My previous post about Dr. Seuss’ anti-appeasement cartoons from 1941 caused a lot of discussion in the comments about how much of a Red Dr. Seuss really was.

Last night, commenter Grayson said this:

…it wasn’t just that Geisel was pro-Stalinist-as-ally, he was largely pro-Stalin. Of course, that’s before the revelations about Ukraine and such got past Duranty and The New York Times gatekeepers.

DWPittelli followed up by asking an important question:

The cartoons were all from 1941, you say. Were any of them from before June 22, 1941, when Germany invaded Russia? If not — if they all followed that date — then they are evidence that Seuss was motivated by the Left, if not a leftist himself.

This morning the intrepid Wally Ballou located a selection of Dr. Seuss’ depictions of Uncle Joe himself:

Hmm — if you search the collection for images of Stalin, you can’t help but think Dr S was very highly disposed towards him. Most are of the “kindly Uncle Joe gives it to the nazi rats” variety, but check out the Feb 19, 1942 offering for out-and-out pro-Soviet feeling…

After all, Stalinst anti-semitism was no secret, but like many liberal Jews, Geisel was able to overlook it.

Here’s one of the depictions of Beloved Uncle Joe, from Dec. 24, 1941 (to see full size versions of this and the other cartoons, click on the image itself). Some of the others from the same period are equally creepy.

But answering DWPittelli’s question is important — was Dr. Seuss a Stalin fan before Barbarossa? If he was a party-line Red, he would have been opposed to any intervention before June 22, and then would have quickly switched sides.

Fortunately, the Mandeville Special Collections Library at the University of California at San Diego has a very well-designed set of overlapping indexes on the Dr. Seuss collection, including a chronological one.

Check out the whole collection, and it will become obvious that Theodor Seuss Geisel was no Stalinist. If you work your way through 1941, the evidence is clear: Dr. Seuss was in favor of intervention against the Axis long before Hitler turned on the USSR. The cartoon at right is from April 29, and his meaning is clear: America is foolish and blind not to deal with the Nazi danger.

All of the early 1941 cartoons have the same message, which was basically the FDR stance.

The most telling evidence that Dr. Seuss was no fan of Stalin is this cartoon, from June 20, just two days before Barbarossa. Stalin is shown as a crony of Hitler’s, one of the three dictator pals. The Stalin hagiography came later, when the USSR was our ally, and was standard practice in American popular culture for the duration of the war effort. Yes, Dr. Seuss seemed to go a bit over the top with his depictions of Stalin, but that was his modus operandi in all his cartoons.

He was, after all, following the FDR party line. In his later years, when he took up pacifism, anti-capitalism, and tree-hugging, he was doing the same thing: following the party line of the Democrats as they flushed themselves down history’s toilet.

It’s hard to believe, but Dr. Seuss wasn’t always a liberal extremist when he tackled political topics. Check out this cartoon from October 1941:

There’s a whole series of these anti-appeasement cartoons by Theodor Seuss Geisel in the Mandeville Special Collections Library at the University of California at San Diego. All of them are from 1941, and all are from before Pearl Harbor.

It reminds his fans (of which I am one) that Dr. Seuss had a long and varied career.

Swedish reader LN has translated and summarized some material about Tariq Ramadan for Gates of Vienna.

“Sweden matters, too,” he says. “I think the following needs international publicity — please take it and use it.”

Last week all Swedish politicians of any weight, their supporters and partisans, lobbyists, and also ordinary people met up at Almedalen in the town of Visby on the Baltic island of Gotland. This has been a growing tradition since 1968, when the custom was introduced by the socialist Olof Palme (at that time Minister of Education) giving an improvised speech to a few believers from a lorry platform.

Last week was filled with speeches, discussions, meetings, concerts and musical performances (bread and circuses for the people), and other opinion-forming events. The complete Social Democratic Workers Party (SSP) was there, also representatives for the Workers Union (LO), the leaders of the non-Socialist Parties, the Prime Minister himself (a.k.a. HSB = he who decides), Göran Persson, the minister of finance Pär Nuder, etc. Others present: from the French parliament Ségolène Royal, a socialist; Helena Benouda, a convert, from the Swedish Muslim Council; and last, but not least, Tariq Ramadan, professor.

Tariq Ramadan visits Sweden quite often these days, and on this occasion he was invited by the Islamist-friendly Christian wing of the Social Democratic Party — aptly called Broderskapsrörelsen (the Brotherhood Movement) by their outstanding Mohammed-fan and organizer: “It is good that we have these contacts with the Muslim groups in Sweden — Ola Johansson” (“Det är bra att vi har de här kontakterna med de muslimska grupperna i Sverige — Ola”)

An intense election campaign is in progress — the Parliamentary election is in September — and the Socialists are anxious to solicit Muslim voters — up to 400,000 votes might be at stake.

Tariq Ramadan appeared on Wednesday the 5th of July, from 10:00am to noon in the Methodist Church, Adelsgatan, Visby. His talk was entitled:

To be a muslim in Europe — Is there a worthwhile place for Islam? (Att vara muslim i Europa — Kan islam få en meningsfull plats?)

Tariq Ramadan was introduced by Peter Weiderud (chairman for the Brotherhood Movement, former Secretary General of the Conference of European Churches) simply as a “scholar and professor” from London.

During the week in Almedalen a few collaborators of the liberal-conservative think tank ‘Timbro’ were reporting. One of these was present at the Tariq Ramadan speech and tried to pick up as much of it as possible; the results can be read here (or see below).

Is there anything the Swedish Social Democrats will not permit themselves to do in order to win votes?

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

From Timbros Almedalsblogg:

Tariq Ramadan: It’s important for westerners to listen to the discourse within the mainstream Muslim community. Muslims aren’t the only ones who have to reevaluate their perceptions. There is a new Muslim presence, a new Muslim visibility. Third-, fourth- and fifth-generation Muslims are beginning to question who they are and what the future holds for them. We [Muslims] are far behind the realities of our societies. The European societies are changing and we have to take this into account.

400,000-500,000 Muslims live in Sweden and there are millions of us throughout Europe. We can either focus on the few bad apples or we can look at the vast majority, the mainstream. Arabs and Muslims have long contributed to European society and culture. It is therefore wrong to refer to Europe’s Judeo-Christian history. Tell me how you read your past and I’ll show you how you view your present. One of the biggest problems is ignorance. There is a deep identity crisis in Europe. We must define a new “We.”

Ignorance, suspicion and mistrust: People in Europe wrongly assume that Muslims are here to “Islamify” their new home countries. Muslims, on the other hand, tend to nurture a victim mentality. This creates a climate of mistrust. There must be a “revolution of trust,” and we must move away from an “evolution of fear.” Islam is complex… don’t oversimplify it. The anti-Muslim discourse traditionally reserved for far-right political parties is now being co-opted by Europe’s mainstream parties.

What does the religious integration mean? Muslims have been minorities for a very long time, not least in Africa. But it is new for Muslims to be minorities in secular societies. People are confusing social problems with religious problems. The riots in the French suburbs were not about religion, but rather social and economic injustice. The religious integration is, in fact, complete.

I am Swiss by nationality, Muslim by religion, Egyptian by memory, and internationalist by principle. People ask “who are you?” in order to define what they are not. They want to pigeonhole you. When one contributes to a society, one’s nationality is never questioned.

The majority of Muslims deplore extremism. Islam condones neither arranged marriage nor violence against women. People want Muslims to communicate values that dovetail with their own values. This makes them feel better about themselves… reaffirms their belief systems.

Some main points:

• The Muslim presence in Europe is a test…a positive test. Our presence forces you to ask questions about yourself.
• Every country has its assets and liabilities. Important to ask: What are our values? What is the gap between what you say and what you do? Are you practicing what you preach? One cannot compare one country to another. Sure you can compare Sweden to a dictatorship and feel like you’ve won…but it’s not a real contest. You need to compare Sweden to Sweden.
• We need to sow the seeds for the “revolution of trust” at the local level…we need to create trust at the local level. This will help to create the conditions for a new “We.” Let everyone come together, with Swedish common values as the foundation, to create a new identity. We much teach more inclusiveness in our schools.
• European silence is the cause of violence in suppressed societies, such as we are seeing in the Palestinian territories.

Questions and answers:

Peter Weiderud:		Are European societies afraid of religion?
Tariq Ramadan:		Yes, but people also misunderstand what secular means. Secularism is used a weapon against religion. We need to embrace pluralism. Secularism should create room for all faiths in society. We have to get back to the roots of secularism.
PW:		Is there a secular fundamentalism?
TR:		Yes, in France we are dealing with many secular fundamentalists. Two years ago the French government amended the law, making it incompatible with the Muslim presence. Many French people have a very narrow interpretation of secularism.
PW:		What is the situation for Muslims in Sweden?
Helena Benaouda:		Islamophobia is the gravest form of discrimination in Europe. The headscarf is a big issue in Sweden, of course. And it creates barriers, especially in the labor market.
PW:		How can we nurture the internal dialog in the Muslim community?
TR:		The Islamic creed and practices are the same wherever you go. The core values are identical. But there are different interpretations of Islam. And there is not merely the moderate and the radical. This perception is ignorant. There is a great expanse of interpretations under the banner of Islam. We need platforms where these various groups can come together and dialog.
Publik:		How will Turkey’s joining the EU affect Islam?
TR:		We have to agree on the parameters. Religion is not the question. We have to speak about laws and values. It boils down to principals, not religion. Islam is now perceived as a threat. The Turks are afraid that integrating with the EU will dilute their identity. They are living as Muslims and democrats. But Europe must respect their religion and traditions. Senegal is an Islamic country, for instance, yet it is also a democracy.
Publik:		You talk of mistrust and suspicion. What role do the Islamic countries in the Middle East play?
TR:		Everything happening in Islamic countries is not black and white. In the Palestinian case, for example, one can understand a situation without justifying it. The Americans revoked my visa and said that to understand is to justify. You can understand why the Palestinians do what they do, but I don’t justify it. Let’s understand the roots of extremism. The Muslim presence in Europe must condemn extremism, but also explain why it is there. I have to condemn hudud, for instance, because it is wrong. We can’t be silent; it’s a question of moral dignity.
Billy McCormac:		Can you compare Muslim integration in the United States and Europe? Has one succeeded better than the other?
TR:		There are some major differences to consider here. The Muslims who immigrate to the United States are primarily well-educated professionals, who by virtue of their background find it easier to assimilate into the American society. The Muslims who immigrate to Europe are of far more modest means. The acceptance of the American community has helped to remove tensions. At the same time, Muslims remain far removed from the corridors of power. A far more suitable comparison with European Muslims is the African American Muslims. Here you have people living in ghettos, on the margins of society. They have no voice, no power. Whereas many Middle Eastern Muslims have become seamlessly integrated into American society, the black Muslims languish on the sidelines of society, much like their brethren in Europe.
		— Written by Billy McCormac

Bibliography for this article:

Socialdemokraterna
Gotlands kommun
ICAPI
Frère Tariq : Discours, stratégie et méthode de Tariq Ramadan (Broché)
SVT
Högskolan.net
Workers’ Liberty: Tariq Ramadan is not our ally

The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.

Admiral Horatio Nelson may have guided the British naval fleet to a famous victory at the Battle of Trafalgar, but he faced a far tougher foe during celebrations to mark its 200th anniversary. Organizers of a re-enactment of the sea battle in 2005 decided to bill it as between a “Red Fleet” and a “Blue Fleet”, rather than Britain and its French and Spanish adversaries, describing it as a re-enactment of “an early 19th century sea battle.”

Trafalgar, in which the British Royal Navy saw off a combined Franco-Spanish fleet off the southern coast of Spain, marked a crucial defeat for Napoleon’s sea power. Nelson himself fell during the battle. Apparently, we now live in the age of the Borderless Utopia and the Brotherhood of Man, and shouldn’t be too hung up on Spain, England, France or other irrelevant historical details. It’s just rude. Maybe soon, we will hear that WW1 or even WW2 was fought between the Yellow Team and the Blue Team. We wouldn’t want to insult anybody, would we?

The incident is part of a broader trend of re-writing history. Partly because of immigration, the British government appointed a commission on the future of multiethnic Britain. It concluded that “Britishness” had “systematic, largely unspoken, racial connotations.” The report said Britain should be formally “recognized as a multicultural society” whose history must be “revised, rethought, or jettisoned.”

In the European Parliament, the German Christian Democrat Hans-Gert Pöttering stated that school textbooks should be reviewed for intolerant depictions of Islam by experts overseen by the European Union and Islamic leaders. He said textbooks should be checked to ensure they promoted European values without propagating religious stereotypes or prejudice. He also suggested that the EU could co-operate with the 56-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference to create a textbook review committee.

Timothy Garton Ash is considered a world-class expert on Europe’s future, and he refers frequently to his participation in glamorous-sounding international conferences. Bruce Bawer notes that Europe’s political élite has become extremely insulated from the people, and unwilling to address the problems that people are worried about. He thinks Garton Ash is typical of this élite. He distrusts national patriotism but adores the EU, writing about the need for a factitious European patriotism (“flags, symbols, a European anthem we can sing”) to encourage “emotional identification with European institutions.” Why does Europe need an EU? Garton Ash’s answer: “To prevent our falling back into the bad old ways of war and European barbarism.” Among his suggestions is that Europe encourage “the formation of an Arab Union.” He makes no mention of Arab democracy. Imagining “Europe in 2025 at its possible best,” he pictures it as a “partnership” with Arab countries and Russia that would extend “from Marrakesh, via Cairo, Jerusalem, Baghdad, and Tbilisi, all the way to Vladivostok.” But still, people claim that Eurabia is a conspiracy theory…

Mr. Carl I. Hagen of the right-wing Progress Party criticized the choice of a foreign citizen to head Norway’s immigration agency. “There should be no doubt about the loyalty to the native country and the connection with the Norwegian people, such as history and traditions, or the fact that you should look after this country’s interests. If you’re an immigrant from another country, with family and roots elsewhere, this could during conflicts raise questions about where your loyalty lies,” said Mr. Hagen.

Jonas Gahr Støre, Foreign Minister from the Labor Party, said Hagen’s statements were “bordering on racism.” Eva Joly, Norwegian born French magistrate, known in France for her tireless crusade against corruption, is now working as special adviser to the government in Norway. “To assume that nationality or citizenship have anything to do with being suitable [for a job] is a very old-fashioned way of thinking. We are no longer thinking in national terms, but in European or global terms. It is a duty to employ people from other countries,” said Joly. She has got both Norwegian and French citizenships, but considers herself European.

The director of Norway’s immigration agency, Manuela Ramin-Osmundsen, arrived in the country in the 1990s. Upon accepting the job as heading the country’s day-to-day handling of immigration, she vowed that it would become more open with those seeking residence permission in the country. As it turned out later, the agency (UDI) was in fact so “open” that it had been virtually running its own, private immigration policy. UDI violated both the law and political directives when it granted residency permits to nearly 200 Iraqi Kurds during the fall of 2005, even though not all their identities could be confirmed and some had criminal records. A commission that probed the controversial permits blasted the former head of UDI, and his successor, Ramin-Osmundsen, resigned.

Is it “xenophobia” if Norwegians, who make up less than a tenth of a percentage point of the world’s population, worry about being overwhelmed by immigration? As American writer Gore Vidal said in a lecture: “Liberal tradition requires that borders must always be open to those in search of safety or even the pursuit of happiness. But now with so many millions of people on the move, even the great-hearted are becoming edgy. Norway is large enough and empty enough to take in 40 to 50 million homeless Bengalis. If the Norwegians say that, all in all, they would rather not take them in, is this to be considered racism? I think not. It is simply self-preservation, the first law of species.”

Jonathan Friedman, an American living in Sweden, mentions that the so-called Integration Act of 1997 proclaimed that “Sweden is a Multicultural society.” Notes to the Act also stated that “Since a large group of people have their origins in another country, the Swedish population lacks a common history. The relationship to Sweden and the support given to the fundamental values of society thus carry greater significance for integration than a common historical origin.”

The Act thus implicitly states that the country of Sweden doesn’t have a history, only the various ethnic groups that live there. Native Swedes, who have shaped the country for centuries, have thus been reduced to just another ethnic group in Sweden, with no more claim to the country than the Kurds or the Somalis who arrived there last Thursday. The political authorities of the country have thus erased their own people’s history, without staging any public debate about this. I have read that Muslim immigrants in Sweden say that Sweden doesn’t have a common cultural or religious heritage; it’s just made up of different groups tied together by the use of a common language. It is thus “racist” to even talk about how “we” should integrate “them,” since there is no “we” to begin with.

Jens Orback, Democracy Minister in the Social Democratic Swedish government, is worried about “the public’s lack of faith in politicians.” Yet the same Orback said during a radio debate that: “We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.” It sounded almost too crazy even for Sweden that a minister could say something like this in public, so I checked with several independent sources, and apparently, he really did say this.

This is a government that knows perfectly well that their people will become a minority in their own country, and yet, is doing nothing to stop this. On the contrary, they are actively working to achieve this result. Has this ever happened before in human history, that the leaders of a nation are working to erase their own people and their history, and present this as an act of tolerance? No wonder some Swedes say that there is a war against Swedes going on: A physical war waged by Muslim immigrants, and a cultural and legal war waged by their own political élites.

Following threats from Muslim hardliners, some of the largest companies in England were afraid to display the English national flag during the football World Cup. In Sweden, a man was attacked and nearly killed for the crime of wearing clothes with his own national flag while Sweden was participating in the World Cup. Sweden, of course, has the same Christian cross in its flag as does England, and apparently, some “Multicultural youths” found this to be an intolerable provocation. The 24-year-old man was run down by a car in the city of Malmö. According to the police, he was wearing some clothes with Swedish national symbols on them, and this “provoked some emotions.”

Malmö, Sweden’s third largest city, is set to become the first major Scandinavian city with a Muslim majority. The wave of robberies the city has witnessed is part of a “war against Swedes.” This is the explanation given by young robbers with immigrant backgrounds on why they are only robbing native Swedes. “When we are in the city and robbing, we are waging a war, waging a war against the Swedes.” “Power for me means that Swedes shall look at me, lie down on the ground and kiss my feet.”

In Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, a Mr. Hans Hauge wrote an essay about Multiculturalism. “We are being told every day that Denmark has become a Multicultural society. This is a fact, it is said, and there is nothing we can do about it.” “It is not a question of something that the population has decided politically, it just happened. It is a bit like the industrialization or the modernization. It happens while we are asleep.” “We have to get used to it.” “Nobody could predict when the [Berlin] Wall fell. Nobody could predict the Muhammad [cartoons] crisis.”

According to Hauge, one thing we do know from history “is that it always moves from “multi” to “mono.” A Multicultural society is a sign of the last days before a new “mono” sets in. Multi is always a sign of destruction.” “We can thus be sure of the fact that we are moving from a multi-religious to a mono-religious society. The movement is always from many to one, but we don’t know which one.”

I agree with Mr. Hauge on the second part. A Multicultural society is only temporary. Sooner or later, we will return to a new mono-cultural society. This will happen either through the division of the previously coherent territory into new, mono-cultural enclaves or through the takeover by society as a whole of the most forceful and aggressive of these competing cultures.

The Multicultural ideology is malignant because it fragments society into separate, cultural ghettos, a kind of apartheid. We’re living in an age dominated on one hand by cultural relativism in the West, and on the other hand by aggressive Islamic intolerance, No Truths vs. One Truth. Is this just a coincidence, or is it possible that the vacuum of nihilism and moral indifference is provoking an aggressive counter-reaction? If so, Multiculturalism promotes totalitarianism rather than tolerance.

Of course, it is possible that Multiculturalism never was about tolerance to begin with. For some, it was about vanity. “Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s most open-minded of them all?” It’s a beauty contest for bored, Western intellectuals who use immigrants as a mirror to reflect their own inflated egos, a sport where they can nurse their vanity in the mistaken belief that denigrating your own cultural heritage is a sign of goodness and lack of prejudice.

However, there are others who understand perfectly well that Multiculturalism is only temporary, and use it as a means to further their own ideological ends. They use Multiculturalism and massive immigration as a battering ram to smash the Old Order of Judeo-Christian nation states to pave way for a New Order, be that a pan-European super-state or the global dictatorship of the proletariat. Creative destruction, in other words. And this is where I strongly disagree with Mr. Hauge, who thinks Multiculturalism “just happened,” an accident of nature. I don’t know; much of it sounds pretty man-made to me.

It is true that the traditional system of nation-states will be challenged in the 21st century. Part of the challenge is indeed posed by impersonal forces of technological globalization. However, Multiculturalism is probably more a deliberate result of ideology than an accidental result of technology. The settlement slash invasion by millions of Muslims in major European cities was a direct result of secret behind-the-scenes agreements made by EU authorities, as documented in Bat Ye’or’s work on Eurabia, and it was widely cheered by Leftist intellectuals.

The Internet makes borderless communication easier, yes, but that’s not the major problem. The major problem is that millions of people are moving physically across the borders due to an intentional government policy of erasing the borders of Western nations.

If massive immigration is the inevitable result of technological globalization, how come Japan hasn’t been overrun by millions of Muslims the way Western Europe has, or how come a country such as Finland has received a lot fewer immigrants than neighboring Sweden? Why is Multiculturalism “inevitable” in Sweden or Britain but perfectly avoidable in Japan? Could it be that it has been decided by certain powerful groups, and that this Project is hidden from public discussion by saying that it is “inevitable” and that all those who oppose it are “racists,” anyway?

The political élites are involved in a Project — for it is a deliberate, organized project — to dissolve the nation states of the West. It is a coalition of several groups: Leftists, who hate the capitalist, Christian West in general and are influenced by Marxist ideas about the nation state being an obstacle to international liberation. However, there are also centrist and even so-called conservative groups participating in this. Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the author of the awful EU Constitution, is considered a conservative politician, who however has an enormous contempt for the intelligence of ordinary people and never cares to hide this fact.

There is another group, whose members are convinced that the nation state is the cause only of wars and trouble. I suspect former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl belongs to this group. And finally, we have perhaps the largest group: Opportunists who just mind their own business and follow the lead of the other groups. They have good jobs on an international basis and no longer feel any close attachment to the nation states they are supposed to represent.

I call them The New Marie Antoinettes. The old Marie Antoinette, 18th century Queen of France, was famous for the quote “If the people have no bread, then let them eat cake,” although some claim she never actually said this The New Marie Antoinettes would probably have said “Let them eat kebab.” They think cries for national sovereignty is an old superstition among common people, and are actively dismantling the nation states of Europe through massive immigration, Multiculturalism and supranational institutions, primarily the EU.

They never asked for permission to do this, and have never even mentioned this Project in public. The creation of this new entity, Eurabia, is the greatest act of treason in the last two thousand years of Western history, and has almost brought Europe to its knees. Western political élites seem to think that we now live in the “global” age, and that any sense of attachment to your nation state or even your civilization is silly and “old-fashioned.” This is now creating an unprecedented gap of trust between the people and their leaders, which in Europe in particular is now so large that it could soon threaten the foundations of our democratic society. Can our countries survive when the people who are supposed to protect and serve them no longer believe in the very institutions they are supposed to represent?

One blogger suggested naming this Project The Great Deconstruction, a name I like. Earlier generations lived in the Age of Reason, we live in the Age of Deconstruction, where our Universities and institutions are more interested in deconstructing and breaking down all of our cultural heritage than in defending it and passing it on to our children.

It is noteworthy that Marie Antoinette, more than 200 years after she was guillotined at the height of the French Revolution in 1793, has become a national obsession, the subject of books, magazine articles, films, even chocolates and perfumes. “I love my country but we’re in a terrible mess,” said Claude Dufresne, a historian, referring to the rioting in the immigrant suburbs, the economic stagnation and the seeming inability of French politicians to offer solutions. “Under the circumstances, the past seems all the more glorious and brilliant.” The fascination with Marie Antoinette also reflected “nostalgia for what we have destroyed”, he added. In a similar vein, Evelyne Lever, author of a biography of Marie Antoinette, said the public related to her because of the extraordinary tragedy that she suffered: “She went from being almost a goddess in the palace to being dragged on to the scaffold.” At the same time, Marie Antoinette represents the end of an era, “and that is exactly what we are living through now, the death throes of a particular system”, said Lever, referring to suggestions that the institutions of France’s so-called Fifth Republic are exhausted and in need of renewal.

Roger Scruton, in a speech given in Belgium, noted that “buying and selling of citizenship, often to people who think of it purely as a right and never as a duty, is common throughout Europe. The political élite sees nothing wrong in people collecting passports as they might collect memberships of clubs.” “Members of our liberal élite may be immune to xenophobia, but there is an equal fault which they exhibit in abundance, which is the repudiation of, and aversion to, home.” This, attitude, which he calls oikophobia, is “the disposition, in any conflict, to side with ‘them’ against ‘us’, and the felt need to denigrate the customs, culture and institutions that are identifiably ‘ours’.”

The person who suffers from this state of mind repudiates national loyalties and “defines his goals and ideals against the nation, promoting transnational institutions over national governments, accepting and endorsing laws that are imposed from on high by the EU or the UN, and defining his political vision in terms of cosmopolitan values that have been purified of all reference to the particular attachments of a real historical community. The oikophobe is, in his own eyes, a defender of enlightened universalism against local chauvinism. And it is the rise of oikophobia that has led to the growing crisis of legitimacy in the nation states of Europe.”

“The ordinary people of Europe are now deeply anxious about their future. And when people are in a state of anxiety they pose a threat, both to themselves and to those whom they fear.” “If the liberal élite will not discuss the matter, and continue to put all blame for the growing anxiety on the xenophobia of the indigenous population while ignoring the oikophobia which is an equal contributory cause, then the likely long-term effect will be a popular explosion, and one from which no-one will benefit, least of all the immigrant communities.”

Serge Trifkovic, author of Defeating Jihad: How the War on Terrorism Can Be Won — in Spite of Ourselves, puts it this way: “At the root of the domestic malaise is the notion that countries do not belong to the people who have inhabited them for generations, but to whoever happens to be within their boundaries at any given moment — regardless of his culture, attitude, or intentions.” “A further evil fallacy is the dictum that we should not feel a special bond for any particular country, nation, race, or culture, but transfer our preferences on the whole world, “the Humanity,” equally.” “Those Americans and Europeans who love their lands more than any others, and who put their families and their neighborhoods before all others, are normal people. Those who tell them that their attachments should be global and that their lands and neighborhoods belong to the whole world are sick and evil.” “The refusal of the elite class to protect Western nations from Islamic terrorism is the biggest betrayal in history.”

I have noted before that the European Union is a throwback of to the pre-democratic era, the creation of a new aristocracy. It looks like this new aristocracy has the same grip on reality as Marie Antoinette and the pre-revolutionary French élites. Never mind the gang rapes, the embassy burning or the suicide bombings. Think of all the good things Muslim immigration is bringing us, the culture, the food. If the people don’t like sharia, let them eat kebab.

It’s easy to crack jokes about this, but the situation is in fact quite serious. Europe is being overrun by barbarians, and Europe’s political élites are spending all their efforts implementing a Frankenstein’s monster Constitution in the face of popular resistance. I smell a pre-revolutionary era that’s about to end. Let’s hope we can avoid Robespierre and the Reign of Terror this time.

Now, we have the blogosphere, the virtual guillotine. We don’t chop the heads off stupid people, we just chop the heads off stupid people’s ideas. Maybe the world is making progress after all.

The problem is that if, or rather when, we get civil wars in Western Europe due to Muslim immigration, the front lines will not necessarily be between Muslims vs. Infidels or even Natives vs. Immigrants. There is a cultural and ideological civil war going on in the West that, combined with some Islamic fanaticism, could lead to physical civil wars. The battle is between those who believe in traditional Western values and nation states and those who believe in Multiculturalism, the UN, international law etc. The last group, which is especially dominant on the Left but which has penetrated deep into the Right, thinks that national sovereignty is at best redundant, at worst evil and “racist.” Many of them will genuinely believe that those who reject Muslim immigration are evil, racist bigots, and some of them may side with Muslims to fight for their own ideological project. There is no call for unity against the Islamic threat because our leaders no longer believe in childish notions such as “civilizations” or “nations.”

Global warming is man-made and must be fought at all costs. Multiculturalism, however, and the settlement of millions of Muslims in our largest cities “just happened,” a bit like a hurricane. Still, the fact that the very same people who have eagerly championed Multiculturalism are now distancing themselves from the Project and claim that “it just happened” is an indication that they know the experiment has failed and is about to collapse.

So far, our liberal élites have been more effective in breaking down the Old Order than in making a New Order. Their “creative destruction” could turn out to be much more destructive than creative. Instead of a new pan-European identity we will see a temporary return to some very old tribalism. I hope I’m wrong, but I fear that I’m not.

The indefatigable Zonka has translated another Danish newspaper article. His comments are in italics, followed by the text of the article.

Below is a translation from today’s edition of Jyllands-Posten. A few background notes — Per Stig Møller, the conservative foreign minister, has traditionally been in the multi-cultural camp, which has put him at odds with the national-liberals (the faction the Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, belongs to) at times, and he has been overruled on several occasions by the PM. As such he is showing progress in coming out with this analysis of the situation; however, his suggested solution — dialogue, dialogue, dialogue — is the same old song, that has been tried for so long without success, since no dialogue has yet come up with anything but concessions to Islam!

Danish Foreign Minister warns against Fanatic Islamism

By Kim Hundevadt, Jyllands-Posten, July 8, 2006

Per Stig Møller

The fanatic Islamists are just as totalitarian in their way of thinking as the Communists and the Nazis, the foreign minister believes.

Fanatic Islamism is a totalitarian movement, which should be taken dead serious, warns the Danish foreign minister, Per Stig Møller (Conservative):

“I have noted, that some are saying that it only a minority of extremists, who don’t have the same power that the Nazis and the Communists had in their time, however, that is taking the threat too lightly. Communism started with a few loons playing chess in Zürich, and the Nazis were a bunch of jerks in the beer halls of Munich. One must never underestimate a totalitarian movement in the making,” says the foreign minister.

He sees several similarities among the three totalitarian ideologies:

“Islamism wants to create an orthodox society based on the Qu’ran, corresponding to the communist ideology of a classless society and the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the Nazi ideology or an Aryan society based on biology.”

Banning Art

“The fanatic Islamists are just as totalitarian in their way of thinking. Which can be seen in Afghanistan during the Taliban and other places where they are in power. Then everybody is forced to live in unification and books, movies and music is banned,” says Per Stig Møller.

He adds that the totalitarian forces in the Islamic world also were a major reason for the escalation of the Mohammed crisis in January and February.

“The fanatics have tested how far they could push us. Naturally they will cynically use all issues they can find to inflame their populations. But it is important to emphasize that they are a minority. The best thing we can do is to support the forces of reformation. The Mohammed Cartoon case has demonstrated that they are as strong as we could have wanted, but surveys show that there is a majority for reforms in the muslim world,” says the Danish foreign minister and emphasizes that we need to be on speaking terms with as many interested parties as possible — including the moderate Islamists:

“The limit is drawn at those who wants to change our society with violent means. Everything else is dialogue,” says Per Stig Møller.

A look at history ought to give us extra motivation to seek a peaceful co-existence with the Islamic world. It has historically always been the culture, which had the largest population growth that expanded and right now the European populations are receding, he states.

But peaceful co-existence doesn’t mean that we should limit the freedom of speech to avoid offending religious feelings.

“Europe’s spiritual development is built upon freedom of speech. Just because somebody believes that the freedom is being misused to criticize and make fun of their religion doesn’t mean we should change that,” states the Danish foreign minister.

Several days ago the Baron posted an amusingly-captioned photo sent to him by an old and dear friend.

The post was linked at The Brussels Journal — the first of the best European online magazines. Here was my response, left in the comments section (as you can see, I have contemplated Zarqawi’s afterlife):

Even as I write, somewhere beyond this universe, Z. is having to write on the blackboard a billion times:

“I will not behead infidels. I will love my brother.”

As he writes, ceaselessly, Sister Benignus is correcting papers at her desk while she waits for him to finish.

The late afternoon sunshine slants through the windows uncomfortably warm on Zarqawi’s back, since his time is to be spent in late summer, when all the other students are out of school for the holidays.

He is on #200,352 and he despairs of ever finishing. The blackboard stretches beyond his horizon. Z’s shirt is covered with chalk, as are his hands and hair. He would give his soul for a falafel sandwich, but unfortunately, he remembers he already sold that particular article years ago for a mess of jihad pottage.

In eons beyond measure, his soul will melt from this exercise and it is then that he will be permitted to beg forgiveness of his victims.

Funny thing is, by the time he is done with his purgatorial task, he will really, really mean his words of contrition.

The mills of God grind slowly… and Sister Benignus is one of His millers.

So just in case you wondered, Sister Benignus has Zarqawi now. It is a much worse fate than whatever it is you might have imagined for him.

Even Lucifer steers clear of Sister Benignus.

— Dymphna

I’m grateful to Florida Cracker for this one. The only credit Donnah gives for it is to “Litigation Leery” (no link). Whoever Mr. Leery is, I’d like to shake his hand.

Consarn it! Ah’m a-gonna take care o’ all them pesky apes and pigs!

In a recent post we discussed the relative safety of living in gun-toting America vs. dwelling in the ancient cities of Europe. The consensus was that while crime in the U.S. was lower, murder rates were higher. All those guns, you know.

Well, just to liven things up a bit, Paul Belien sent an email to disabuse us of that notion: the EU is beginning to pass the US in the murder and mayhem department. From Living Dangerously in Brussels, the following statistics:

Murder and manslaughter in the U.S.: 16,137 cases in 2004 (5.5 per 100,000 inhabitants).

Percent change compared to 2003: -2.4

Murder and manslaughter (moord en doodslag) in Belgium: 959 cases in 2004 (9.1 per 100,000 inhabitants).

Percent change compared to 2003: +11.12

Do yourself a favor and read his essay, Europe Must Find its Roots in America:

…History never repeats itself, and yet similarities are often so striking that in a way there is nothing new under the sun. In the 17th and 18th centuries North America was colonised by freedom loving people who brought the political institutions and traditions from Europe to a new continent across the sea. Many of them had left Europe because they wanted the freedom to live according to their own conscience instead of the conscience of the centralist absolutist rulers of the new age that was sweeping across Europe from the 16th century onwards. Their traditions were rooted in the decentralised traditions of the late Middle Ages and the Aristotelian philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas. Europe’s Middle Ages had been characterised by an absence of central power, while man was bound to multiple legal systems: the legal order of his city, that of the land, that of his guild, that of the church. There was not one monopolistic ruler, as in China or in the Muslim world, but many, which guaranteed greater freedom for the individual. The philosophy of Aquinas, moreover, was centered on the individual. God had called man to be free from sin, but in order to be free from sin he had to be virtuous, and in order for virtue to have any value it had to be voluntary, implying that the virtuous man had to be free in every aspect of his life including, as Aquinas’ followers later pointed out, his economic activities.

Hence the paradox came about that the civil society developing in the new continent was in a sense older than the new Modern Age of the absolutist monarchs governing Europe. When the Americans rebelled in 1776 they rebelled against absolutism in order to keep their old freedoms. Theirs was a conservative revolution. Europe had its own series of revolutions from 1789 onwards, but these were revolutions of a different sort. They toppled the ruling absolutists to replace them by absolutists of an even extremer form: totalitarians. These were not satisfied with controlling their subjects’ political and economic lives but also wished to control their minds and souls, i.e. to become their god.

[…]

American society is a society whose culture and view of mankind resembles that of the old mediaeval Europe from which it organically evolved. It puts man before the state because it accepts that man should come to God as a free being. Europe, having lived through the perversions of the Modern Age, has absorbed much of the absolutist and totalitarian spirit….

Read the whole thing, especially the beginning, where Mr. Belien points out how Ireland saved civilization during the Dark Ages. Ahem. His points about Americans’ understanding of economic functions read as though they were from one of Starling David Hunter‘s classroom lectures.

Remember the Saudi slave owner in Colorado?

The mills of God grind slowly, but grind away they do: Homaidan al-Turki was convicted last week —

• Twelve felony counts of unlawful sexual contact with use of force
• One felony count of criminal extortion
• One felony count of theft (this is probably the $64,000 in back wages he owed his “maid”)

In addition, there were two misdemeanor convictions, both related to “false imprisonment”.

After the jury statement was read there was great drama in the courtroom supplied by the family and members of the Colorado Muslim Council. One man was ejected from the courtroom, and one of al-Turki’s daughters was carried out, crying, “What did he do?” It is hard to comprehend that she doesn’t know what Dad did to their slave who lived in the basement for four years, at least in this country.

Al-Turki, a Saudi citizen, owns a Colorado bookstore whose website still appears to be up and running. If you want to order an Islamic diatribe, here’s the email address: info@al-basheer.com. The snail-mail address is:

      Al-Basheer Publications & Translations
      3700 Havana Street, Unit # 102
      Denver, CO 80239
      U.S.A.

Let’s not forget that this man didn’t break any Shari’ah law. Rape of your Muslim slave is permissible under Islam. The young Indonesian woman, a seventeen year old virgin before al-Turki got hold of her, could be raped and enslaved with impunity. Now, rape of an infidel woman is another matter, so it’s probably no coincidence that the family’s choice of slave was a follower of the Prophet. I wonder if she was permitted a Koran in her basement hole? After all, her owner had a bookstore which sold them by the bushel. Maybe he gave her a slave an employee discount…?

Fortunately for this woman, Shari’ah law has no jurisdiction in Arapahoe County, and the fiqh does not apply in Colorado. Thus the Labor Department, in its lawsuit against al-Turki, requires him to pay $64,000 in back wages. Perhaps there will, in addition, be a civil suit for damages and deprivation of her civil liberties. Calling the ACLU, calling the ACLU: a tailor-made case here, just waiting for you. Much more apropos than eradicating little tiny crosses from municipal seals, wouldn’t you say? Unfortunately, the American Civil Liberties Union seems to have become habituated to easy pickings; they know small city governments will cave rather than bankrupt their taxpayers in a legal battle.

Al-Turki, on the other hand, has the full financial backing of the Saudi government. They went his bail, to the tune of $400,000, and the lesser bail for his wife, Sarah Khonaizan, who plea-bargained for a lesser fate. She’ll be sentenced in July, and has agreed to return to Saudi Arabia after her sentence has been served next year.

Al-Turki is not free on bond anymore. Having been convicted, his sentencing will take place in August. His defense argued that he should be allowed out on bond until then. The prosecutors asked that he be remanded without bond. He is not a citizen, and has immigration issues.

[Judge] Hannen ruled that since Al-Turki was convicted of counts that had aggravating factors that would put them into the category of violent crimes, the statutes did not allow him to continue bond, and Al-Turki was to be kept in custody until his sentencing Aug. 31.

So far, the convictions are locally based. In October al-Turki faces yet another trial — this one in federal court — on charges of forced labor, document servitude (he kept her passport from her, and it eventually expired), and harboring an illegal immigrant. The last charge is especially ironic, since it was al-Turki himself who created her status as an illegal alien by not permitting her to renew her visa.

This man is one of those infamous Saudi “students”, a 36 year old student studying linguistics in Colorado. He is also a member in good standing of the Colorado Muslim Council, where he spoke while out on bond awaiting trial. The Council may have links to the Islamic Assembly of North America (IANA).

Here’s some background — a bit dated, but then Jihad is eternal, isn’t it? — on their mission as described by Idaho prosecutors investigating fraudulent charities:

According to court papers filed by Idaho prosecutors, the IANA’s mission included the “dissemination of radical Islamic ideology, the purpose of which was indoctrination, recruitment of members, and the instigation of acts of violence and terrorism.”

In 2003, the National Review concluded

that elements within the Saudi government knowingly support IANA as a jihadist recruitment center — but the recruitment is clandestine to most Americans, including law enforcement. For the most part, IANA has attempted to mask its vitriolic propaganda, publishing its most radical content solely in Arabic. IANA’s English products and publications are conspicuously absent of the harshest al Qaeda and terrorist propaganda. Only in Arabic, on IANA’s several websites, can an individual read about the glory of suicide missions or navigate to audio clips religiously justifying terrorist attacks and calling for jihad.

One fatwa in particular appears to have given the justification to the hijackers to carry out the September 11 attacks. A government translation of a fatwa by a “radical Saudi sheikh” ominously published on one of IANA’s websites, Alasr.ws, in May 2001, stated, “[T]he mujahid must kill himself if he knows that this will lead to killing a great number of enemies…this can be accomplished with the modern means of bombing or bringing down an airplane on an important location that will cause the enemy great losses.”

My guess? Al-Turki has a long time to ponder his fate. Just for this first trial, he faces sentences that range from ninety-six years to twelve consecutive life terms. Those are golden bargaining chips for federal prosecutors looking for terrorist links.

It’s a long, long time from July to November
And jail gets old if you can’t remember…
But the walls disappear and you suddenly grow wings
When you somehow recall those Jihad rings.

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

Who are you willing to name, Homaidany, just to get free?

Hat tip: Combs Spouts Off

Yesterday morning I posted about the pirates in the Strait of Malacca, including the two recent attacks on UN aid-carrying ships. It made me wonder if the UN should designate the pirates as NGOs, and thereby eliminate piracy with a bureaucratic stroke of the pen.

Well, Fellow Peacekeeper does not really consider this a joke. In the comments he said this:

Actually, you may be joking about not joking but I think it’s not a joke.

At a guess the UN-hired ships were in cahoots with the “pirates” (if the pirates were not actually hired for the purpose) and took a cut of the profit. And that is pretty much UN standard practise. The aid was probably purchased from friends and relatives for inflated prices, and quite possibly destined to be resold commercially by the party receiving the aid. Consequently it is only logical that the transport side join in the game, and oops! pirates stole the aid! For extra bastard points the stolen aid may be sold again to the UN in order to be stolen again to… etc. All this insecurity demands more security staff, who may or may not be qualified but since they are not actually providing security that doesn’t matter. Of course security staff decrease the margin for piracy by adding another layer to those receiving a cut, but hey, as long as New York is happy…

You see? International cooperation at work. Corruption is your friend, and Kofi’s! It cuts out that uneccessary violence and everybody profits. The UN staff, their friends and relatives and associates in the logistics and supply and security and distibution businesses and NGOs, and governments both receiving and giving and transiting. That’s many many many people. Just neither the ones who pay for this, nor those who really need it.

Anyone think I’m joking?

In a later post yesterday I wrote about the “Demonic Convergence” of Islam and crime:

The theology and ideology of Islam are eminently compatible with criminal behavior, and an operational jihad organization is functionally indistinguishable from a criminal enterprise.

Is this why the UN and the Arab League get on so well together? Does this help explain the virtually unanimous votes against the rule of law by the representatives of Muslim countries in the General Assembly?

Turtle Bay, Barbary Coast — how can you tell the difference?

A friend of mine sent me this today.

Zonka has translated an article from today’s Jyllands-Posten about the latest intramural arguments on the Left in Denmark, brought on by the fallout from the Mohammed Cartoon Crisis:

Soul-searching on the left wing about Mohammed Case

By Axel Pihl-Andersen – Jyllands-Posten, July 5, 2006

From a correct focus on freedom of speech, it became the enemy of my enemy is my friend states the criticism of the political left wing, by one of their own.

The Danish left wing had put the telescope to the blind eye and seriously failed the progressive and moderate Muslims, because they in the Mohammed case let themselves be used by the Islamist cause.

Thus states the criticism from SF’s^[1] housing and tax spokesman, Morten Homann. In an interview in Politiken yesterday he called for political courage on the part of the left wing, who according to Homann have acted like an “elephant in a china shop” in the Mohammed case.

It happened by one-sidedly focusing on and criticised prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen (V) and Jyllands-Posten’s cartoons as responsible for the conflict instead of defending the freedom of speech against the onslaught from Middle Eastern dictatorships and Islamist forces.

“Unfortunately we have committed the old mistake about making the enemy of my enemy to my friend, but as a left-winger and socialist one cannot be friends with Islamists and reactionary fundamentalist countries in the Middle East. The left wing commits a complete short-circuit when we believe that we are showing consideration to refugees and immigrants in the Danish society by protecting their religion. Our job has always been to question all religions and put ourselves on the side of humans against the religions that oppress them,” says the young SF-politician.

“We must protect humans, not religions. Why should we protect reactionary and oppressive religions against criticism? Everything should be up for discussion, and if we suddenly believe that something is more sacred than anything else, it doesn’t make sense to speak about freedom of speech anymore,” says Morten Homann.

He believes that Jyllands-Posten’s cartoons have “started a good debate about Islam, terror and fundamentalist Islamists, who wish to destroy our democracy.”

An inalienable Right

Homann’s criticism about the left wing is an indirect criticism of his own party chairman, Villy Søvndal, who in the beginning unconditionally supported Jyllands-Posten’s right to publicize the cartoons, but ended up calling them “stupid” and “vicious”.

Søvndal himself denies doing a 180° turn.

“I have spoken in different situations and have criticised the government’s handling of the crisis. But I want to emphasize that freedom of speech is an unalienable right, which has had a great impact on both the left wing and the development of our society as a whole, but that does not contradict what I have said. Seen in isolation there was nothing wrong with publicizing the cartoons; however Jyllands-Posten have been inconsistent when they earlier refused to publish cartoons about Christians,” says Søvndal, who denies that SF have problems distancing themselves from the Islamists.

“They are our absolute opposite and enemies. In reality they are spiritually closer to fundamentalist Christians such as Søren Krarup (Danish People’s Party) and company,” says Søvndal.

Other left wing politicians agree with Homann’s criticism and encourages some soul-searching after the Mohammed case.

Karsten Hønge (SF) who is chairman for the union “Træ-Industri-Byg” in Odense and elected into city and county council:

“The left wing have stood for challenging the taboos and expanding borders. I’m surprised as to how the new found sensitivity has entered parts of the left wing, who in the Mohammed case have avoided looking at the facts but on auto-pilot started to disagree with Anders Fogh Rasmussen and Jyllands-Posten,” says Karsten Hønge.

He believes that the left wing should unambiguously and clearly choose side and declare themselves opponents to Islamism.

Total Naivety

“Many on the left-wing foolishly convince themselves that they can be friends with the Islamists. They do that from the assumption that since the weak and oppressed have Islam as a religion, we must protect Islam. That is totally naive,” says the 47 year old Hønge, who joined SF when he was 14.

According to Hønge, it is not only the national enemy-image which makes the left wing assume a wrong position in the Mohammed case, but also the international contrasts.

“The logic seems to be that when many of the Muslim countries are opposed to Bush and USA, then there must be something right in their way of thinking. The same erroneous conclusion was arrived at back in 1979, when the left wing in particular had great sympathy for Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iranian Islamist Revolution, because it was directed against a reactionary Shah and American interests. But not many weeks passed before it was the left-wingers who were arrested, tortured and executed. That is the lesson we should remember.” says Hønge.

Lost Focus

Also in Enhedslisten^[2] people are questioning the lack of criticism of Islam on the left wing.

Jakob Lindblom, who has been on the central board of Enhedslisten, had in February a byline in the Daily Information where he asked “whether the left wing is blind to the fact that oppressed minorities in themselves can be oppressors?”.

“In the beginning the left wing – including Villy Søvndal – had the right focus in the Mohammed case, namely the freedom of speech and rejection of outside interference. But later we lost the focus on what it was all about: namely that we are being threatened in the public space. It seems to end up that the left wing is fighting for the right of businesses to have profits in trading with despotic regimes like Saudi-Arabia and Iran, which boycotts Denmark because of some satirical cartoons. Instead the left wing ought to have put themselves in the lead of boycotts of Arla and Grundfos. Where is the solidarity with the victims of the Saudi regime?” says Jakob Lindblom, and adds, “We should not ally ourselves with people who have a judicial sense that predates the feudal state.”

The chairman of Enhedslisten Line Barfod, states that her party is critical of both Islamists and Nazis.

“We protest when Hizb-ut-Tahrir have meetings and when Nazis have meetings. We agree with Fogh that Jyllands-Posten had the right to publish the cartoons, but we also believe that the debate has become intolerant towards the immigrants and refugees,” states Line Barfod.

However, she agrees with the critics, in that the statements such as “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” aren’t useful.

“It is OK that Homann brings up the discussions. Freedom of speech is a precondition for us and society, and violence and threats are a primitive and unacceptable answer, which we reject,” says Line Barfod.

[1] Socialistic People’s Party (SF)
[2] Enhedslisten is a conglomerate of former communists and other far-left politicians.

Before the jetliners made their fateful rendezvous with the World Trade Center, like most Americans I was relatively ignorant about Islam. I knew Muslims had a Book and considered themselves “children of Abraham”. I knew they prayed towards Mecca, and worshipped in mosques. I knew their Prophet was called Mohammed. I remembered that Malcolm X was a Muslim, and that the Crusades were initiated to liberate Jerusalem from Islam during the Middle Ages. I knew that Islamic fundamentalists had taken over the government of Afghanistan in the 1990s. But that was about it.

I’ve learned a lot about Islam since September 11th, 2001.

As soon as the second plane hit the WTC, when it was obvious that the incident was a deliberate attack and not an accident, the idea of Islamic terrorists came into my head. After all, there was a precedent to recall, the first attack in 1993 and the “blind sheikh”. Just because our racial profiling after the Oklahoma City bombing was proved wrong didn’t mean that Muslims weren’t involved in this one.

And I’d heard of Osama bin Laden before — he figured prominently in the reporting on the US embassy bombings in 1998, after all — so when his name came up, it made sense.

But there were so many other names to learn, so many other factions! All those terrorist groups — there were more than just Hamas and Hizbullah: Al Qaeda, Ansar Al-Islam, Jamaat ul-Fuqra, Jemaah Islamiyah, Mujahedin-e Khalq, Abu Sayyaf, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Tayyiba… A seemingly endless list of unpronounceable names.

I learned that Osama bin Laden was a Sunni, a member of a particular branch of Islam, and that there were other branches, each with its own terrorist leaders. Sufism is often considered a peaceful and enlightened form of Islam, but Sheikh Syed Mubarik Ali Shah Gilani is a Sufi, and also the head of a brutal terrorist organization with an extensive network right here in the United States of America.

The main rival to the Sunni branch is that of the Shi’a, who recognize the Prophet’s cousin and son-in-law Ali as his successor rather than the Four Caliphs. Iran is the most prominent Shi’ite country in the world, and with the accession to power in 1979 of the Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran became the world’s first Islamic terrorist regime. Khomeini and his successors have fed an assortment of terrorist groups across the world, the most notorious being Hizbullah in Lebanon.

If these fellows were military leaders or the capos of crime families, one would expect that killing or incapacitating them would seriously damage the functionality of their organizations. But Osama bin Laden has been dead or holed up in a cave somewhere for more than four years. And despite the cheesy audio tapes he purportedly issues from time to time, he is no longer in operational control of Al Qaeda. Even so, the organization continues to function; combating it requires ongoing ingenious low-level counterintelligence and interdiction.

In fact, dangerous Islamic terrorists already operate outside of Al Qaeda’s structure. Consider the latest incident in the United States, the arrest of the Sears Tower conspirators. By all accounts these are strange and marginal Al Qaeda wannabes, and were captured in a sting when trying to make contact with Osama’s people. The recently arrested Canadian terrorists seem to be similarly home-grown, as were the members of the California terrorist cell that was accidentally exposed by sloppy practices during the robbery of a convenience store.

Then we have John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, inspired by Osama bin Laden and possibly relying on Sheikh Gilani’s people for help, but acting alone while terrorizing an entire metropolitan area for weeks. Sunni or Sufi? And taking orders from whom? Either question is hard to answer.

The notorious Richard Reid, a.k.a. the “Shoe Bomber”, was loosely affiliated with Al Qaeda through various mosques and radical Islamic organizations in Britain. But a definitive chain of command, with a hierarchical terrorist structure passing orders to its operative, has never been fully established. Richard Reid converted to Islam, became devoted to the cause, got on a plane, and tried to blow it and himself up. That’s all we really know.

So what’s going on here? Where does all this come from? How do all the pieces fit together?

Osama bin Laden and many Sunni terrorists have looked to Sayyid Qutb and the Muslim Brotherhood for inspiration and guidance. The Brotherhood originated in Egypt in 1928, but has opened chapters in other countries in the years since. In its structure and modus operandi it resembles Al Qaeda. Once again, however, there is no central authority giving orders or asserting control.

Not all the violent Shi’ite groups take orders from the Iranian mullahs, and not all the Sufi terrorists pay homage to Sheikh Gilani in Pakistan. Ultimately the only things all these people have in common are the Prophet and the Koran. Islam’s holy book demands violent jihad on behalf of the faith; it sanctions any means whatsoever to achieve the spread of Islam. Violent thugs blowing up children and beheading captives all over the world are simply carrying out the basic catechism of their religion.

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

But why now? Where are all these mujahideen coming from, and what’s fueling all this Koranic bloodshed?

To start with, there’s the explosion of Salafist funding. Thanks to the price of oil and the nefariously corrupt regime in Saudi Arabia, the Great Islamic Jihad devours a surfeit of resources the likes of which have not been seen for five hundred years or more. It’s no longer necessary to breach the walls of Constantinople and loot the cathedral, or send pirates out on a razzia to plunder wealthy merchant vessels: all the Saudis have to do is hire infidels to drill for the black goo and then sell it to other infidels. The proceeds from this lucrative racket have been plowed back into Sunni jihad activities across the globe, always disguised as “charity”.

So this is what pays for operations, but whence the cannon fodder to carry them out? All these disparate and disconnected people, training to carry out violence and willing to die in the process — where do they come from?

The Great Jihad goes trolling for potential shahids among convicted felons, particularly in the prisons of the United States, Canada, Britain, and Australia. The enlightened rehabilitative regimes in these countries install Islamic chaplains for their inmates. These religious functionaries are selected and funded by Saudi missionary organizations. Not to be outdone by the Sunnis, Sheikh Gilani’s Jamaat ul-Fuqra has an extensive prison-recruitment operation.

Islam has an impressive record of converting criminals, and this is where we find the key to unlock our mystery. The theology and ideology of Islam are eminently compatible with criminal behavior, and an operational jihad organization is functionally indistinguishable from a criminal enterprise. The Koran explicitly sanctions any method whatsoever to spread the faith, and forbids nothing when subjugating the infidel. Thus lying, stealing, rape, murder, torture, and genocide are not only acceptable, they are laudable and even mandatory when undertaken on behalf of the Ummah.

When a converted Muslim convict finishes his sentence, he not only returns to his accustomed lifestyle, he now has the protection, security, and camaraderie of his new brothers-in-jihad. In addition he has the assurance that his actions carry out the will of Allah! Who could ask for anything more?

The Chechen terrorists, then, are like the Russian mafia with a jihad ideology grafted on. Back in the 1980s Jamaat ul-Fuqra behaved like a criminal mob that occasionally blew up Hindu temples. Theft, fraud, battles over turf, the distribution of booty, the murder of rivals — all the standard elements of criminality are there, but gathered under the comforting blanket of ideology. There’s plenty of room for a cynical mobster to join in — after all, the rules and catch-phrases are few and easy to memorize; all he has to do is obey the boss, give up bacon, and hide his whiskey bottle. He can still abuse his moll; in fact, the Koran conveniently requires it.

When an Islamic terror group moves into a lawless area, we can expect it to absorb existing criminal structures — as has recently occurred in Somalia. This doesn’t mean that Al Capone would necessarily convert to Islam and submit to a more powerful emir as his new capo; the head of a traditional criminal enterprise might well choose to go down with all guns blazing. But much of his organization could be converted to jihad operations; there’s no reason a low-level gunsel wouldn’t find life under the new sheikh congenial to his taste.

But what about the non-cynical converts, the ones who really are willing to die for the cause? What about the true zealots like John Walker Lindh, the “American Taliban”? Where do they come from?

I had a friend in my college days who was attracted to radical politics. “Power to the People”, “Smash the State”, “Revolution Now” — it was always about sticking it to the Man, questioning authority, and resisting all instances of state power. Nowadays he’s studying the Koran and talking about the power of the Jews, and is seriously considering converting to Islam.

There are probably psychological explanations for this constellation of behaviors — childhood abuse by a tyrannical father and so on — but the point is that such a person is going to find Islam, especially radical Islam, attractive.

A century and a half ago the same person would have embraced Anarchism. Instead of Mohammed, my friend would have gravitated towards Mikhail Bakunin. The same behaviors and motivations are there: absolute lawlessness coupled with absolute ideology. Push nihilism far enough in that direction, and you get a zeal that exceeds all others in its ferocity.

That’s where Abu Musab al-Zarqawi comes in. Simple criminal impulses cannot explain his behavior — the ordinary criminal would never have endured the life he had to live. Only dedication to an all-encompassing ideology of destruction could have produced such monstrous behavior.

And so we have what might be called a Demonic Convergence, a confluence of destructive impulses that Islam gathers unto itself. In the terms of Chaos Theory, Islam is a “basin attractor”, an asymptotic solution to all the differential equations of nihilistic human behavior.

Any impulse that longs to destroy Western Civilization — which, for the modern world, means all civilization — will gravitate towards Islam. The criminal gets ideological justification for his behavior, the sadist gets to rape and murder to his heart’s content, and the hippie radical gets to stick it to the Man for all eternity.

This is what we’re up against: the Big Tent of ideological nihilism. The closer any given society gets to the behavioral sink, the more Islamic it tends to become. Just look at the death-cult that is “Palestine”, voluntarily living under the yoke of the sadistic murderers of Hamas. Or the chaos of Somalia, now turning from the rule of the warlords to the rule of Shari’ah.

Or consider the banlieux of Paris, with their burning cars and rampaging “youths”. Those destructive and lawless kids are only marginally ideological, but they do know their identity, and it is most assuredly Islamic.

The West is scarcely equipped to deal with this Demonic Convergence. Our own ideology for the last century or so has coddled and encouraged the nihilistic outcasts of modernity, showering them with self-esteem and all the benefits of the welfare state.

When a glimmer of realization finally begins to show through, as formulated by the artists whose drawings ignited the Danish Mohammed cartoon crisis, it is quickly squelched by the keepers of the conventional wisdom. The violence engineered to create the crisis must be our own fault; after all, the grievances of any disaffected and marginal people are always our own fault.

The protesting Muslims reinforce the West’s suicidal tendencies, threatening violence in ways that an average law-abiding citizen would never be allowed to express. The shakedown always works; the protection racket has the desired effect. “Give us X — censorship of your publications, more social programs, government-funded mosques, the wearing of headscarves for our schoolgirls, separate swimming pools for men and women, an endless list — and we won’t bomb your transportation facilities or poison your water supply.” The craven, democratically-elected authorities (with the notable exception of the Danes) always cave in to the demands, and thus the ratchet gets turned up another notch, to rest there until the next crisis.

The final element of the Demonic Convergence, the coup de grace for Western Civilization, is provided by our own news media. Absolutely determined to end the administration of a particular American president and a particular political party, there is no limit to what they will do, no tactic to which they will not stoop, no secret they will not divulge, and no principle they will not betray in order to accomplish their purpose. The Saudis are better funded, but the Mainstream Media are more powerful, and together they provide a synergy that is capable of destroying us all.

These are the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle called “The 21st Century”, scattered on the table and the floor around you. How might they appear when they’re finally assembled?

Pirates are back in the news.

They’re not flying the Jolly Roger, and they’re not off the coast of Somalia this time. And the headline for the story looks strange indeed: “Japanese repel pirate attack”.

According to this AP story in The Australian:

A Japanese bulk carrier foiled a pirate attack yesterday in the Strait of Malacca off Indonesia’s coast, days after two UN-chartered vessels were raided by pirates in the same area.

The attacks raised concerns about a resurgence of piracy in the strait, one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes and a key link between Asia and Europe.

[…]

In the latest attack, pirates travelling on a blue-hulled unlit speedboat off the coast of Indonesia’s Aceh province followed the 26,000-tonne Japanese vessel, and attempted to board it by the stern.

But an alert duty officer raised the alarm.

And how did the Japanese crew fight off the pirates? Rail gun? AK-47s? Flamethrowers? Nope.

The crew turned on floodlights and sprayed the raiders with water from fire hoses, preventing them from boarding.

Smart move — no way to run out of ammunition.

Maybe the raid on the Japanese vessel was a mistake, since their previous targets had been UN ships:

On Sunday night, pirates successfully boarded two UN chartered ships carrying construction material for the reconstruction of the tsunami-hit Aceh province.

Both ships, flying Indonesian flags, had sailed from Belawan in Sumatra and were heading for Aceh when they were attacked and looted.

No injuries were reported among the all-Indonesian crew aboard the two vessels, hired by the UN World Food Program.

The bureaucrats at Turtle Bay could solve the problem in time-honored UN fashion: register the pirates as a new “Non-Governmental Organization” and voilà! No more piracy!

They’d then be officially designated as an “Indigenous Auxiliary Aid-Distribution Partner”, or IAADP, and given the imprimatur of Kofi Annan himself.

Nobody would even notice the difference between that and the usual way of doing business via the UN.

You think I’m joking, but wait and see…