Saturday, October 16, 2004

A Frenchman Protests and Apologizes For His Country's Anti-Semitism


From Eursoc:


It isn't only the Arab world which delights in anti-Jewish propaganda.

Last Thursday and Friday - Oct. 7 and 8, 2004 - the Franco-German channel Arte, mostly paid for by the taxpayer, broadcast a very bad French-Egyptian movie by Yousri Nasrallah called "Les portes du soleil". The fact that it was very bad was actually a blessing, for the main purpose of the movie was to show the founders of the state of Israel as moral equivalent to the Nazis.
The movie begins with a scene in a Palestinian school in 1943 where a teacher tells children about "our country, Palestine" and the "Jewish colonisation" going on. 1-9-4-3. Was nothing else happening at that time in Jewish history ? Apparently not, according to Arte.


It goes on: the 1948 war, when Israel barely survived a coordinated attack on the day of her birth by Arab states openly calling for genocide, is described slightly differently. Jews in green-grey uniforms come with tanks and commit mass murders of innocent women and children, burn the villages, pile the clothes of the dead according to size in order to send them to Israel. The Palestinian hero tattoos the date of the slaughter on his own wrist.

Of course the 1948 Jews had neither tanks nor real uniforms - they almost didn't have two rifles of the similar kind, for God's sake ! Arabs were brutalised, some were expelled in militarily important areas just as Jews were expelled from their homes in Arab countries - but indiscriminate slaughter by Tsahal? When, where? And what kind of person could dream up the Nazi analogies, apparent from the color of the uniform, the clothes piled on and the tattoo on the wrist? My God, which side actually had tattooed wrists in this war?

This is nauseating. This is unbelievable. But this is where we are.

And it goes on. In a kibbutz, a Palestinian woman is reduced to slavery and forced to work under the threat of a gun. A kibbutz - one of these idealistic socialist communities which wanted to change the world and bring eternal peace - is turned into a concentration camp by the sick mind of the director. This man has found actors to play this, two democratic governments to help finance it, and a television executive, Mr Jerome Clement - may his name live in infamy forever - to broadcast it in spite of many warnings that this movie would endanger the physical safety of French Jews.

After watching the whole abomination, I wrote to Mr Clement to tell him that, had Hitler won the war, we French would have enjoyed exactly the kind of television that he had provided us. He will not answer.

Since no one with authority will apparently do it, and because only a Frenchman can, I have this to add.

I apologise to the Jewish people. I feel hurt in my flesh by the despicable Jerome Clement, by the French ministries of Culture and of Foreign Affairs who made me pay for this cloaca of a movie, and for the general apathy that surrounded this scandal. I am deeply sorry about the behaviour of my country, France - my only country, which I have always loved dearly and cannot support today.

I believe that truth and justice will prevail. Their enemies are many, powerful, sophisticated. But the friends of truth and justice have found comfort and solace, for many centuries, in an old story of wretched slaves who managed to come out of Egypt against all odds - against many, powerful, sophisticated enemies. In today's troubled times, I recall this old story and I know who I'll support.

-Armand Laferrère


Me too.

What Do Hiroshima, Dresden, and Atlanta Have In Common?


From Roger Simon:


Among the many eye rolling questions of this election season, the one that may make my eyes roll most is... are we safer? Well, unless you believe in a parallel universe, the only honest answer is... who knows? But the more important point is that the question is specious because it is not a serious one, nor is it seriously asked. Its only objective is to embarrass its recipient, not to find the truth, because the truth in this case is unknowable. True safety from terror will take decades. Most of us know that, but many of us don't want to face it. Yet only by facing safety's extraordinary difficulty is there any help of achieving it.

That is why I find the people who ask that question dangerous or at the least highly disturbing. They are either deceiving others or deceiving themselves or both. Some of them are impatient that the situation hasn't been resolved in eighteen months, that there have been numerous ups and downs. Well, I have news for them - the situation wasn't resolved in eighteen months and it is most likely not going to be resolved in eighteen years either. If they think the ups and downs we have seen in the last eighteen months are troublesome, that misjudgments were made, wait until they see some real ones. We are dealing with a mindset that blew up a railroad station in Madrid a few months ago and referred in their statements to the Reconquista of 1492. Eighteen months? Eighteen years? How about six centuries?


Good point, Roger. Now, I have my own two cents to throw in. How about this question:

Was America safer after they decided to declare war on Germany and Japan in 1941?

The answer is you are never safer during a war. You are safer after you have beaten your enemy, and then you beat them some more, until they beg you to stop.

Talk amongst yourselves.

Is The German Menace Shaking Itself Awake?


Thanks to David's Medienkritik for enlightening us about the goings-on in Germany where Holocaust Denier's gathered under the auspices of the Frankfurt Book Fair, with the Guest of Honor" being the Denier's themselves:


The Frankfurt Book Fair ended on Sunday night.

Volker Neumann, the Fair's President, was enthusiastic about the presentation of books from several Arabic countries:

The presence of the Guest of Honour “Arab World” at this year’s Book Fair was viewed on all sides as having been a huge success. With hundreds of readings, discussions, exhibitions and concerts, the Guest of Honour had succeeded in providing a wide-ranging glimpse of the heterogeneous cultures of the 19 countries that took part. “This has achieved an important beginning for comprehensive inter-cultural dialogue,” said Neumann.

The list of prestigious Arab guests was topped by Mr. Mohammad Salmawy, who calls the holocaust a lie, fabricated by the Jews themselves. Thomas von der Osten-Sacken has some interesting thoughts on Salmawy's presence at the Frankfurt Book Fair and the virtual non-reaction of the German media:

Would the German Chancellor Schroeder show himself in public with a Holocaust-Denier like David Irving? Would he seek a dialogue with him?

Last Tuesday has proven that he has at least not that great fear of contact with these kind of people.

After Chancellor Schoeder held a speech at the opening event of this year Book Fair in Frankfurt, the notorious Mohammad Salmawy delivered a greeting message of Nobelprice Winner Nagib Machfus, who was not able to visit the Book Fair.

Since years it is well known, that Mohammed Salmawy, editor of the French magazine Al Ahram Hebdo, publicly denies the Holocaust and praises Suicide Bombers in Israel. Al Ahram Hebdo is property of the Egyptian government.

He wrote in that magazine: “There are no findings to indicate the existence of mass graves, because the size of the ovens makes it impossible for many Jews to have been killed there. According to the lists presented by the Soviets to the Germans, no more than 70,000 Jews were registered as having been at Auschwitz." (emphasis added)...

In an interview with the BBC Salmawy also said, “that the Israeli Mossad was behind the September 11, 2001 attacks in the US, despite the evidence claiming otherwise.” ...


This is all made the more frightening in light of this post from Little Green Footballs, and this quote from The Australian News commenting on the atmosphere of current day Germany:


The new mood in the British-German relationship stems from two facts. The first is a British recognition that the partnership is still mired in World War II. The second element is that Germans feel they should no longer be judged against the yardstick of Hitler’s crimes.


It seems to me that Germany would not have the stomach to reenact the Holocaust. They are like an alcoholic who has had a very bad experience with binge drinking and has sworn off the booze, only to console themselves with anti-depressants. The thought of going back to the bottle makes them sick.

However, I really do wonder if Germany, or much of Europe, would mind much if the Arab World would really let loose and tie one on, by destroying Israel. Now, that's a party the Germans might just be gearing up for. Remember my October 13th post, "Americans and Jews Out Of Europe Now."

Keep these things in mind as events unfold over the next several months. Hint: It will start with Iran.

I Got Your Leftist Ideas Hangin' Right Here *


Winds Of Change reader, Gonzalo, makes some frightening claims. Gonzalo works at a "prominent California University (Berkeley? Stanford?). He says his colleagues are preparing to get violent if Bush ekes out of victory:



I have been too embarrassed for too long to admit my feelings to anybody. Is it reasonable to vote for one person but secretly wish for the other to win? I live in California and work within a prominent university.

I would never describe myself as conservative, but neither am I the rabid elitist anti-American deconstructionist intent on driving this country into a nihilistic frenzy of self-hatred as many of my colleagues on campus are. (his colleagues believe that) Republicans are no longer fellow citizens with a different perspective, but rather evil in our midst that must be "struggled" against.

I am afraid of them (his colleagues), because their cosmology has gone beyond paranoia into pure psychosis; if polls show Bush ahead, then the pollsters are fundamentalist Christian corporate puppet right-wingers. If Michael Moore gets protested, he is being "censored" by a John Ashcroft honing his Gestapo skills.

Talk of violent "resistance" is common on campus when the possibility of a Republican victory is raised. I know for a fact that after 2000 they will never simply accept the democratic process in this country and wait 4 years for another chance; rather, they will do all they can to de-legitimize the entire American process itself. And as philosophers have understood for a long time, the power of any institution can only remain in power as long as it remains quasi-mystical in the minds of its subjects. That is, as soon as the democratic process is questioned, it no longer works. We used to tolerate being governed by those we don't agree with because of the legitimacy conferred upon them by democratic elections. The fact that we are appealing to the UN, the organization with Libya and the Sudan on its human rights committee and Syria on its security council, to monitor OUR elections, in the country where modern democracy was born, terrifies me. Once our process has been besmirched, why should we be content to remain within the system? The hate-filled ideologues at my university gain self-satisfaction by thinking of themselves as "dissidents," and I know several who intend to bring anarchy if the election doesn't go the way they want.

Which brings me to my point. In a way, I don't much care who wins (I think they both suck), but I think I prefer a Kerry victory. But what's most important to me is that the winner wins BY A SIGNIFICANT MARGIN. If Bush wins by a small margin (and especially if he loses the popular vote), the people I know will become violent and will never accept the results, and elite liberals will give the violence legitimacy. If Kerry wins by a small margin, on the other hand, Republicans will groan and bitch but they won't levy "revolution." I live in California where a Kerry win is a given. My single vote will not change the outcome. But I can add to Bush's popular vote and the legitimacy of his election overall with my vote, in my little way deflating the grievances of the anti-Bush demagogues. Therefore, I will vote for Bush while hoping for Kerry to win. So is it ever reasonable to vote for one and wish victory on the other? I think so.


I think it is worth taking Gonzalo's warning under advisement.

While I do to some extent believe Gonzalo's warning to legitimate, I don't believe there is much of a threat of mass physical violence emanating from the halls of academia. Call me naive, but

1) I don't believe the competing ideologies of the left can create, organize, or sustain violence on a mass scale.

2) I don't believe that academia possesses the actual surge of masculine energy required to carry out an organized war.

And, finally,

3) I don't believe they have a large plurality with the strength of conviction required to get anything done. (Of course, the academic left has been a seminal influence in the creation, organization and sustaining of violence in countries where they did have a base with strength of conviction.)

To put it bluntly, I think the academic left is a whole population of children at play. They are not real people participating in a real world. Their ideas boil down to "how can we mug the power structure so we can get something for nothing" and thus do not contain any real weight. There is no there there. They are purely anti-structural. All they can really do is say "no," in the manner of children playing in a room who are suddenly interrupted by a parent telling them it is time to do their homework.

What the academic left does best is create chaos. They do this very well. They have now educated several generations of people, who have moved into positions of power in business, media and law who's agenda is generally how to verbally riot and collect booty. Their angry words and pretty "let's share everything - we're entitled" values continue to appeal to new generations of young people who feel hopeless and afraid of the prospect of having to become responsible.

The academic left is winning the slow war against responsibility and accountability by introducing ever-increasing chaos into the systems of the West. They will continue to file motions and write articles and stage P.R. events. They will continue to use clueless Hollywood stars to give themselves an aura of hipness. They will continue to, like Moloch, feed on the children whose lives they destroy by starving them of reality. That's what they can do. That's what the left is good at.

But, actually organizing a real resistance? Hah.



* By the way, I will stop writing this sort of propaganda when the Academics, Entertainers, and Euro's stop calling George Bush, or any other powerful Republican names such as Hitler, Fascist, and anti-Christ. While what I am saying in this essay and, usually most blatantly, in the titles of my postings does usually lack nuance, I simply don't owe much in the way of subtelty to people who lack all sense of proportion, and would equate anyone they do not agree with the worst homicidal maniacs of the 20th century. I recognize that there are problems with America, and the American Right, (I am a registered Democrat) but I will not stand idly by and watch as immature people, without the ability to differentiate right from wrong, tear down the strongholds of Freedom and Democracy in our world.

Friday, October 15, 2004

George Soros Says Iraq War Wrong


The great German blog, Medienkritik, engaged George Soros in an email discussion with some very revealing results. First here's what Medienkritik wrote to Soros:


Mr. Soros,
You state: "All my experience has taught me that you can't introduce democracy by military means." I respectfully disagree. Just look at Germany and Japan today, two of the most prosperous democracies in the world. Had the Allies not militarily removed the Fascist governments of those nations in the Second World War, they would have never developed into democracies.


As someone who spent the last 5 years in Germany I am convinced that it was right for the United States to act and remove Saddam Hussein from power.


There was more, but in the interest of brevity, I will move on to Soros' answer:


Mr. Soros' Response:

The analogy with Post-war Germany and Japan is a false one. We didn't attack them in order to introduce democracy. They attacked us and were soundly defeated. We then treated them generously [The Marshall Plan] - not the way we treated Germany after the First World War - and they responded positively. They became true democracies and faithful allies of the United States. It took President Bush's policies to upset the Germans. As you know, German Chancellor Schroder managed to stay in power by taking an anti-American platform. This goes to show how much damage Bush has done to America's standing in the world.

I'm all in favor of removing tyrants like Saddam but the way we went about it has made it more, rather than less difficult, to do it in the future, because we acted unilaterally and arbitrarily.


The revealing thing about Mr. Soros' email is how remarkably similar it is to the very sofisticated thoughts offered in a recent post by my friend IraqWarWrong, over at The Iraq War Was Wrong Blog:


One of the biggest problems with The Iraq War is that we initiated and fought the war without our allies on our side. None of our allies were in the least bit willing to form a friendly association, a helpful association, act as an associate who provides assistance. Now sure, there were a few countries (non allies of us) on are side (Australia POland Ect. - dimestore countries relly) while our ALLIES (REAL allies) were on the sidelines or even rooting against us. This includes many countries, everything nation from France to Germany and everywhere in between, some of are BEST (most staunchest) allies (with us thick and thin), which did not participate ...

So let's go through this and lay out the logic of the argument strategy as you will can use it in practice. (Bare with me but I like to start from elemtnary concepts and work my way up).First of all, We set out to fight a war (The Iraq War). Now think about that. It's a WAR people! You need allies. Everyone knows that (except Bush).

Now let's look at are allies. France. Germany. Belgium. Byelorussia. If we're going to fight a war, we NEED them. (They're our allies). That's how wars work. But the reality is. Our allies (those ones above, and some more, like Venezuela ect.) were against the war.

Their populations were TOTALLY opposed to it a war happening. They were like "attack Iraq? NO WAY!" This is what The World was saying to us. (France etc.)

But what did Bush do? He fought the war ANYWAY.

And the horrible part of it is. By doing so we have TOTALLY scared away are allies! (Germany ect.) They're totally aligned against us now and NOT going to help!

Think about that: our allies (devoted/loyal), are AGAINST us and NOT helping! Thanks Bush.So here's the kicker.

Now what will happen next time we (WRONGLY) set out to fight a (wrong) Iraq War (or similar)? We will look around for our allies (Belgium ect.) and they won't be there. I can't even being to imagine what that will be like!

And that's what Bush fighting the war without are allies has caused. It has caused are allies to be less inclined to preticipate in (wrong) wars we want to fight. (Unlike before)Is there any way out of this mess?


Interesting. George Soros and IraqWarWrong share the exact same opinion and they seemed to have used the same eligant logic to arrive at their shared conclusion. Interesting.

Come to think of it, I've never seen George Soros and IraqWarWrong in the same room at the same time. I wonder if ... No, that couldn't be.

Why The Left Has Lost The Ability To Make Simple Distinctions


FrontPageMag.com posted a fine article this morning by Stephen Vincent:



Amidst white wine and canapés at a Manhattan art opening recently, I fell into conversation about Iraq with a middle-aged couple named the Gordons, who expressed the typical anti-war sentiments one encounters nowadays in such posh surroundings. Having spent some time over there, however, I was distressed to hear these well-to-do collectors declare that the U.S. should “leave the country immediately;” Iraqis were “better off under Saddam;” the insurgents were “revolutionaries” and “freedom fighters.” When I argued that this so-called “resistance” comprised fascist terrorists who sought to destroy Iraq’s chances for liberty, they huffed that the U.S. was no better. “Isn’t America’s attempt to impose its way of life on Iraq also fascistic?” demanded Mrs. Gordon—as if popular sovereignty and constitutional rights were equivalent to suicide car bombs and videotaped beheadings.

I thought of this interchange a week later when I visited Copp’s Hill Cemetery in Boston. Walking between the 17th- and 18th-century tombstones, I discovered the grave for Daniel Malcolm, a 44-year-old merchant whose marker describes him as a “true son of Liberty, a Friend to the Publick, an Enemy to oppression.” Later, wandering at twilight through Old Burial Hill in nearby Marblehead, I came across an 1848 obelisk dedicated to Captain James Mugford and the crew of the schooner Franklin, who, on May 17, 1776, captured the British transport Hope. (Mugford, killed two days later, is buried near the monument.) The following day, I stood at dawn on Old North Bridge in Concord, Massachusetts—the place where the colonial insurrection began—gazing up at Daniel Chester French’s magisterial 1875 sculpture of a colonial Minuteman, plow in one hand, long-bore rifle in the other.

How far we’ve advanced over the years, I thought, as an early fall wind blew over the Concord River. In past eras, people displayed their love of liberty on tombstones and constructed monuments to their ancestors’ patriotism. Today, sophisticated urbanites profess an inability to differentiate between American actions in Iraq and those of nihilistic thugs.

Even worse, we have a mainstream media that elides the malignancy of radical Islam. Reuters, for example, refuses to use the term “terrorist” to describe a monster like Zarqawi. Last September, the New York Times ran a 1,750-word piece on the school massacre in Russia, never mentioning that the assailants were Islamic. In August, the Financial Times profiled Moqtada al-Sadr, omitting the cleric’s devotion to the totalitarian doctrines of shari’a. Worst of all is the recent bestseller Imperial Hubris, which purports to present a hardnosed look at Osama bin Laden—while ignoring his dedication to Wahabbism, Islam’s most intolerant sect. Instead, the book lauds the terror master as “pious, charismatic, gentle, generous, talented, and personally courageous”—and compares him to Robert E. Lee and Abraham Lincoln.

To assert, “Bush is a fascist” (a comment I hear regularly in the art world) (Editor's note: So do I) earns one the approval of fellow “progressives,” while allowing a sense of moral superiority over the despised Republicans. Moreover, it’s risk free—not even John Ashcroft would arrest someone for expressing that sentiment. But that’s small beer compared to the real upside of pretending that America is as bad as the Islamofascists: it justifies burrowing deeper into the irresponsible inertia of the Leftist cocoon.

For example, in Iraq, I heard many activists (usually Canadian) claim the U.S. “occupation” was as bad, or worse, than Saddam’s regime. When I mentioned the tyrant’s manifold atrocities, these bien pensants dismissed my comments. At first, this reaction stunned me, since evidence of his evil was everywhere. Only later did I grasp a basic reason behind this willful blindness: to declare that America equals Saddam also implies the opposite: Saddam equals America. And since only a lunatic, or Noam Chomsky, believes the U.S. is completely evil, this false moral equivalency serves to render Saddam less fearsome. The less demonic the dictator, the more immoral America’s invasion of his country. The more immoral the invasion, the less one feels compelled to take a stand against the real evil than Islamofascists like Saddam and bin Laden represent.

To broaden the perspective, if the Gordons—and millions like them—seriously entertain the thought that Islamic jihadists have targeted them for death, they might feel terror, anxiety, maybe even anger—emotions which might oblige them to do something—choose sides, commit to a course of action, perhaps even risk supporting the war against terrorists.




Thursday, October 14, 2004

Violence Will Increase During The Holy Month of Ramadan?


From Reuter's:


BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The Muslim holy month of Ramadan is supposed to be a time of spiritual joy, but the most that Iraqis can pray for this time is that it brings a moment of peace.

Relentless suicide bombings, shootings and kidnappings have left Iraqis fearful that the holy month, which starts on Friday, will be bloody.

National Security Adviser Kassem Daoud warned Iraqis in an eve of Ramadan news conference of a possible increase in terrorist activity, and said the government was taking extra precautions.

Muslim families usually flock to mosques during Ramadan, especially at night.But Iraqis know that moving about at night is risky -- kidnappers and suicide bombers are getting bolder, and police and U.S. troops are nervous.


This is because the Islamofascists who are battling against the establishment of Democracy in Iraq believe that violence is holy. That's why they pray and shout "Allahu Akbar" (God is Great) while they are beheading people.

Saddam's Nazi Roots


From FrontPageMag.com:


A twenty-first euphemism is now coming into vogue: “the Iraqi resistance.” Michael Moore has become a cheerleader for the “resistance.” He states on his website, “The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not ‘insurgents’ or ‘terrorists’ or ‘The Enemy.’ They are the Revolution, the Minutemen...” (michaelmoore.com, April 14, 2004).

Actually, those that are trying to re-establish the secular Baath dictatorship, or its Islamist equivalent, are pure evil. They are nihilists. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush referred to Saddam’s Baath dictatorship as Fascist and Nazi. He was not far off the mark as Saddam’s behavior certainly qualifies. Saddam’s aggression against Iraq’s neighbors has cost over one million lives. Saddam filled trenches with the bodies of hundreds-of-thousands of innocent men, women and children.


Fruit does not fall far from the tree. The origins of Saddam’s dictatorship date back to World War II. On 3 April 1941 Rashid Ali overthrew the Iraqi government, which was friendly with the British and Allied cause. As the result of the 1932 treaty establishing Iraq’s independence, the British maintained bases at Basra and Habbaniya (not far from Falluja). The latter base was attacked by units of the Iraqi army and laid under siege. The situation was serious, “By 13 May [1941] new decrypts revealed that German aircraft with Iraqi markings had arrived in Syria, the next day they began bombing the British forces which were entering Iraq...” (John Keegan, The Second World War).

This was consistent with “Hitler’s Directive No. 30. Middle East” dated 23 May 1941: “The Arab Freedom Movement is, in the Middle East, our natural ally against England... I have decided to push the development of operations in...support of Iraq...it may later be possible to wreck finally the English position between the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf.” (Winston S. Churchill, The Grand Alliance) Meanwhile, “In Syria a committee was formed to mobilize support for the Rashid Ali regime. This was the nucleus of what later became the Ba’th Party, rival branches of which came to govern both Syria and Iraq.” (Bernard Lewis, The Middle East)

It is not surprising that both the secular Fascists of Syria (Editor's note: also Baathists) and the medieval theocrats of Iran and Al Qaeda should unite in attacking those that would bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East. Nihilists united in hate recognize their common ambitions and enemies. Their purpose is to destroy what chance there is for democracy in Iraq, after which they will fight it out for power. A classic example of nihilists uniting to destroy freedom is the Enabling Act passed by the German Reichstag on 23 March 1933. This act made Hitler dictator of Germany by a vote of 444 to 84. On the surface it seems peculiar that Communists delegates would vote for such a measure along with the Nazis. But only on the surface, the Nazis and Communists were just two different gangs with a common enemy, the first democracy Germany ever had, the Weimar Republic.

Nihilism is an accurate term for Communists, Nazis, Baath Party Fascists and Islamist terrorists. According to Webster’s: “Nihilism, The doctrine which denies any objective ground of moral principles; called also ethical nihilism...The doctrine that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake...In loose usage, revolutionary propaganda; terrorism.” Or as Faust defined the nihilist credo, “All that exists, deserves to perish.”

Then there are the nihilist enablers who should know better. There are: Michael Moore, quoted above; Markos Zuniga, at his “Daily Kos” website, who wrote “screw them” in reference to the Americans murdered in Falluja, characterizing the victims as “mercenaries;” Kofi Annan who pursues the U.N’s anti-Western vendetta while sub-Sahara Africa burns; International Answer referring to the terrorist killer Ahmed Yassin as “a political leader;” International Solidarity Movement, who in solidarity with terrorists, sends human shields into Gaza to protect the terrorists’ communication tunnels; Nicholas “Million Mogadishus” De Genova of Columbia ranted, “The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military.” De Genova defines “peace” as “a world where the U.S. would have no place.”


The American Left, and their ally the lamestream media, refuse to identify evil as evil. They compare President Bush, who has vanquished two loathsome dictatorships of both the secular Fascist and Islamist type, with Hitler. Simultaneously, psychopathic baby killers in Iraq, Israel and Russia are referred to as “the resistance” or “insurgents” or “fighters” or “militants.” This is the Left’s declaration of moral bankruptcy, their leap into the abyss of nihilism.


The links between the Nazi's and the Baathists are not as explicit as those between the Nazi's and the PLO/PA. Arafat's mentor (some say his Uncle, the Grand Mufti al-Husseini) worked somewhat intimately with Hitler during World War II, going so far as to request that Hitler begin enacting the "Final Solution" against the Jews in Palestine, as well as those in Europe.

Celebrate The Holidays With A Heartwarming Movie
About A Racist Bombmaker And The Dog Who Loved Him


Great post from Eursoc:


A traditional Christmas gripe in Britain is that broadcasters use the festive season for repeat showings of ancient movies like The Sound of Music and The Wizard of Oz. Viewers in the Arab world this Ramadan can have no such complaint, as each year their state broadcasters unveil lavish productions.

Last year the Arab world thrilled to a series based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion: A propaganda tract which has been dismissed as anti-semitic fiction of the most hateful kind by all but the the most crazed conspiracy theorist. France even considered banning one Arab-language distributor of the film following claims it depicted the infamous 'blood libel.'

This year, there's an even bigger treat in store, as a Palestinian-Syrian broadcaster prepares to show a series based on the life of a Hamas bomb-maker.

Yehya Ayyash, known by his disciples as "The Engineer," was thought to be behind the suicide murder of 100 Israelis between 1994-1996. The Jerusalem Post reports that since his death (he was taken out by a booby-trapped mobile phone) Ayyash has become a legend to Palestinian terror groups and their supporters.

Ayyash's wife claims that she was not consulted about the film. However, her worries appear to be limited to a concern that the film-makers might depict her without a head covering hijab.
The producers reassure her that the bomber and his life will be handled "honourably." Writer Salah Al-Bardawil says that the theme of the drama will be "Rejection of the occupation and Zionist and American hegemony, the importance of resistance and the need to avenge the blood of the (Palestinian) victims."


He says that the film was important, "because it supports the forces fighting against Israeli and American oppression and aggression in Palestine, Iraq and the Arab and Muslim region."
Al-Bardawil adds that he hopes the film inspires other "young and ambitious" people in the Arab world.


How's that for a heartwarming festive message?


Disclaimer: Just as there are many liberal media elites who do not knowingly attempt to use falsified documents to interfere with a Presidential Election, there are also many good Muslims who would not be entertained by a holiday movie based on a racist tract.

Liberal Cartoonist Portrays Condoleeza Rice As A Black Mammy
With Jokes Right Out Of Amos And Andy


Go to Rambling's Journal to see this incredibly racist cartoon brought to us by the good people of the "Liberal Media"*:

Ok. So, now you've seen it. Well, of course, many people wrote letters and emails of complaint and in fact, were able to motivate Mr. Danziger to remove the cartoon from his website. Yippee! Another racist moved to change his ways. Big victory for the 21st century.

But, no. The 1930's strikes back. Here is the form letter Mr. Danziger (doesn't that name sound familiar?) sends out in reply to the complaints he receives:


Thanks for your letter.
In fact the idea for the cartoon was suggested to me by a friend who is African-American. It wasn't racist. Nor am I. I have been doing this for nearly thirty years, and any review of my work will prove that no racism attaches. Further, I am a decorated Vietnam veteran who voted for Nixon once, GHW Bush twice and even for Bob Dole. So keep your labels.


Nothing racist about it at all. Just the standard lies told by a political operative, out of her depth, who happens to be African- American. Whenever this administration is in trouble they send out Condi Rice because the press, which is mostly white and male, gives her a far easier treatment than they would a white male.


Well, jeez I'm glad to hear he has no "racist attaches."

My friends, the man is implying that Condoleeza Rice is an Uncle Tom-type figure. And how, exactly, is Ms. Rice "out of her depth?" She is one of the most principled and forceful people I've seen in American politics in recent years.

Oh, did I forget to mention that I, also, do not have any "racist attaches." Just wanted to make sure you knew that.


* Just as there are many good Muslims who do not blow up children, there are also many good liberal media elites who are not racists.

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

Americans And Jews Out Of Europe, Now!


What can we make of this insanity? (article by playwrite Carol Gould, from FrontPageMag.com):


I was traveling on a London bus when a well-dressed woman boarded with her equally-respectable son in his school uniform. Ahead of her was an elderly American woman, who said, ‘I beg your pardon, I didn’t mean to bang into you.’ This prompted a tirade from the Englishwoman ...

‘I rejoice every time I hear of another American soldier dying! You people all deserve to die in another 9/11. You are destroying the world.’ Mrs A(merican) fought back: ‘I personally am NOT destroying the world.’ This only provoked Lady E(ngland) more, and as the bus driver and passengers laughed, she screamed into the American’s face ‘I wish every one of you would leave this country and not set foot in it ever again...’


That's just the warmup. Check this story out:


Just before leaving for the United States nineteen days ago, I went to my favorite tape duplicating shop to have copies made for the actors who had appeared in the video of my new play in London. I handed the master tape to the proprietor, whom I have known for some ten years. He seemed unusually agitated and flushed. He looked at the material and snarled, ‘Is this another one of your Jewish-Holocaust things?’

I was speechless.

He scowled and continued, ‘You know, Carol, I want to get something off my chest that I’ve been dying to say to you for years. Number one, just don’t say Israel to me. Number two, you people should look at yourselves in the mirror and wonder why every so often there is a Holocaust or massacre or pogrom. You bring it on yourselves. Just look at the way you are and then figure out why the rest of the world wants to flatten you. Number three, America throwing money at Israel has to stop, and hopefully all hell will break loose. Israel is not a country. I just hear the word and I turn peuce.’

By this time his anger was so visceral that I wanted to head for the door, but I had to take a stand. ‘Let me tell you,’ I said, ‘If the USA or Israel came under threat I know many Americans who would die for either country,’ to which he replied, ‘ Israel is not a country. The Jews have no right to a country. What makes you people think you have a right to a country? ‘ Me: ‘There are over a hundred Christian countries and fifty-five Muslim countries.’ He:’ The Jews have no right to a country.’ Me:’ What, a strip of land the size of Wales?!’ He (grinding his teeth and close to hitting me) ‘ Just say Israel and I can’t be depended upon for the consequences of my actions, Carol.’

His litany of offences committed by the Jews, Americans and Israel continued for another twenty minutes or so and I came away realizing that a man who had always greeted me with genteel, cheery sweet nothings was actually a rabid Jew-hater.

So, what does this all mean in the scheme of things? I have lived in Europe for all of my adult life and from the day I arrived as a youngster have been aware of an oft-blatant anti-Semitism and resentment of Americans amongst colleagues, teachers, social circle and neighbors. What is significant about this rage is that it emanates not from the great unwashed but from the educated and intellectual classes.

We all know about the academic boycotts of Israeli scholars. We all know about poor Philip Lader, former US Ambassador to the Court of St James who was reduced to tears on BBC ‘Question Time’ on 15 September 2001 as the moderator, Davis Dimbleby, sat and dispassionately watched a crazed studio audience stomping its feet and shouting anti-American epithets two days after the Trade Center and Pentagon attacks.

What I find so frightening is that I cannot conduct business or even take a taxi ride in London, Bournemouth or Edinburgh without a scathing tirade about the scurrilous Yanks. The day after 9/11 I was obliged to keep a consultant’s appointment and the minicab driver informed me that the ‘yellow Americans’ on the four hijacked planes were typical of the way ‘the Yanks do battle’ -- they chicken out and let the Brits do the dirty work. I was in such a state of shock from the events of 9/11 that I could not find an answer, and he continued with a further lecture about the cowardice and stupidity of Americans and their pilots when they are threatened, and added the assertion that had Brits been on those planes, not one would have come down.

Getting back, however, to the ’Independent’ and ’Guardian’ reading classes, my hunch is that the daily dose of relentless America-bashing in the European media,
combined with the abundance of criticism of Israel has created an atmosphere of anger and hostility that for the first time in my lifetime makes me fearful for my safety in my beloved adopted country, Great Britain.



I try to avoid anecdotal stories on this site. The reason I post these particular excerpts is because they are consistent with my own experience. I've noted before that I have a relative in Europe who called me on 9/11 and explained to me why America reaped what we sowed. As time has gone on, I have been treated to more lectures about how the Israeli's were committing mass-genocide in Jenin. When the Human Rights Watch report came out confirming that less than 50 Palestinians were killed (predominantly "combatants"), there was no admission of a mistake, no questioning of why the European media would report a non-existent genocide, and worst of all, no apology to me personally. By the way, that was despite the fact that I "guaranteed" that there was not a genocide, and asked if there would be an apology if my "guarantee" turned out to be true.

On July 4th of this year I received a hour-long lecture about the evils of George Bush and America.

Most recently, I've been lectured about how the only feasible solution to the middle-East problem is a "one-state solution." When I noted that the Palestinian's would have an instant majority and that that would leave the Jews at the mercy of a people who call for their death on a continual basis, there was smirking. I was horrified. I didn't know what to say. So I didn't say much.

The next day, I called back and asked why the smirking? There was merely a bit of nervous laughter - no explanation - as a precursor to a lecture on how I'm the one who isn't fair because the Israeli's abuse the Palestinians in multiple sinister ways.

I put this together with what I read, and post about here, in the European press and conclude that these anecdotal stories are not rare instances. Clearly, the Europeans don't all hate us. As I've noted before, when I visited Europe a couple of years ago, my family and I were treated very well. I saw anti-Americanism around me, but it did not cause individual people to treat me badly.

I don't really know what to make of Carol Gould's article. It is frightening. But, I find it hard to believe we could be hated that much. How could they believe we are evil?

Saddam Hussein - Half Pregnant


Thanks to my friend Jack, over at Jack of Clubs, for making me aware of this comment on recent WMD developments in Iraq, from a blog named A Physicist's Perspective:


I saw an interesting combination of news stories just now. The AP is reporting "Bush, Cheney concede Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction," while at the same time, USA Today is reporting that equipment which could be used to make components of nuclear weapons may have been looted from Iraq. The AP story says this: Vice President Dick Cheney brushed aside the central findings of chief U.S. weapons hunter Charles Duelfer – that Saddam not only had no weapons of mass destruction and had not made any since 1991, but he had no means of making any either – while Bush unapologetically defended his decision to invade Iraq. The USA Today story says: Among the missing equipment: "flow forming" machines for shaping metal tubes such as missile bodies or uranium centrifuge drums; milling and metal-turning machines; electron-beam welders useful for making centrifuges; and precision measuring devices.

Though no evidence has emerged that looted nuclear manufacturing equipment has been sold on the black market, the Bush administration said Tuesday that it is concerned about the possibility.

I wonder -- if it's really as clear cut as the AP story says (Saddam had no means of making nuclear weapons since 1991), why should we be concerned that the Bush administration may have let this equipment be stolen? Or maybe the Bush administration is at fault for letting people loot equipment that Saddam couldn't have used for nuclear weapons, but they could. How's that again?

The AP story does include this Cheney quote, somewhat buried: "As soon as the sanctions were lifted, he had every intention of going back" to his weapons program, Cheney said.


I've avoided the WMD issue for a long time on this blog. One time, probably four months back, I read a report that a quantity (I believe it was 27 pounds) of yellowcake had been found in a scrap yard in Norway. I expected that it would become big news. I waited, but several weeks later I found that no one had brought it up again. I concluded for myself that it must have been a rumor. Ever since then, I decided I would not blog about WMD's in Iraq. I have found it sufficient to note that even France and Germany, who opposed the Iraq War, believed that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons. The only person who seemed convinced that Saddam was clean was the prophet (that's sarcasm) Scott Ritter.

Anyway, "Physicist's Perspective" brings up a good point here. How is it that two opposite stories are being reported in the media at the same time? Note that both stories seem to imply the usual idiocy/sinister motives on the part of the Bush Administration. So, there you have the motive of the media. But, what about the reality of the evidence? I mean, read this from the USA Today article:


As a direct result of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq without sufficient forces to secure and protect its nuclear research and storage facilities from rampant looting, enough radioactive material to build scores of dirty bombs now is missing and may be on its way to the international black market.

It didn't have to turn out this way. In the weeks before the invasion, the U.S. military repeatedly warned the White House that its war plans did not include sufficient ground forces, air and naval operations and logistical support to guarantee a successful mission. Those warnings were discounted — even mocked — by administration officials who professed to know more about war fighting than the war fighters themselves.

It wasn't until seven of Iraq's main nuclear facilities were extensively looted that the true magnitude of the administration's strategic blunder came into focus.

The White House knew all along, for example, that enormous quantities of dangerous nuclear materials were at the Tuwaitha nuclear storage facility near Baghdad, sealed and accounted for by the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency.


It would seem that Saddam Hussein was half-pregnant. It also appears that the main-stream media has, like an oh-so-chivalrous boyfriend, arranged for a quickie abortion for the saddled Saddam.

At the same time, the main-stream media seems to be trying to arrange an out-patient castration procedure for the Bush Administration.

Monday, October 11, 2004

First Rule Of Evangelizing - Stop Telling People About God


Thanks to FirstChurchCambridge.org, for sharing this story from Phillip Yancey's book Reaching For The Invisible God


...a German named Reiner, who returned to Germany after graduation and went to work at a camp for people with disabilities. Using his college Bible class notes, it seems that Reiner started giving stirring lectures on the victorious Christian life: "Regardless of the wheelchair you are sitting in, you already have a victory! God lives in you, and you have a full life!" All this he announced energetically to a roomful of paraplegics, cerebral palsy patients, and mentally-challenged people.

Yancey notes that Reiner had never before addressed a group of people with poor motor control – heads drooped to knees without warning, and hands didn't stay put where they belonged. He found this disconcerting. What he didn't know was that the campers found listening to him equally disconcerting. Some of them complained to the camp director that they couldn't make any sense out of what he was saying. "Well, go tell him!" she replied.

One woman finally got the courage to do it. "It's like you're talking about the sun in a room without windows," she told him. "We can't understand anything you say. You talk about solutions, about overcoming, about victory in our circumstances. That has nothing to do with us, it means nothing for our lives."

Reiner was crushed. He was also angry. The message seemed clear enough to him: it was biblical, it was pure St Paul, it was why he was a Christian, why he loved the Lord. He thought about telling them that there was a lot lacking in their faith, and that they needed to grow deeper so that they could triumph over adversity. Instead, by some grace he spent the night praying.

In the morning he went in and told them, "I don't know what to say. I'm confused. If I can't preach victory, I don't know what to preach. I don't know what to say. I don't know what to do." Then he just stood there in front of the class, hung his head and was silent for a long time.
After a while, the woman who had confronted him spoke up from the back of the room. "OK. Now we understand you," she said. "Now we're ready to listen."



Evangelical Christians have focused for so many years on telling people what they think they need to know about God. The first lesson Jesus taught, of course, was to be humble. That he who would be first, must be last. That to be a leader in the Kingdom Of God on Earth, you must be a servant; someone who will give water to the thirsty, food to the hungry, clothing and shelter to the cold and tired.

I believe Jesus was being both literal and figurative. He was saying, give my sheep what they need.

In order to know what people need, we need first to listen.

And, I believe we need to listen for another reason as well. We need to hear what it is that people have to give. We need to discover what kind of person they are and can be, what unique qualities they bring to the table that we share together. Because it is only by giving that a person will truly come to find their home in God, and truly be healed.

You Couldn'ta Undone The Hudna, Could Ya?


John Quincy Adams for President 2004. Thanks to Little Green Footballs for making me aware of this quote from the big JQA himself, via FrontPageMag:


The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective.

The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force. Of Mahometan good faith, we have had memorable examples ourselves. When our gallant [Stephen] Decatur ref had chastised the pirate of Algiers, till he was ready to renounce his claim of tribute from the United States, he signed a treaty to that effect: but the treaty was drawn up in the Arabic language, as well as in our own; and our negotiators, unacquainted with the language of the Koran, signed the copies of the treaty, in both languages, not imagining that there was any difference between them.

Within a year the Dey demands, under penalty of the renewal of the war, an indemnity in money for the frigate taken by Decatur; our Consul demands the foundation of this pretension; and the Arabic copy of the treaty, signed by himself is produced, with an article stipulating the indemnity, foisted into it, in direct opposition to the treaty as it had been concluded.

Such is the spirit, which governs the hearts of men, to whom treachery and violence are taught as principles of religion.” [p. 274-275]


Here's an article from HonestReporting.com, circa 2003, which gives more information on the tradition of "truce," or Hudna, in Islam:


HonestReporting.com June 30, 2003

As U.S. Secretary of State Powell winds up his Mideast trip, Palestinian leaders appear on the verge of announcing a hudna.

The Associated Press declared that "the success of peacemaking may well hang on a legal concept dating to the birth of Islam: a hudna, or a truce of a fixed duration."

The New York Times added Monday that a hudna would constitute "a major breakthrough... out of 33 months of violence."

Would a hudna with Hamas really mark "the success of peacemaking," a "major breakthrough" toward a nonviolent future?

The answer lies in the historical meaning of the Muslim expression, Hamas' track record, and the terms of the road map itself.

Hudna has a distinct meaning to Islamic fundamentalists, well-versed in their history: The prophet Mohammad struck a legendary, ten-year hudna with the Quraysh tribe that controlled Mecca in the seventh century. Over the following two years, Mohammad rearmed and took advantage of a minor Quraysh infraction to break the hudna and launch the full conquest of Mecca, the holiest city in Islam.

When Yassir Arafat infamously invoked Mohammad's hudna in 1994 to describe his own Oslo commitments "on the road to Jerusalem," the implication was clear. As Mideast expert Daniel Pipes explained, Arafat was asserting to his Islamic brethren that he will, "when his circumstances change for the better, take advantage of some technicality to tear up existing accords and launch a military assault on Israel." Indeed, this is precisely what occurred in Sept. 2000 when Arafat & Co. launched a terror assault upon Israeli citizens.


And France proposes to bring the Islamists to the negotiating table.


At the core of the Chirac/Schroeder geopolitical outlook is not the thankful belief that America is the world's only superpower, but the regretful notion that it is an out-of-control "hyperpower" (as former French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine memorably put it). The United States and its influence, in this view, must be balanced — "balanced," being a euphemism for opposed.

This helps explain Barnier's remarks last week, when he said that France will attend a proposed conference on the future of Iraq only if the complete withdrawal of foreign troops is a formal topic for discussion and the negotiations include "all political forces" in Iraq, "including those who have chosen the path of armed resistance."

Kerry may want to bring the French to the table, but guess who's coming to dinner with them: terrorists and rebels now attacking U.S. soldiers and slaughtering Iraqi citizens.


Man, if Kerry wins it will be interesting to see him sit down and nuance with the French and the Hudna-loving Islamofascists.

Presidential Election as Special Olympics


Like Roger Simon, I read about this a few days ago and refrained from blogging on it. My reason for hesitating wasn't that I was too busy, however. Instead, I was too stunned:


An internal memo written by ABCNEWS Political Director Mark Halperin admonishes ABC staff:

During coverage of Democrat Kerry and Republican Bush not to "reflexively and artificially hold both sides 'equally' accountable."

The controversial internal memo obtained by DRUDGE, captures Halperin stating how "Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win."

But Halperin claims that Bush is hoping to "win the election by destroying Senator Kerry at least partly through distortions."

"The current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done," Halperin writes.

Halperin's claim that ABCNEWS will not "reflexively and artificially hold both sides 'equally' accountable" set off sparks in St. Louis where media players gathered to cover the second presidential debate.

Halperin states the responsibilities of the ABCNEWS staff have "become quite grave." In August, Halperin declared online: "This is now John Kerry's contest to lose."

x x x x x Halperin Memo Dated Friday October 8, 2004

It goes without saying that the stakes are getting very high for the country and the campaigns - and our responsibilities become quite graveI do not want to set off (sp?) and endless colloquy that none of us have time for today - nor do I want to stifle one. Please respond if you feel you can advance the discussion.

The New York Times (Nagourney/Stevenson) and Howard Fineman on the web both make the same point today: the current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done.

Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win.

We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides "equally" accountable when the facts don't warrant that.

I'm sure many of you have this week felt the stepped up Bush efforts to complain about our coverage. This is all part of their efforts to get away with as much as possible with the stepped up, renewed efforts to win the election by destroying Senator Kerry at least partly through distortions.

It's up to Kerry to defend himself, of course. But as one of the few news organizations with the skill and strength to help voters evaluate what the candidates are saying to serve the public interest. Now is the time for all of us to step up and do that right.


There you have it. They have now put it in writing; In the interest of fairness they are going to institute a policy of unfairness.

It's special preferences for Kerry. Kerry is going to go down in history as the first "special" Presidential candidate. A politician who needed a "hand up," maybe even a handout.

Necessary disclaimer: Let me be clear, I understand that there are people who are less fortunate. I am happy that we institute policies in this country to give people who are wheelchair-bound the ability to get around town, for the blind to cross the street, for the developmentally disabled to have some degree of autonomy and sense of purpose.

Here we see that the media is turning the 2004 Presidential Election into the Special Olympics for John Kerry.

I'm sure we would all agree that when it comes to electing our leaders, it's probably a good idea to do so in the good old-fashioned Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest style.

Am I being mean, here? I don't know, maybe I need to go to sensitivity training. What would they tell me;

"Kerry is not "Special." He's just Ideologically-challenged.

9/11 and Anti-Americanism:
A Cataloguing Of The Progression Of Europe's Moral Disease


There's a new blog/blogwriter, John Rosenthal and his impressive Transatlantic Intelligencer.

His post, "The Legend Of The Squandered Sympathy" , is a must-read. I suspect it will be all over the internet within the next two days.

It's a long(er) article, probably about three pages, and it's too good to excerpt. Sorry. No, well, here's a very brief excerpt:


In the major media (after 9/11) ... the expressions of hatred and contempt for America quickly came to eclipse those of sympathy. An especially conspicuous case in point is provided by the influential French daily Le Monde.This is ironic, since the legend of the squandered sympathy draws much of its inspiration and seeming plausibility from the headline of the front-page editorial that ran in Le Monde the day after the attacks: “We Are All Americans”.

An article that appeared in the New York Times one year later made allusion to this seemingly well-intended, if rather bizarre, affirmation, only then to note that “the same writer” who coined it, Jean-Marie Colombani, had in the meanwhile ascertained that the solidarity it was supposed to express had been largely dissipated. It even seemed to Mr. Colombani that just a year on “we have all become anti-American” (New York Times, September 12, 2002).