There’s been a lot of talk here recently about the increased incidence of rapes, many of them committed by Muslim immigrants, in both Europe and Australia. We’ve highlighted the situation in Sweden, Norway, and Britain. Now it’s time to look at Belgium as well.

A reader drew my attention to this news article from the Belgian site La Dernière Heure, which I have translated from the French:

Raped in the middle of the station

21-year-old Lola was attacked by two men. Some commuters witnessed it but did not react

Saint-Gilles It is an indignant father, disgusted and outraged, who speaks to us. “My daughter was raped in the Gare du Midi. In Brussels. Capital of Europe. With total impunity.”

It was June 12. “My daughter was returning from Waterloo. It was 9:00 pm. On exiting the train, she headed for the Bancontact.” A public passage. Yet this is where the tragedy took place.

“Right in the middle of a station. But how is this possible?” continues the father of Lola, who is 21 years old. “Two men accused her of not wearing the veil. My daughter is pretty. She is blonde with blue eyes.”

Everything happened very quickly after that. “One of the assailants took out a knife. My daughter was pushed up against the wall of Bancontact. With a knife at her throat, one of the boys raped her. The other watched.”

– – – – – – – – –

It was 9:00 pm. It was still light, and outside the station was far from empty. “People were passing by. My daughter is confident that she saw at least three people. None of them stopped to help her.”

The rape ended, and the attackers departed calmly. “They were two North Africans. They did not even wear hoods. And don’t tell me that I am a racist because I mention their origin! My daughter was raped because she was not wearing a veil. That’s the truth!”

Lola went to see her girlfriend. “Do I have to tell you what kind of state she was in?” A few minutes later, the young woman was hospitalized.

Obviously, a complaint was filed. “The police were very professional. Her clothes were removed as evidence. DNA was extracted.”

But, alas, the culprits are still at large… “Following the death of Joe Van Holsbeeck, it was proclaimed loud and clear that there would be more security at stations. With my daughter, you have proof that nothing has changed. There are no cameras around the Gare du Midi, which is still one of the most popular stations.”

Marc is bitter. “I’ll have no more of this Belgium where everything is permitted. It leaves lawless areas like that with young people adrift. These rapists wanted only one thing: to abuse my daughter, to possess and denigrate her because she was not like they hear that girls should be… It’s a disgrace.”

Rape by gangs of immigrant is an assertion of dominance, and in that sense it is a political act. It says, “We are in charge here, and we do as we please with non-Muslims. No one may stop us; we operate with impunity.”

If the Belgium government fails to prove such assertions wrong, then immigrant-dominated areas of the country will become de facto Muslim states.

I’ve written previously about the “nancy boys” of Islam: the custom of keeping pre-pubescent or barely pubescent boys as sex toys for use by grown men in certain Islamic countries. Arabs are notorious for it, and the practice is particularly prevalent in Afghanistan. It’s also fairly well-known in Iran — check out some of the classical Persian art on the topic, if you have a strong stomach. This was not during Zoroastrian times, mind you; it was definitely a Muslim practice.

The presence of NATO troops in Afghanistan is bound to involve a culture clash, but soldiers from Europe and North America find the custom of keeping catamites difficult to deal with.

The problem is too large to be ignored, and a story about it made The National Post this past week.

Defending freedom to abuse

Canadian soldiers in the main guard tower at forward operating base Wilson last summer winced when I asked about the sudden lineup of teenage boys along the mud walls of the neighbouring Afghan market.

“Wait a few minutes. You’ll see,” said one, his lip curling. “It’s disgusting.”

Sure enough, a handful of uniformed Afghan police officers emerged from their rundown detachment, walked through the barricades and started chatting up the dozen or so teens, some looking decidedly pre-teen.

A few minutes after they returned, the selected kids were waved through the main gates and went straight inside the police station. An hour later, when I left the observation post, the boys were still inside.

This evening ritual is often derided by soldiers as man-love Thursdays.

Afghan officials insist the notion of men and boys getting together the night before the Muslim holy day for sex is a myth. And, sure, it’s theoretically possible the cops were merely good-deed-doers giving these teens reading lessons.

But Canadian soldiers insisted we had just witnessed the regular Thursday evening negotiation for sex between Afghan men and boys, apparently for gifts or money.

This kind of behavior tends to develop in cultures in which women are scarce. Where polygamy is practiced, rich and powerful men monopolize the available nubile women, leaving a large cohort of young men with no normal outlet for their impulses. Since Islam does not condemn the use of pre-pubescent boys as sex objects for men, a culture of pederasty develops.
– – – – – – – – –
What’s worse, young men may develop a taste for this kind of gratification, so that they continue their habits even after they are old enough and prosperous enough to marry.

Hence the saying, “Women for reproduction; boys for pleasure.”

Hence also, “man-love Thursdays”.

The Canadians are having trouble reconciling their sensibilities with their obligation to be polite guests while in Afghanistan:

It raises the disquieting question of how much responsibility Canadian soldiers shoulder, being military guests and all, to stop Afghan activity that would result in rape or child prostitution charges back home.

It should be stressed that the activity at FOB Wilson does not mean Afghan police and army officers are engaged in an epidemic of juvenile sodomy.

But the issue was given fresh legs last week by a military chaplain named Jean Johns, who reported that soldiers under treatment for posttraumatic stress syndrome had been told to “ignore” any assaults or rapes on Afghan civilians they had seen.

This, unfortunately, is what “nation-building” means in practice.

We cannot change the culture in Afghanistan quickly, if in fact we can change it at all. Sharia is enshrined in the Afghan constitution, women are forced into marriage, converts to Christianity face a possible death sentence, and little boys are routinely sodomized by grown men. There is very little that Coalition troops can do about these things.

If Canadian soldiers had intervened between Afghan police and boys clearly selling themselves for sex, for example, an important partnership would quickly sour. Now that several years’ worth of Taliban prisoners have been freed during the Kandahar prison breakout, we arguably need what passes for an Afghan police force more than ever.

Still, Defence Minister Peter MacKay told the Commons he’d met with military leaders yesterday and insisted soldiers “report any allegation of unlawful activity they see.”

That’s easy for him to say, as Canadian soldiers rumble LAVs through marijuana crops or swaths of opium-producing poppies so vast, a single field would net Canadian law enforcement its annual seizure.

We may need troops in Afghanistan as a northeastern bulwark against Iran, or as a northwestern front against the coming Islamic Republic of Pakistan. But let’s not pretend that we’re building a modern Western democracy when the facts on the ground so clearly contradict that notion.

Our ideals should never be discarded, but we need to be honest and straightforward about what we have gotten ourselves into.

Our interests required us to install the Karzai government and allow it to function the way it does. It’s not something that we would deal with if we didn’t have to.

Nancy boys, opium, the hijab, and sharia. No lipstick on this particular pig.

Hat tip: TB

Regular readers know that we try to keep up with the latest shenanigans of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), with the help of our ever-vigilant Danish correspondent TB, who reads everything.

Last week I reported on the OIC’s ten-point plan to combat Islamophobia in the West, which was drafted during a two-day conference in Kuala Lumpur. But the struggle against Islamophobia never rests; it continues twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.

The latest news concerns a speech given a few days ago by the Secretary General of the OIC, Prof. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, at the thirty-fifth session of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the OIC in Kampala, Uganda.

Prof. Ihsanoglu still focuses on the fight against Western Islamophobia as his number one priority. Wherever it may be found, Islamophobia must be rooted out.

Here’ what the esteemed professor said (with my emphasis added):

In face of the adverse and mounting phenomenon of Islamophobia in the West, we placed this issue at the top of our priorities and preoccupations, while conducting a large-scale world-wide effort to confront it at four levels:

First: The official level of countries and governments of the West, where this phenomenon is rampant and wide-spread. We have exhorted the officials in these countries to assume their inherent legal responsibilities in order to stem this illegal trend in conformity with international and domestic laws which prohibit discrimination based on incitement to hatred towards individuals or groups because of their religion, race, or other grounds.

Note that our infidel legal responsibilities are inherent, that is, they are intrinsic to our laws, or ought to be. If our laws do not proscribe Islamophobia in all its forms, then they are not in accord with international law, and hence must be changed.

Prof. Ihsanoglu continued with his next point:

Second: The level of major international organizations, such as the United Nations General Assembly in New York or the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, as well as organisations concerned with Dialogue among Civilizations, or inter-religious and interfaith dialogue.

The UNHRC, as I mentioned last week, ruled off-limits any mention of the oppression experienced by people who live under sharia. It’s totally in the pocket of the OIC, so it’s no wonder that the OIC wants to work at that level.
– – – – – – – – –
As for “interfaith dialogue” — the latest Saudi-sponsored event of that nature will take place in Madrid next month. The choice of Madrid, as Dhimmi Watch points out, is significant for two reasons. First, it’s actually legal there for Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. to practice their faith and possess copies of their sacred texts — unlike in, say, Medina.

Secondly, the event is taking place in the heart of al-Andalus, the ideal Multicultural empire from Islam’s Golden Age. There’s no mistaking the symbolism of that.

The Secretary General continues his enumerations:

Third: Renowned academic institutions, intellectual and research centers, and think-tank circles.

By “renowned academic institutions” he presumably means Harvard, Georgetown, and many other universities in the United States, Canada, and Britain on which the Saudis have lavished at least a billion dollars over the last two decades to endow chairs and set up departments of “Islamic Studies”.

The OIC is obviously expecting a big anti-Islamophobic bang for its buck.

Finally:

Fourth: The level of the OIC Islamophobia Observatory, which we have established in order to monitor and document all manifestation of this scourge, and to deal with them in an interactive manner.

I’ve mentioned the Islamophobia Observatory previously. Since its inception last year, the OIC’s watchdog has been busy. In a report issued in March, it had this to say:

It also notes Resolution 60/150 of the 60th UN General Assembly Session on standing up to the tarnishing of the image of religions and calls for respecting beliefs and not insulting them.

The resolution reflects the international community’s readiness to root out discrimination against Muslims and insulting Islam.

As for non-government organizations (NGOs) and civil societies, the report notes their important role in standing up to discrimination against Muslims living in non-Muslim societies.

It mentions the two sessions held by the UN General Assembly on the role of NGOs in creating understanding between religions, cultures and cooperation to achieve peace.

On recommendations, the report notes that the observatory’s main goal, as stipulated in the Ten-Year Action Program, is to correct the distorted image of Islam and to highlight its teachings of moderation, peace and tolerance.

Notice that the Observatory has a ten-year action plan. Islam thinks in the long term. There’s no politician in the United States who can think past the first week of next November, and none in Europe who pays any attention past whatever time the Treaty of Lisbon manages to get shoved through. But Islam takes the long view of things.

Back to Prof. Ihsanoglu’s speech, which continued with this:

Taken together, this plan has proven its merit and we have been able to achieve convincing progress at all these levels mainly the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, and the UN General Assembly.

The United Nations General Assembly adopted similar resolutions against the defamation of Islam.

The OIC’s efforts will involve NGOs — most of which, being hard-left collaborators, are guaranteed to toe the anti-Islamophobic line — and the UN General Assembly, in which the OIC already commands a majority.

How can they possibly fail? As long as we keep paying for the UN rope, there’s no doubt that we’re going to be hanged with it.

The Secretary General concluded:

In confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film “Fitna”, we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed. As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.

He’s not mistaken: any number of Western governments, along with their quasi-official media organs, are looking seriously into the question of freedom of expression. Sweden, Britain, France, and other countries have recently discovered that free speech does not include the right to defame Islam.

The OIC’s plan is clearly laid out, and is well underway.

Expect them to beat their ten-year deadline.

Hat tips: Fjordman for the Dhimmi Watch article; TB for everything else.

I wrote a couple of days ago about the possibility that Geert Wilders will be arrested and extradited to Jordan if the leaves the Netherlands. A reader from Canada wrote to me yesterday with the following suggestion for a response to Jordan’s pernicious vendetta against Mr. Wilders:

Please find below the contents of a letter that I have sent to various Canadian officials and others regarding the international arrest warrant against Geert Wilders. I humbly request that you consider encouraging your readers to demand that their governments and mainstream media stand behind Geert Wilders. I share the contents of my letter only because it may trigger some ideas on how the matter can be approached.

All of us waited for the release of Fitna with great anticipation, and Wilders was praised for his courage. I believe that Geert Wilders should not have to face the international warrant without our help. There must be an effort on our part to get the Jordanian Court order quashed.

I hope that those of you who run blogs will seriously consider my request to help Wilders. Bloggers have the power to provoke just as much interest, excitement and action about the international warrant against Wilders as there was about the release of Fitna.

My next letter will be to the Jordanian government expressing my outrage. All products from Jordan should be boycotted.

Here is the text of the letter she sent to Canadian officials:

Re: “Moderate Jordan” seeks arrest of Geert Wilders

Please find below an article from the Dutch Press. A Court order in “Moderate Jordan” has called for the arrest of Dutch Politician Geert Wilders under an international warrant. Every western government should immediately shut down diplomatic relations and funding of Jordan until this decision is quashed. Sadly, it is likely that western governments and politicians will do absolutely nothing. Fear of reprisals is how decisions are made regarding Islamists. Our principles are continually tossed aside in efforts to appease these demanding tyrants. Tragically, selfishly, foolishly and with suicidal tendencies, the west will remain silent, and allow Jordan to proceed with this indecent act against an elected member of the Dutch Government.

– – – – – – – – –

I see no difference between this fascist decision on the part of Jordan, and the Nazis. It makes me wonder what the hell the point of World War II was if we are so willing to throw away our freedoms, and turn our backs on our fellow citizens throughout the west who are under attack from fundamentalist Islam. What kind of people have we become to allow such things to occur?

How long are we going to allow Islamists to tell us what we can think, read, write and say? Their demands and encroachment on western society will never stop until we make it stop. Have we learned nothing from the lessons of Nazi Germany? There is absolutely no difference between Nazi fascism and fundamentalist Islamic fascism. They were in bed with one another during the 30’s and 40’s. The goals of fundamentalist Islamists are the same as those of the Nazis — world domination. When will western politicians get that point?

If Jordan is successful in arresting Wilders or curtailing his activities as a politician, then one more nail will have been hammered into the coffin of western civilization. Our silence will make us complicit with this evil.

It is irrelevant whether or not one agrees with Wilders’ approach. His style is not the issue. Wilders’ right to exercise free speech without being harassed by Islamists is the issue. It is not inconceivable that similar warrants will be ordered against individuals such as Mark Steyn, the publishers of MacLeans, Ezra Levant, and others, including politicians, who dare speak out against the Islamist agenda, or express any opinion that Islamists may take offence to. Fundamentalist Islamists are easily offended. The demands that will be placed upon the west for “offenses against Islam” are limitless. Will my Government remain silent if international warrants are issued against Canadians who speak about the Islamist agenda? Allowing Jordan to get away with these actions against Geert Wilders encourages Islamists to institute even more draconian infringements on our freedoms, and target other westerners.

Short-sighted western policies enable Islamists in their goals against the west. Islamists believe they have the right to tell us what to do. Our policies of appeasement or our silence encourage this viewpoint. To the best of my knowledge they have not won their war against the west yet. However, the way we continually bend to their demands indicates otherwise. Newt Gingrich is right we are in a “surrender mode”. The Court decision in Jordan and the recent UN decision/farce regarding restrictions placed on who is allowed to discuss religion (Islam) and what is allowed to be said (about Islam), and the attacks against Wilders, Steyn, MacLeans, Levant and countless others, proves the point that Islamists are determined to silence and crush the west at every opportunity. They will only succeed in doing so if the west allows it.

Western governments must find the courage to say enough to Islamists. It is time for western politicians to take a stand and defend free speech, stand beside individuals who have the courage to warn the west about the goals of fundamentalist Islam, and actually protect western values instead of continually placating Islamists on bended knee. Stand up for our freedoms, with the courage of our World War II Vets. You’ll feel good about yourselves at the end of the day, and just might start a trend that will help save the west from fundamentalist Islam. Phone leaders throughout the west and convince them to unite in public support of Geert Wilders. Make a phone call to Jordan and tell them that their Ambassador to Canada is to leave immediately, and that aid and business relations with Jordan will cease until the arrest warrant for Wilders is quashed. Find the courage to do the right thing.

The future Baron and I had an extended and pleasant visit with Dymphna in the hospital this evening, and she asked me to report back to GoV readers on her progress. She is doing well, and is quite chipper, given the circumstances.

She has had a brain scan, which turned up normal. Various heart tests have also been done, and blood has been extracted, but no definitive results have been reported yet (it’s the weekend).

She says that a neurologist paid her a visit and poked needles at different parts of her face and neck, and also rapped on her joints to gauge the response.

There is reportedly a Nurse Ratchet clone on the ward, but I didn’t get to meet her.

Outside Dymphna’s room, on her roommate’s side of the door, is a pre-printed sign that reads as follows:

FALL

Bed

Entrapment

Precautions

Dymphna was jealous that she didn’t have a special sign of her own on her side of the door, so she created and posted one herself:
– – – – – – – – –

PISSY

Peeved

and

Repressed

GRR…

Most of her time is spent in severe boredom, which is why she took all those books with her.

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

One of the weekend techs who works on the ward is a young man from Croatia who is majoring in physics at a nearby college. He was just coming off a twelve-hour shift, and the future Baron and I had an interesting discussion with him before he left.

From him I found out that Serbs and Croats can almost completely understand each other’s languages, but that it is not so easy with Bosniak, Slovenian, and Macedonian.

The fB, following his own major interest, learned that Croatia has a vigorous viticulture industry. Its climate is favorable for growing grapes, and, being adjacent to Italy, it has an established wine-making tradition.

Unfortunately, as far as we can tell, no Croatian wine is exported to the USA, so we won’t be sampling it any time soon.

That’s all the news from the hospital front.

The future Baron and I are off to visit Dymphna in the hospital. I have printed and will take with me all the good wishes that readers have left in the comments or sent by email.

Please behave yourselves while I am away. Suggested topic of discussion: the upcoming runoff election in Zimbabwe.

[nothing else here]

Below is another guest book review by Henrik Ræder Clausen of Europe News.

Book review: “The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History”
Reviewed by Henrik Ræder Clausen

Disclaimer: I’m not American. I just happen to love history. Bear with me as I have the audacity to write about American history.

One may wonder, perhaps having suffered boring high school history lessons: What could make history fun? The answer is simple:

Truth does.

Thomas E. Woods, in this delightful and easy-to-read book, sticks to this simple concept. And it works. Building on the best possible foundation — the American Constitution — he reassesses key events in American history and digs out all kinds of quotes, facts and details that are routinely skipped in today’s history lessons.

Simplicity, cherry-picking and iconoclasm

Why would one skip important parts of American history, one may wonder? The simplest explanation might be the most likely — that digging into the details reveals such complexity that most teachers of history would balk at the challenge. Painting in more colours than black and white takes much more work — and, well, skill. A harder problem would be that many of the details here disturb the official line of thought in academia, and taking up these issues might lead to academic isolation, which is not so nice. Worse still is that digging into some of the central myths of American history might disturb the identity of the nation and cause distrust in the federal government. Those reasons should be enough for any careful historian to back off and dig into the decay of the Mayan empire instead.

Woods, not bothering much about academic exclusion, forges ahead. Taking the noble foundation of the US Constitution as his springboard, takes a delightfully refreshing look at American history. He does what every respectable historian should do: He uses the sources. Digs into quotes by Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt. And yes, he gets some myth-busting and surprising iconoclasm done.

Woods has a straightforward view of the Constitution. He reads the text, and he applies it, moving to challenge several of the ‘great’ presidents of the United States on the best and finest of foundations, leading to some awfully incriminating conclusions:

• The American civil war was not about slavery. It was about forcing a unified state.
• Woodrow Wilson possibly was the most dangerous person ever to become president.
• Fascination with federal intervention created the Great Depression.
• American involvement in wars is not always a Good Thing. ‘Democracy-building’ usually fails.
• We lost a lot of good things during the 60’s. Looks like common sense was first to go.
• Clinton’s US Balkan policy was a failure. And, since Bush changed nothing, it still is.

One will wonder, of course, if Woods is biased? Of course he is! But that doesn’t mean he’s dishonest, and that’s what matters. He deliberately delves into the parts of American history he finds relevant, skipping entire large passages that he has no interest in working with. This book isn’t — and he states that clearly — a comprehensive guide to American history. It is cherry-picking. And — while he uses original sources extensively — it comes across as a very personal book, in a positive sense. He shines in his enthusiasm for history, and in exposing the faulty perceptions of history many suffer from today.

Constitution: Just use it
– – – – – – – – –
The stringent approach Woods takes to the US Constitution deserves special mention. For the Constitution is a promise by the founding fathers of how the United States were intended to be run, with due respect for and protection of, the citizens. Circumventing the Constitution is a grave matter indeed, and Woods documents many such cases. Politicians of today use this tradition of circumvention to further their own agendas and obtain disproportionate amounts of political power, and this is a problem.

Political power, in any democratic system, should be exercised close to the people giving that power. Yet political tradition in the US, in the European Union and elsewhere are, to a large degree, in the hands of a self-elected elite who seem to consider the electorate a ‘problem’ rather than their natural power base. The recent European struggle over the EU “Constitution Treaty” (now renamed “Lisbon Treaty”) is a related example of this elitism.

Woods digs into an interesting proposal for the relationship between the Union and the constituent states, namely the “Principles of ‘98” (1798, that is). The concept is simple: If only the Union is permitted to interpret the Constitution, power will, bit by bit, be transferred from state level to Union level. The Principles of ‘98 proposes that both parties would have the right to interpret constitutional law, and thus the states would have a solid constitutional foundation for limiting federal power. The principles were not adopted, but the thought is intriguing: Had these principles been in place, the American Civil War, for one, would have been obviously unconstitutional.

Prose and facts

Woods writes in a lovely, straight prose and elucidates constitutional principles in a way that one needs no prior understanding of law to follow. Unfettered by murky traditions, he brings in a truckload of challenging information that any high school student would find a godsend for challenging inept teachers of history. Challenging incompetence, with a solid basis in facts, is a great training, and this book gives a solid array of useful facts for the purpose.

And he uses these facts. combined with relentless logic, to demonstrate the repeated ineptitude of governmental programs and well-meaning (on the surface) legislation. Take the Great Society programs created by Lyndon B. Johnson to battle poverty. From 1950 through 1968, poverty in the US had shown a regular decline of about 1 percentage point a year. Enter the Great Society program to accelerate that trend. Did it work? Well, no. For the first time in two decades, poverty stagnated. Crime and drug use, on the other hand, accelerated. But at least he managed to spend seven trillion dollars on the effort.

War

Woods loves honesty, clarity and transparency. He mercilessly exposes clandestine government policies and manipulations in several of the major wars entered by the US, including the Civil War, WWI, WWII, the Korean and Vietnam wars. They can’t be covered in detail, of course, but key events leading up to the wars are examined, with very interesting results.

The fact is that the United States after WWII has a very significant standing army, which is not in line with the wishes of the framers of the Constitution. Fortunately, only the US Congress can declare war, which is a measure designed to keep the executive branch of government (the president) from plunging the nation into unneeded wars.

Unfortunately, this is being circumvented. Consider the number of wars that the US has been involved in since WWII — no small number. Yet, in none of these did a formal declaration of war open it. Congress, the legislative branch of government should be declaring wars, but has in practice relinquished this power to the executive branch, who enter into military engagements on other legal foundations, such as ‘policing agreements’ or ‘enforcing UN resolutions’.

Franklin D. Roosevelt gets a particular vicious beating in the book. Apart from the details on the role he played in sustaining the Great Depression, his giveaway to Stalin will probably upset many. Take this quote, with Roosevelt addressing the William Bullitt (US ambassador to the Soviet Union) who had just warned the president against the intentions of Stalin:

Bill, I do not dispute your facts. They are accurate. I don’t dispute the logic of your reasoning. I just have a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of man. Harry [Hopkins] says he’s not, and that he doesn’t want anything but security for his country. And I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask for nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace.

If this was some second-rate civil servant speaking, it would not be cause for significant worry. Unfortunately, it was the US president at one of the major WWII conferences (Teheran), showing that his concessions to the Soviet Union were deliberate — and hopelessly naïve.

An interesting detail he digs out is that the Vietnam war, as a main component, included democracy-building in South Vietnam. Sounds familiar..?

The alternative reading of history makes for some interesting hypothetical historical scenarios. What if, for instance, the West had decided that Germany, Russia and Japan made excellent mutual foes, and that it would be a great advantage to the democratic world to stay on the sidelines while the great dictatorships hammered each other into ruin, exposing themselves the inherent fallacies of militaristic dictatorships?

And peace

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was designed to remove preference based on skin colour, ancestry and the like, to end racism once and for all. Good intentions, and it is obvious to anyone that admitting or denying people education or employment based on skin colour instead of qualifications is stupid. Except, perhaps, when the government does so? Affirmative action, quotas and the like are, if anyone applies simple logic, new programs discriminating against people based on skin colour. It’s so glaringly obvious that one can only shake the head in disbelief that programs like these were accepted and implemented. Even now, four decades later, the American obsession with racism has not abated.

Take ‘Busing’, the practice of driving school children to remote schools instead of their local ones, in order to minimize ‘segregation’. Now, who said that racially diverse schools are in itself evil, or cause minorities to feel discriminated against? The performance of several non-white minorities show this not to be the case — they regularly outperformed their white counterparts. But the stupidity, and the wasted time and money spent on driving kids two hours every day might be the lesser disaster compared to the loss of the community feeling behind the schools in the local community. Fortunately, this hopeless practice is now abandoned.

The problem of ‘Big Government’

Throughout the book is an undercurrent of discrediting Big Government. This is controversial, of course, and can be perceived as being rather cynical, as if one does not care for the weak in society. The agenda here, however, is a different one. Big Government — and the US federal government ranks as the largest on Earth — tends to make Big Mistakes, just because it can. FDR’s handling of the 1929 Wall Street crash is an exposé of incompetence and rather obvious mistakes — faults so aggravating that it takes severe dishonesty to explain them away. It is, in a way, little wonder that FDR is one of the most praised presidents in US history. If it wasn’t for the praise, his real legacy would be exposed.

While not addressed directly, the notion of the “Sorelian myth” deserves mention. It is the notion that a nation needs a mythical foundation — and that the truthfulness of this myth is irrelevant. This idea was significant in the fascist states of the 1920’s, and lives on to a lesser extent in mainstream US history. Identifying and abandoning these myths (such as the American Civil War being about slavery) takes skill and courage, and the end effect on national identity is uncertain. Hopefully abandoning the hazy mythmaking will increase the appreciation of sincere human dignity instead.

This book makes the case for transparency in government. During the Cold War, we became accustomed to the necessity of clandestine operations. The ending of the Cold War, along with the media revolution and Internet, changes this dramatically. Just about everything will be exposed eventually, and the tradition of hiding political agendas increasingly looks like deceit, not like a sensible and justified style of negotiation. The repeated exposure of misgovernment causes our confidence in government to erode. Woods doesn’t quote this, but it is remarkable in line with his book that US confidence in the federal government is plummeting, down from 60 % to 30 % over a decade. Something’s gotta give, and since the US federal government is basing its activities on massive deficit spending, what Woods calls the ‘Leviathan’ just might be in for some remarkable trouble.

Common sense of common people

One may wonder what Woods imagines instead of the federal government. An answer would be ‘nothing’, but that associates in an improper direction. Woods has a solid confidence in the common sense of common people. Normal people who make a living, send their kids to school and generally cause little trouble for society. The principle of private property, as a cornerstone of a healthy society. And in Christian ethics too, which of course is a tad more controversial, when standing up for your own culture and asserting that it’s better tends to be frowned upon. He implicitly makes the case for state governments as more appropriate than the federal in many runs of life.

Last, but not least: Although this is a book of history, relevance for today pervades it, subliminally. Woods loves the US Constitution, and the notion of free people running their affairs with dignity and inherent human goodness. While the book certainly has an attitude, this should not keep anyone from reading it. Then read something of a different opinion and see how they compare.

Pros:

• Delightfully readable language
• Uses original sources extensively
• Stringent understanding of the Constitution
• Merciless exposure of stupid political actions
• Whets the appetite for more history

Cons:

• Not by any means a complete account of US history

Bottom line:

A most entertaining book with a solid foundation. The cherry-picking and obvious bias are exactly that: Obvious. And then they serve not as manipulation, but as inspiration to go further and read more. Highly recommended.

Here at Gates of Vienna we’re in the habit of thinking about various forms of the unthinkable. Sometimes it gets us into trouble, because there are certain topics that may not be broached without releasing an atavistic rage in sensitive people. Forget the possibility that some of the awful scenarios under discussion here might become a reality in the not-so-distant future: we must not discuss them; it’s bad juju.

But we discuss them anyway. El Inglés’ recent essays have been the most controversial, with Paul Weston’s gloomy prognostications running a close second. Virtually any Fjordman essay invites the same kind of reaction — look down our sidebar for links to his most recent posts.

Yesterday our regular commenter Zenster drew my attention to a recent essay at the Belmont Club. Wretchard, too, is thinking the unthinkable, in this case about the possibility of deterring a terrorist WMD attack by methods that are similar to those used during the Cold War:

One of the more embarrassing aspects of the Cold War, which we can acknowledge without undue shame in retrospect, was that the safety of both superpowers depended on collective punishment. The vast arsenals of nuclear warheads on both sides, especially in the early days of missile guidance, were aimed not at military bases or government centers. They were not aimed at the White House, the Capitol or the Kremlin. They were aimed at the cities in which millions of civilians lived. Another word for the sonorous term of “deterrence” was holding the enemy nation’s population accountable for the actions of the leaders.

Elbridge A. Colby at the Hoover Institution Public Policy review revisits collective responsibility in the age of possible nuclear terror in his article, “Expanded Deterrence: Broadening the threat of retaliation”. His thesis, as you might have guessed, is that to prevent deniable nuclear attacks it is necessary not to listen to denials.

The problem is arises from the fact that we cannot deter terrorists directly. Colby writes, “as many have pointed out, terrorists are hard — and sometimes impossible — to deter directly. Clearly, people willing to kill themselves in order to conduct terrorist attacks are unlikely to be deterred by direct threats.”

Consequently he argues that there is no alternative but to hold terrorism’s parent societies or cultures responsible for any acts they may fail to prevent. “This posture would strongly incentivize those with the capability to act to do so, since gross negligence or complicity would incur retaliation (not necessarily, it should be emphasized, violent in nature). And our demands would be reasonable, because all we would be asking for is active assistance in preventing catastrophic attacks from those who, despite their own involvement — active or passive — in such attacks, benefit from the restraint of our current, excessively narrow posture.”

– – – – – – – – –
Wretchard quotes at length from Mr. Colby’s article, and discusses it in its current political context, namely an American election campaign in which one of the two major contenders shows extraordinary tendencies towards pacifism and appeasement.

And the larger question, regardless of whether or not Barack Obama becomes president, is this: does any Western nation possessing the capability of deterring Islamic terrorists actually have the political will to use that capability?

The suicidal zealots who long for death in the cause of Allah cannot possibly be deterred. For deterrence to be effective, the comfortable elites in the countries that harbor terrorists are the ones who must believe that they will suffer greatly in the event of a terrorist attack on the United States or its allies.

Given the current craven behavior of our civil and military authorities, why would any reasonably intelligent Pakistani or Saudi official believe that his comfort and perks are put at risk by the terrorists on his soil? What likelihood is there that we would do more than ask him to cooperate with the FBI, request the extradition of suspects, send delegations to engage in talks, or propose resolutions at the United Nations?

Wretchard goes on:

Colby argues, on classical grounds, that for such a deterrent to be effective it has to be credible. There has to be no doubt among allies (who may shelter under the American nuclear umbrella) and the enemy that America will carry out the threatened response. But leaving Obama aside, can anybody, in this politically correct world, really believe it will be carried out? Colby himself has doubts. “The credibility of a deterrent threat is vital to its success. Yet the threat to expand our retaliation beyond those directly responsible might strike our opponents and others as incredible.”

The Hoover paper categorically rejects this policy as the threat of collective punishment, describing it instead as “a policy that carefully and reasonably expands the definition of guilt — it is not a policy that targets the innocent.”

Readers of the Belmont Club will be familiar with posts which have dealt with the concepts discussed in the Hoover paper, such as The Ghost of AQ Khan, the Return of Danger and of course, the granddaddy of them all, the Three Conjectures. There are two problems in particular which are not closely examined by the Hoover paper. The first, which was raised by the Three Conjectures, is whether there is any stable stopping point if a WMD exchange is initiated. Implicit in the Hoover paper is the idea that terror — and let’s be frank here, Islamic terror — can be restrained by its larger social milieu. That somehow threatening “supporters” and “marks of prestige” can put the damper on Osama Bin Laden and his ilk; or at least “incentivize” the grand muftis of whatever mosque to cool their hotheads. I hope that control exists, but I will argue that it is far from clear that it does.

The second problem is what course small, non-nuclear states should follow in a world of deniable nuclear weapons. Singapore for example, and Germany according to some, would be examples of countries which could be subjected to nuclear blackmail. If “expanded deterrence” is good for America, why should it not be good for Singapore, which the regional enemy of Islamic terrorism? And if America will have difficulty credibly threatening “expanded deterrence” in the event a US city is destroyed, how can any country credibly threaten that America would retaliate on its behalf against “supporters” and “marks of prestige” (in other words Muslim populations and Mecca) in the event Singapore or Berlin is reduced to ash? If the Vatican were destroyed, for example, who could be counted on to carry out the threat of “expanded deterrence”?

I agree with Wretchard: America will not take severe punitive action against any terror-supporting state until after some new horrific attack has occurred. But such a response will be too late for the act to have any deterrent value, since by then weapons of mass destruction will have been democratized, and there will be plenty of suitcase nukes, dirty bombs, and chemical weapons in the hands of small disconnected groups of fanatics who cannot be deterred.

As Wretchard points out, at the same time that proliferation carries WMDs into the hands of the terrorists, so will the means of retaliation be democratized. When governments no longer protect their own people, and suitcase nukes can be bought on the black market, what is to stop the Aryan Nations or the Nordic Front or [fill in your most loathed right-wing racist hate group here] from privatizing cultural defense?

Once the social contract has been broken, the task of protecting home, family, community, and culture will devolve to smaller and more local groups, some of which will not feel themselves bound by the oh-so-fastidious orthodoxies of our own time. Survival tends to trump everything else.

It’s easy to envision a descent into a truly Hobbesian situation. It doesn’t have to come to that, but our leaders will need to make some hard choices very soon to prevent it, and I don’t hold out much hope of that happening.

There will come a time when the unthinkable will make itself known, and none of us will be able to avoid thinking about it.

Ypp is a regular commenter here at Gates of Vienna. He wanted to respond to Fjordman’s recent post, “The Greatest Betrayal in History”, but felt his essay was too long to leave in the comments, so I volunteered to post it here for him.

How We Can Get Our Culture Back
by Ypp

This essay is an answer to Fjordman, who recently raised the question about women’s, and especially feminists’ role in bringing in Third-World immigration. I believe there is a good deal of misunderstanding among the general public, as well as among feminists themselves, about what they really want. I will try to look at the claims of feminists from a different point of view.

To start with, let’s consider the famous thesis that “all men are rapists”. Given such an a priori moral judgement — that rape is bad — we are stuck in a situation which is impossible to resolve.

However, if we only dare to assume that rape may be, in some fantasy way, desirable, we get a clue. By saying that all men are rapists, feminists hint at that they want to be raped.

Assume that feminists are women who cannot have normal relations with men for psychological reasons. But that does not mean that they don’t want those relations. That means that they actually desire to be forced into such relations.

I spoke with several lonely women, and all said that what they really wanted was a procedure by which they could get married without active participation on their own part. In other words, they would prefer a traditional patriarchal way of marriage over modern freedom.
– – – – – – – – –
If we broadly define ‘rape’ as some sort of enforcement, the initial hypothesis seems justified. Fjordman wrote in his essay that “feminists usually take [this line] regarding rapes: It’s about the ‘patriarchy’. That’s it.

According to Swedish feminists, “Swedish men are just as bad as the Taliban,” continues Fjordman. Now, substitute “good” for “bad”, and you find that Swedish feminists do not prefer foreigners!

Recently I had a correspondence with a lady who called herself a feminist. Trying to find some sense in her seemingly illogical accusations against Men and Capitalism, it came to me that what she really wanted was security. She wanted to have a reliable marriage, many children and financial protection, and she wanted the state to actually enforce all that.

Of course, she wanted equality too, but… And if, and only if, a man deserts her does she want financial support from the state and possibility to have abortion. But first of all, she wanted security.

So my advice would be: if we want to win the hearts and minds of our women, we must drop that “freedom is a must” paradigm, and admit that what many women need is not equality but traditional and safe marriage. And if we can provide that option for them better than other cultures, and prove that they are safer with us than with others, they will inevitably choose us.

“A nation is never conquered until the hearts of its women are on the ground,” quoted Fjordman. If our women can trust us, they will love us. And we will win back our culture.

If you live anywhere near Sydney, Australia, the name “Bilal Skaf” is synonymous with “Racist Lebanese Gang Rapist”. Of course, since Mr. Skaf isn’t white, he can’t actually be a racist, but those poor benighted pale-skinned Australians don’t know that.

Mr. Skaf was the ringleader of a gang of Lebanese-Australians who preyed on white teenage girls, and this makes some Australians think that he is a racist who committed hate crimes against white Australians. But organs of the knee-jerk liberal press view the anger directed at Mr. Skaf as the reaction of right-wing extremists who have seized the opportunity to take advantage of uninformed public opinion and generate a backlash against the Lebanese minority, most of whom are innocent and law-abiding, and don’t deserve the enmity generated by the case.

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

Some background on Bilal Skaf is in order. In a series of trials he was convicted and sentenced for masterminding and participating in several gang-rapes back in 2000. His sentence was reduced on appeal, and then increased again when the convictions for later offenses kicked in.

And now, as if to break new ground in the definition of the word “chutzpah”, Bilal Skaf is protesting that his notoriety as a convicted gang-rapist precludes his ever getting a fair hearing in an Australian court of law:

Convicted rapist Bilal Skaf claims his name is so synonymous with a Sydney gang sex crime he will never be able to get a fair trial.

And the 26-year-old is asking the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal to reduce his sentence, saying his victim — who was held at gunpoint and raped by up to 14 men — suffered no significant harm.

Skaf brought his case before the criminal appeals court for the third time today, asking for his latest conviction to again be quashed or his sentence cut.

He shot to notoriety after receiving a record 55-year sentence following three back-to-back gang rape trials.

In searching for photos of Mr. Skaf to use for this post, I noticed that very few are available. All the news articles I could find used the photo shown at left in the pair below.

As you can see, that particular photo makes Bilal Skaf look like a choirboy — if in fact the Muslim Lebanese-Australian community had any choirboys.
– – – – – – – – –
But look at the other photo, the one on the right — which can only be found on various hateful right-wing extremist blogs and other organs of Australian patriotism — in which Mr. Skaf posed holding a handgun with a rifle in his lap. Not quite the same fellow, is he? But the MSM obviously wants its readers to think of him in only one way.

Is Mr. Skaf really a (mostly) innocent victim?

Skaf’s barrister Andrew Haesler SC said “unremitting” publicity had etched Skaf into the public imagination, making it impossible to find an impartial jury.

“If an advertiser were trying to achieve a brand name for a gang rapist, Bilal Skaf has achieved this aim. The product for gang rapist in western Sydney is Bilal Skaf,” Mr Haesler said.

“(Skaf’s name) has become synonymous with rapes committed by people of the Muslim faith in western Sydney and… with gang attacks on young women.”

Is that an unreasonable situation for Bilal Skaf to find himself in? His crimes have been established by the time-honored English Common Law system of a trial by a jury of his peers, and the testimony of witnesses has been entered into the public record supporting the verdicts against him. Why shouldn’t he be the poster boy for racist Lebanese gang rape in Australia? What other fate would be more suitable?

The poster boy helped earn his reputation by telling one of his victims, “You deserve it because you’re an Australian”. That is: “Because you’re white, grew up speaking English, and accept the Anglo-Saxon norms of Australia, I am justified in treating you in the most bestial fashion.”

Bilal Skaf didn’t pluck this attitude out of the air. He was able to think this way, to plan his crimes and carry them out, because at least a significant subset of the Lebanese community in Australia shares it with him.

Yet many people, particularly those in positions of civil authority in the Anglosphere, prefer to deny this fact, minimize it, or ignore it.

But not everybody is turning away from the uncomfortable truth. At Mr. Skaf’s sentencing, the judge had this to say:

The offender was the leader of a brutal gang of rapists who, on three occasions, raped four young women. His activity and those of his gang spread terror in Sydney in August 2000 just before the commencement of the Olympic Games.

The activities of the gang were organised by the use of mobile phones, and there was a considerable degree of planning and coordination involved in each set of attacks. As is common with rapists, the gang members treated each of their victims with callous indifference and considerable cruelty.

The courts must attempt to protect society from the possibility that those who have been caught will engage in this type of activity again.

[…]

What this trial showed was that [Bilal Skaf] was the leader of the pack, a liar, a bully, a coward, callous and mean.

He is, in truth, a menace to any civilised society.

These crimes are very serious crimes. Sexual intercourse without consent is always a serious crime.

[…]

As I have earlier remarked these crimes were carefully planned and coordinated. The degree of planning and coordination distinguishes these crimes from other cases of gang rape which have been reported from time to time, which are often, if not usually, perpetrated by intoxicated men who have seized an opportunity which has been presented to them.

None of these crimes happened on the spur of the moment. None of the assailants was in any way affected by alcohol or drugs. In my opinion, the evidence of the three trials establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the offender was the leader of the gang on all occasions and must be regarded as the worst of all offenders. He is a menace to society. He has declined to give any explanation of the reasons for these attacks and refuses to express any remorse or contrition.

The alarming trend is not the heinous rapes themselves — although they are alarming enough — but the desire of the Western elites to pretend that they are something else, that they are ordinary crimes committed by high-spirited, rowdy, or misguided “youths”.

The Sydney gang-rapes — like those in Sweden, Britain, Belgium, France, and elsewhere — are a civilizational attack. We, the people of the West, are perceived as a culture on the way out, a spent scene.

The rapist asserts the dominance of himself and those who are most like him. Any passive acquiescence to the crime makes it all the more likely that it will recur.

Bilal Skaf deserves to be the poster boy for gang rapes in Australia. Let’s continue to keep him in mind.

Hat tip: Nilk.

MEMRI has posted a fascinating video of a speech by Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi on the topic of Barack Obama and the upcoming American election. It’s amazing how well the old colonel has his finger on the pulse of Western political events. He knows all the hot buttons in American politics, particularly our major shame-point: the issue of race.

Qaddafi expounds at length about something that the Obama campaign would rather keep quiet: the massive support for the O-Man in the Islamic world, and the fact that Muslims consider him one of their own.

MEMRI has posted a partial transcript, and below are some excerpts:

There are elections in America now. Along came a black citizen of Kenyan African origins, a Muslim, who had studied in an Islamic school in Indonesia. His name is Obama. All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man. They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency.

“May have been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns”, eh? Did someone in the Obama campaign take note of Qaddafi’s earlier words, and ask him to rephrase his statements in order to avoid drawing attention to all those suitcases full of Libyan campaign cash?

But all is not well in Muammar-land. Oh no, not at all! It seems that Barack Hussein bin-Barack has been saying some offensive and alarming things:
– – – – – – – – –

But we were taken by surprise when our African Kenyan brother, who is an American national, made statements that shocked all his supporters in the Arab world, in Africa, and in the Islamic world.

Col. Qaddafi never specifies what exactly Obama said that was so bad. However, if you watch the video, it’s obvious that he’s talking about Obama’s recent and fervent declarations of support for Israel.

The old man surmises (correctly) that Barack Hussein’s new-found affection for the Zionist Entity is really just a campaign ploy, a little bit of American-style taqiyya to persuade gullible Jews to vote for him:

We hope that this is merely an elections “clearance sale,” as they say in Egypt — in other words, merely an elections lie. As you know, this is the farce of elections — a person lies and lies to people, just so that they will vote for him, and afterwards, when they say to him: “You promised this and that,” he says: “No, this was just elections propaganda.” This is the farce of democracy for you. He says: “This was propaganda, and you thought I was being serious. I was fooling you to get your votes.”

Allah willing, it will turn out that this was merely elections propaganda. Obama said he would turn Jerusalem into the eternal capital of the Israelis. This indicates that our brother Obama is ignorant of international politics, and is not familiar with the Middle East conflict.

Col. Qaddafi is quite correct: the O-Man is deeply ignorant of international politics. But I’m certain that the Libyan strongman will be only too happy to educate him, once he has settled comfortably behind his desk in the Oval Office.

Of course, the colonel will have to get in line, because all of Obama’s other new-found friends — Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, Bashar al-Assad, Kim Jong-il, King Abdullah, Hassan Nasrallah — will be falling all over themselves in their eagerness to explain the way the world works to the brand-new Savior of Mankind.

There are some other interesting things in that Qaddafi video, including the assertion that David Ben-Gurion ordered the assassination of John F. Kennedy. There’s also more discussion of the Palestinian right of return, as well as a proposed one-state solution — called in this instance “Isratine” — that Barack Obama should enforce to achieve peace in the Middle East.

There’s also this:

We still hope that this black man will take pride in his African and Islamic identity, and in his faith, and that [he will know] that he has rights in America, and that he will change America from evil to good, and that America will establish relations that will serve it well with other peoples, especially the Arabs.

Remember: the Arabs are accustomed to treating black Africans as slaves, supplicants, or Arab wannabes. Qaddafi is obviously expecting that Barack Hussein Obama will assume one or more of those traditional roles in his dealings with the Arab world.

Go over to MEMRI and listen to the whole speech — or at least read the subtitles.

Hat tip: TB.

I wrote a couple of posts last month about Camden, a small town near Sydney, Australia, and its successful effort to resist the construction of an Islamic School. The proposed institution was sponsored by the Quranic Society, which depends entirely on funding from Saudi Arabia.

The Australian establishment, like that of most Western nations, doesn’t approve of its own citizens’ opinions. It’s determined to “educate” the populace until everyone gets with the program and toes the line on politically correct Multiculturalism.

The people of Camden, having demonstrated their backwardness and racism, are about to be subjected to some special attention from the government. According to the Camden Advertiser:

Camden set to get funds for harmony

The Federal Government has identified Camden as an area that could benefit from funding to promote multiculturalism in light of community reaction to the Islamic school and accusations of racism.

A spokesman for the Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs, Laurie Ferguson, said Camden Council had applied for funding for programs that promoted harmony, diversity and multiculturalism.

“In view of recent controversy around Camden I guess there is some added urgency to this issue,” he said.

[…]

Camden Council general manager Greg Wright said the funding application was “not necessarily” a direct result of the controversy surrounding the Quranic Society’s school application.

“There’s a package of things we’re working on,” he said. “It’s not a direct result but [the debate] has brought it into sharp relief that these sorts of programs can be useful in a community to promote a better understanding of varying cultural backgrounds and issues.”

Remember: “promoting better understanding” means “making sure that local community opinion lines up with government-enforced PC attitudes”. Ignorant and backward citizens will be re-educated to help them find their way to more enlightened views.

The article continues:
– – – – – – – – –

Ruth Lesmana, 18, was involved in setting up “Carmony” a 2006 program that promoted awareness of different cultures in the Camden area at special theme nights.

I hate to tell the well-meaning members of the Australian federal bureaucracy, but ordinary Australians are already well aware of different cultures in their midst.

Teenagers, for example, quickly learn in high school that “multicultural” students tend to be very close-knit, and very bad news. Kids learn the hard way that the Turkish and the Lebanese are the ones who start the fights, and use knives.

From the elite perspective, the problem isn’t awareness, it’s awareness of the truth.

She said promoting multiculturalism and harmony in Camden was important.

“To be able to get along with each other, we’ve got to try and understand the differences as well as similarities that we have,” she said. “It’s really all about community. In the end that’s what it all comes down to.”

But what if we do understand those differences? What if we are all well aware of them, and recognize that they are fundamental, irreconcilable, and often dangerous?

Perhaps the swanks who run the country are really the ones who are unaware. Living in gated communities, sending their kids to schools where no underclass kids — especially “brown” ones — ever appear: why should they ever be aware of the real differences? What do they know about the racial and ethnic fault lines that ordinary Australians face every day?

They are the “We Are the World” crowd, the people who can afford to hold on to an imaginary picture of all the rainbow cultures with their quaint ethnic costumes joining hands across a stylized globe and singing in perfect harmony. The rest of us can’t, because we have to live with the consequences of their idiotic and myopic visions.

Australia, like other Western nations, can choose the Swedish route to multicultural perfection. It can criminalize dissent, crack down on the internet, monitor people’s phone calls and email, enforce quotas on all employers, send police escorts with the fire brigade when “youths” burn schools in the no-go zones, and ignore the high incidence of rape committed by immigrants against native women.

Australia could do all these things, but it won’t help create “harmony”.

Because ordinary Australians know what’s going on.

Hat tip: Nilk.

That’s the speculation in today’s De Telegraaf, on the basis of an international arrest warrant which is expected to be issued at the behest of the Jordanian government.

Here’s a translation of the article by our expatriate Dutch correspondent H. Numan, followed by his commentary on the state of civil liberties in the Netherlands:

Wilders might soon be arrested

Amsterdam — Geert Wilders fears he will be arrested soon when traveling abroad, due to his movie Fitna. Jordan is working on an international warrant for the arrest of the PVV leader in order to prosecute him.

Last Monday the court in Amman found the complaint filed to be acceptable. Wilders expects that the court will soon appeal for an international warrant for his arrest, reports De Volkskrant.

Jordan can possibly make a request through Interpol. Such an appeal can be fought by the Dutch government.

It is also possible Jordan will ask individual nations visited by Wilders to extradite him. In any case, the Wilders’ freedom of movement will be severely restricted. Wilders complains about the uncertainty. “One never knows when it will happen. My freedom of movement will be enormously limited and I cannot operate as a politician,” according to Wilders in De Volkskrant.

The risks are being mapped by the ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Commentary by H. Numan:

Given the brave attitude of the Dutch government in protecting this bothersome politician and our constitutional rights, I expect the mapping of the Foreign Ministry will be limited to pointing out where Jordan is on the geographical map, and issuing a statement that since this country is far away from the Netherlands, there is actually no risk at all. Or, Mr. Balkenende will use his by now famous megaphone diplomacy, to update interested nations where certain politicians are presently traveling to.

Nothing personal, mind you.

– – – – – – – – –

It didn’t attract much attention, but last week we had a parliamentary debate about the arrest of Gregorius Nekschot. The government admitted the case was somewhat mishandled, but saw no reason for further investigation. The parliament accepted the explanation.

Not long after the arrest of Gregorius another Gestapo team raided the house of a person. For a middle aged cartoonist a ten men SWAT team is sufficient. In this case the police found it necessary to send in twenty officers. This person was and is involved in the management of the site www.holland-hardcore.com. Holland-Hardcore is a very big site (well over 10,000 visitors per day) dedicated to hardcore music and politics. The tenor is nationalist. Nothing remotely extreme about it. It certainly isn’t extreme right-wing or neo-fascist, as media would like one to believe. After interrogation and confiscation of his pc the young man was released and no charges have been filed as yet.

Hoeiboei — one can call this hardly a right-wing blog, let alone extreme — received a summons to report to the local police station, to answer questions. In the summons no charges were filed. This alone is an offense, as it is legally required that the police state the reason why someone is summoned to the police station.

The owner of the site www.rechtser.com received a warrant last year for his arrest, due to two postings by visitors considered offensive. The case is still pending.

In short, The Netherlands is still a democratic nation, in the same sense the DDR was a democratic republic.

I’m off to see the Wizard and I’m wearing my ruby slippers (red shoes, really).

The hospital docs are going to poke, prod, pry, and prognosticate. That last one is my favorite part because then I get to argue with them.

The “interesting” part of chronic complex PTSD is that the longer you live with it, the more your various systems wear out, rattle, or make strange noises. Now that the “experts” are looking at it holistically instead of contemplating each body part as a separate system, the prognosis for an integrated treatment plan is quite good.

I brought along ten books, a Beethoven tape, and the latest copy of National Review to keep me entertained.

I’ll send occasional reports from the front via the Baron.

Y’all be good.

[That’s all, folks]