization and forgetfulness about our values. Here in Scandinavia it’s a bit better than most places in the world, but it’s really a shame that people generally don’t exploit the potential of the mind.”

Q: Many of us can remember the time when we had neither Islam nor Buddhism in this country. Now we’ve experienced an influx of ideas, completely alien to our culture.

“The humanitarian and democratic parts of Buddhism were never strange to us. It’s in our constitution. As opposed to the teachings of the nature of mind. To realize that we can only see perfection outside ourselves because we already harbor that condition makes perfect sense. Meaning and purpose become evident, and we can work our way towards a consciousness that is beneficial to everyone. That option of evolution is open to everybody.”

Q: At the same time we’re witnessing the opposite development with the spread of the Islamic law-religion, founded on the idea that one has to volunteer into submission under strict rules dictating everything such as what to think, believe and do.

“To say it plainly, it’s really embarrassing that people — after 2,000 years of development towards freedom here in Europe — cannot comprehend their potential, don’t trust themselves, or are so badly disabled in childhood that they cast away their free will and enslave themselves under a totalitarian and fascist system. Surely, it’s pure fascism to subordinate oneself to other people in that way — no matter if it’s under a deity dictating what to do, a prophet, Hitler or Stalin. It’s always the same. Whenever you deny people their freedom of choice and self-determination, you reduce them to inferior beings.”

Q: But people do that to themselves?

“Yes, first they do it themselves. Then, the system forces them into permanent submission.”

The Pack-poison

Q: How to explain the human desire for submission?

“Aldous Huxley, whom I studied extensively at the university, called it ‘pack-poison’. If a lot of people do something it will attract others who want to belong or be a part of something. And if a start like this is sufficiently deviant it will always be attractive to certain unstable individuals. That is the reason why something originally in conflicting with human nature in the end can grow powerful, and accordingly very harmful.”

Q: What can we do to counter this?

“We must see to it that things are in the open. We must insist, at the least, that people who want to exploit their own humanity — and who therefore can turn dangerous to those who want to stay free — be humiliated, ridiculed and truly exposed. Which means that they can be dealt with just like anyone else. If you grant those people a hiding place and claim that they are protected from any banter in order avoid the ire of some prophet, then we’ve let go of the freedom of our future generations. We can very well describe it as a cancer, if you accept that people are not allowed to think and see things as they are. It’s something that conflicts with the general trend in society. This malignancy must be opposed by showing people who choose submission that there are other options — in case they develop an appetite for living.”

Destruction of Buddhism

Q: Can you describe in detail the relation of Buddhism vs. Islam?

“Almost all the destruction suffered by Buddhist culture has happened through Islam. In their persecution of polytheism they were unable to distinguish between the Brahmans and the Buddhists. They saw a lot of god-paintings and assumed that Buddhist worshipped them as exterior forces. Our paintings and statues don’t depict gods, however, but entities of energy enabling super-personal and liberating experiences.

“If we go Southward in Afghanistan from Mazar-i-Sharif and down to Kandahar and then East, we’ll find the old Buddhist core district destroyed by three Muslim invasions during the 900 to 1100 years. That was Ashoka’s old habitat where Buddhism originated. Thereafter Islam began to penetrate down through India. And, according to new Indian research, the Muslims killed some 80 million Indians from A.D. 1200 up until the English stopped it around 1700. We’re talking about Buddhists, Hindus, Jainists and others. If you peruse Arabian sources the term “budh” — the root word of Buddha and Buddhism — is someone worshipping many gods and whom Mohammed says must be killed, no matter what. Can’t even get dhimmi-status. Furthermore, the original Buddhist ‘little road’ through Central Asia was destroyed by Muslims. So, it goes without saying that Islam has caused us many ‘blessings’ throughout time.”

Embarrassing pacifism

Q: Why didn’t the Buddhists fight back?

“Having a waterproof, completely logical system is very dangerous. In that case you’ll have a tendency to bring all your friends with you into an ivory tower and forget all the ordinary people running around down below. What will people do if they worship a religion resembling a Swiss cheese — full of holes and stripped of logic and thus standing on feet of clay? — Well, the more porous a religion is the more you’ll try to convince others in order to convince yourself. That’s the old principle: billions of flies eat manure, billions of flies can’t be wrong.”

Ole Nydahl emphasizes that there is nothing wrong with Jesus encouraging his adherents to make all people his disciples. He himself tries to convince people of the blessings of Buddhism. What he rejects is the practice of convincing pagans with swords.

Q: No examples of Buddhists in arms? — They adhered to a radical pacifism?

“Yes, I’m afraid it’s so. I am not aware of any resistance toward aggression. And that’s really embarrassing when you see your wife, your children, your loved ones, your friends being butchered, and you haven’t armed yourself to protect them. Must be terrible.”

Q: Is that something being discussed among Buddhists today, that you should have done something?

“There are two factions. To the South we find the Therevada Buddhism opposing any sort of violence because suffering to them liberates people from bad karma. On the other hand, the Northern School claims that a bodhisattva must protect others — even if it brings suffering to the attacker. For example, we have a story about Buddha killing a man who tried to kill 500 others. The best choice, according to instinct. So, if you really feel compassion — and are yourself without confusing sentiments — then you must interfere. I know from personal experience that I react instinctively. I was a boxer for four years and I’m pretty strong. If someone small, a woman especially, gets bullied by someone bigger, I’m at it immediately.

Q: The question is : can you lose your tradition?

“My school of Buddhism — the diamond road — can very well be lost. It can survive only as long as one can find people with a rich inner life, who through meditation have achieved a certain level of insight, and lamas who can convey knowledge on the nature of mind. In 1959 — following the Chinese conquest of Tibet — some 85,000 people survived by escaping down the mountains into India. 5,000 were educated, had had inner experiences, and had preserved a variety of the Buddha’s teachings, and they died so rapidly from tuberculosis that the bonfires of incineration never extinguished. My wife and I arrived in 1968, just in time to get acquainted with the great teachers from the Kagyu line of meditation. A few years later — from around 1970 to mid-1980 — almost everyone was dead.”

Ole Nydahl emphasizes that as opposed to Southern Buddhism — which he thinks will survive as long its scriptures are conserved — the Northern Tibetan Buddhism — and especially the survival of the “diamond road” is dependant on the direct, verbatim delivery from teacher to pupil.

Q: When Westerners came to Tibet they quickly realized that it was a rather nasty place with slavery, oppression, poverty, class structure, draconian punishment etc.. How does that play with Buddhism?

“We don’t seek refuge in anything from Tibet. It was a medieval society — like Europe around 1450. The only thing of interest to us is the transference of those teachings Buddha gave his smartest students. That wisdom was preserved in India for 1,500 years, lived on thereafter for 900 years in Tibet until 1959 — and now it’s here. I really like the East Tibetans — the Kampas — proud, Viking-like warriors who kept the Chinese and other foes out all through that time.”

Q: We could use a bit of their spirit in contemporary Denmark.

“We have it. Several of my students have joined the National Guard. That’s a good place for young people if they feel that our country is in danger. If I were a bit more in Denmark — and if I were under 65 — I’d join, too.”

Some people have all the luck, don’t they?

I can’t imagine why this fellow chose our forsythia bush as his domicile but there he is, come out for a bit of lunch.

Sometimes he takes a post-prandial stroll down to the tool shed, but he seems to have a spot somewhere under all those blossoms when night falls.

He told us to say “Happy Easter” to everyone. And be sure to send carrots.

[Hippity hop. That’s all.]

The sheepdogs are emerging.

A reader sent this news story from the UK. I post it in its entirety:

Police fear a decision by the British National Party to put patrols on the streets of Calne will add to the town’s problem with yobs.

The BNP claims it will have patrols working by the end of the week and they will help to stamp out problems with gangs and attacks.

But Inspector Gavin Williams of Calne Police Station said “What people don’t realise is that we will have to police the patrols to make sure nothing untoward is happening.

This will distract us from other jobs meaning we won’t be able to do what we should be getting on with.”

The BNP move comes two weeks after town councillor Dave Bland was injured when teenagers got out of control and just over a week after a 35-year-old man was beaten with a hammer while his girlfriend was held at gunpoint during the violent robbery at the home in The Green.

The 20-year-old female occupant of the flat was pinned to the floor by one of the men while her boyfriend was repeatedly hit around the head and arms with the hammer.

The victims, who were both injured, managed to escape and ran into the street to raise the alarm.

BNP member Robert Baggs says the success of similar patrols in Corsham means there is also hope for Calne.

He said complaints from locals about antisocial behaviour have been instrumental in organising the patrols.

Wiltshire BNP chairman Mike Howson sparked controversy last month when he set up patrols in Corsham.

Mr Howson claims the vigilante patrols were a response to concern by Corsham residents about thugs in the town.

Mr Baggs says the most recent attack illustrates the need for regular patrols.

He said: “Of course the patrols are set to combat anti-social behaviour in the town mostly but we can’t let people worry about stepping out into their own street.

“The only way we can prevent things like this happening is with regular patrols on the street and as the police are not providing that service, we will.

“We tend to ask ex-service personnel to volunteer because they already have the discipline to do the job well.”

See what happens when you disarm the populace? The yobs start using knives against the law abiding. And if you take away the knives? Well, there is already legislation in the works to make legal knives smaller, but let’s just pretend we skip that step and those purportedly in charge move on to eliminate knife-carrying entirely. What then? What will they outlaw after the knives are gone?

How about bricks and baseball bats? Shovels? Will householders have to dig their gardens with teaspoons? Oh, no — can’t have that. As any felon can tell you, teaspoons can be sharpened into lethal weapons. And glass bottles can be broken to use the jagged edge.

The PC legislation against weapons will never, ever work. For a criminal, any given item can be a weapon. Back when the world made more sense, the bad guys who broke into your house were hit over the head in a lethal manner with a handy fireplace poker. But those will be outlawed soon, too. Besides, such violent behavior is already against the law. Let ’em take your stuff, say those who make such laws whilst living in guarded enclaves.

This kind of thinking reminds me of one of my liberal friends who, on giving birth to her son, legislated a total ban on military toys in her homes. It was the ultimate gun control and the ultimate futility. On one occasion, while minding one friend’s toddler, we put away all the usual WMDs that the future Baron was accustomed to use against the bad guys. Along with his toy soldiers and other references to anything military, the cap pistols and water squirters and laser swords went into hiding. They remained there for the interim of peace, love, and understanding that would reign while this young boy was in our care. So what did he do? He used part of his lunch — the fingers of toast — to hold as a gun and proceeded to “shoot” the fB while making bang-bang noises. Of course, a mighty battle across the lunch table ensued. They fell off their chairs in the throes of death agonies several times until admonished to finish their food before someone got hurt.

Thus did a little boy manage to subvert the good intentions of his pacifist mother. Years later, when the fB went to the boy’s house to play, reality had intervened and they played with guns in the woods. In fact, I think this child had a BB gun and a real archery bow before the fB managed to acquire these instruments of destruction.
– – – – – – – – – –
Meanwhile, scared parents in London are having their children fitted for knife-proof vests. Bloomberg News carries the story:

Ashgar Jilow used to sell stab-proof vests to nightclub bouncers and security guards at his London military surplus store. Now his clients are kids as young as 10 who fear they’re going to be knifed at school or on the street.

“Some of them are so tiny the vests don’t even fit under their school uniforms,” said Jilow, 55, who sells about three of the 120-pound ($230) vests a week. “Parents don’t know what to do to keep their kids safe.”

Every week in London 52 teenagers are victims of knife crime, according to the Metropolitan Police. A child is stabbed to death in Britain every two weeks and knife killings outnumber gun homicides three to one, said Norman Brennan, a police officer and director of the Victims of Crime Trust.

“Knife crime is out of control and kids carry them like fashion accessories,” Brennan said. The youngest child to be suspended from school for brandishing a blade was just five.

Last week two teenagers were knifed to death in London. Adam Regis, 15, was attacked March 17 on his way home from the movies in Newham, an east London borough that is being regenerated by the 2012 Olympics. He called his girlfriend for help as he bled to death, police said.

Three days earlier, Kodjo Yenga, 16, was stabbed to death as a gang of boys and girls chanted “Kill him, kill him” in Hammersmith, west London, where homes sell for more than 1 million pounds, eyewitnesses said.

Some students have brought machetes, combat knives, swords and sharpened screwdrivers at school, police say. Girls have been caught with blades hidden in lipstick and mascara tubes.

[Note: this kind of weapon-carrying by girls and women is a clear and distinct sign that the culture is in the toilet. No, we don’t want helpless women, but any brain researcher can tell you that lacking testosterone, women simply are not as aggressive as men. Except for the radical feminists. I do believe they eat testicles for breakfast — which explains the rise of a phenomenon known as “mean girls”.]

The Bloomberg story carries some disturbing statistics about knife violence among the young — in London, especially. They don’t mention race, however.

The Wiltshire Gazetteaccount is laughable because the police have had some essential body parts removed and replaced by bureaucratic prostheses. They will have to do more patrolling because of the patrols. That sounds just like our citizen efforts at our border with Mexico. The comments section in the Gazette is long. I didn’t scroll through all 198 responses, but of those I read, there was on one side a strong sense of relief that the BNP was doing something practical, and on the other side the belief that the BNP is hopelessly racist. Only time will tell which view wins out.

The BNP appears to be helping those who cannot help themselves against the anti-social behavior of gang-like “youths.” At least from the descriptions I’ve read by Theodore Dalrymple, this is not about race, nationality or sex. It is about depraved behavior on weekends by adolescents and young men and women who’ve been raised on the dole and have little sense of self or of meaning.

The question becomes why it is that other young men and women cannot protect themselves when set upon by thugs? Or why they go about alone, or in pairs, when they know the statistics of violence in the areas they visit? The thugs create violence because they can. The police are useless and private citizens are impotent. It seems a win/win situation for the bad guys, doesn’t it?

One of our faithful readers mentioned in an email of condolence about my son’s beating a method of self-defence developed by… you guessed it: the always outnumbered Israelis, the ones who say “never again” and mean it. Until he told me about this form of martial arts, I’d never heard of it. Have you?

Here’s the scoop from Wikipedia:

The beginning of the system that would become Krav Maga in Israel was developed in Hungary and Czechoslovakia in the 1930s by Imi Lichtenfeld…

…He first taught his fighting system in Bratislava in order to help protect the Jewish community from Nazi militias. Upon arriving in the British Mandate of Palestine prior to the establishment of the Jewish state, Imi began teaching hand-to-hand combat to the Haganah, the Jewish underground army. With the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, Imi became the Chief Instructor of Physical Fitness and Krav Maga at the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) School of Combat Fitness.

[…]

Prior to 1980, all experts in Krav Maga lived in Israel. That year marks the beginning of contact between Israeli Krav Maga experts and interested students in the United States. In 1981, a group of six Krav Maga instructors traveled to the US to offer demonstrations of the system, primarily at local Jewish Community Centers. This, in turn, led to demonstrations at the New York Field Office of the FBI and the FBI’s Main Training Center. The result was a visit by 22 people from the US to Israel in the summer of 1981 to attend a basic Krav Maga instructor course. The graduates from this course returned to the US and began to establish training facilities in their local areas. Additional students traveled to Israel in 1984 and again in 1986 to become instructors. At the same time, instructors from Israel continued to visit the US. Law Enforcement training in the US began in 1985.

Now this system has spread and there are many classes all over the US. What intrigues me is the fact I’d never even heard of the technique. These people certainly aren’t seeking headlines, though one group has a page for kids. Looking at their methods, you can see why the survival of Israel has continued:

In Krav Maga, there are no hard-and-fast rules. It is not a sport, and there are no competitions. All the techniques focus on maximum efficiency in real-life conditions. Krav Maga generally assumes a no quarter situation; the attacks and defenses are intended to inflict the most pain possible on the opponent in the least amount of time. Groin strikes, headbutts, and other efficient and potentially brutal attacks are emphasized.

The guiding principles for those performing Krav Maga techniques are:

• neutralize the threat
• avoid injury
• go from defending to attacking as quickly as possible
• use the body’s natural reflexes
• strike at any vulnerable point
• use any tool or object nearby

The emphasis is put on taking the initiative from the attacker as soon as possible.

[…]

It stresses fighting under worst-case conditions or from disadvantaged positions (for example, against several opponents, when protecting someone else, with one arm unusable, when dizzy, or against armed opponents).

It makes sense that this technique would arise from a people that others strive to obliterate. We in America are so soft and protected that we don’t even leave room in the day for physical fitness in our schools anymore.

That may be the case for Europe also, given the rate of unsolved knifings and other violent mayhem. Our young — except for those few who volunteer for military training or take martial arts classes “for fun” — are unique in history for their soft underbellies.

Perhaps a rearrangement in our thinking about the preparation of our children to live in this cowardly new world is now in order. In fact, such thinking is past due if we want them to survive. In the Bloomberg article, one woman had this observation about knife-proof vests for children:

“I wouldn’t blame any parent for giving their child a stab vest if it makes them feel a bit more secure,” said Nancy Odunewu, a pastor whose son Emmanuel, 19, was stabbed to death in Lewisham, southeast London, in November 2006. “If I could have done anything to save my son then I would have.”

A universal sentiment. Meanwhile, our frequent reader told me that as soon as his tiny granddaughter is big enough, she is going to begin Krav Maga classes. Evidently they are readily available in the American southwest, and to judge by the site I found on Google — from which I took the illustration — they have Krav Maga in the UK, too.

Maybe this idea will spread. It would certainly take care of public mayhem and the needless maimings and deaths of children. Come to think of it, maybe it would put an end to the phenomenon of mean girls, too.

What do you think? Would a strong and physically fit citizenry make any difference in our voting patterns?