Saturday, November 13, 2004

Norway Bans Jews From Kristallnacht Observations


From the New York Sun, via Little Green Footballs:


The Norwegian diplomat Terje Roed-Larsen, who serves as the United Nation's Middle East envoy, heaped praise on Arafat yesterday with an enthusiasm that would make a Gaullist blush. "He was like a surrealistic painting, full of contradictions, full of mystery, full of inconsistencies," Mr. Roed-Larsen told Norwegian state radio NRK. "He was complex, deep, superficial, rational, irrational, cold, warm. He may be the most fascinating person I have ever met, and without comparison the most fascinating leader I have ever met."

This came at the end of a week in which Norway managed to forbid Jews from marking the anniversary of Kristallnacht, a step the French haven't yet taken. The local TV2 News reported that no Norwegian Jews participated in Oslo's commemoration of Kristallnacht."TV2 also reported that the authorities, saying they didn't want trouble, forbade any Jewish symbols, including Stars of David and Israeli flags," according to Israel's Arutz-7 radio station.

"On the TV2 evening news, a group of Jews and their friends who wanted to take part in the commemoration were shown being firmly told by a policeman to 'please leave the area,'" according to a dispatch from an American journalist living in Norway, Bruce Bawer, on AndrewSullivan.com. "This in a city where Muslim demonstrations take place on a regular basis, and include signs and banners bearing hateful, barbaric slogans." The ban prompted a protest from the Simon Wiesenthal Center to the government of Norway.


Terje Roed-Larsen has shown himself to be a fomenter of anti-Semitism, and a coddler of the enemies of Jews in the past. Mr. Roed-Larsen, along with his pal Cornelio Summaruga (former head of International Red Cross, who contemptuously compared the Star of David to the Nazi Swastika) were two of the men who shocked me into starting this blog.

Roed-Larsen's (I guess he kept his maiden name) comparison of Arafat to a surrealist painting is perhaps apt. I am reminded of Hiernoymous Bosch's Hell.

Let me think on this for a moment. If Arafat can be compared to a surrealist painting, to what shall we then compare Roed-Larsen?

Norway's banning of Jews from Kristallnacht observations is more evidence that Europe has lost it's mind. I seriously doubt the ban was established out of a malice for the Jews. A malignant apathy, yes, but malice, no. Instead, they apparently did it out of fear of Muslims.

But, the war is a figment of our imagination, right Europe?

Take That Gun Out Of Your Mouth
There Is Meaning To Life


Societies can go insane for periods of time. Germany did in the 1930's and continued on in it's insanity for some time after. I believe that the elevation of a man like Michael Moore to hero status, and of a vacuous man like John Kerry to being a, supposedly, viable Presidential candidate indicates that there are insane forces at work within American society.

But, I am not nearly as concerned for America's sanity as I am for the sanity of Europe. Europe's propagation of the Bush = Hitler trope, it's refusal to acknowledge the threat of it's swelling Islamic population, and it's inability to deal with the murder of Theo Van Gogh (as evidenced by the sandblasting of the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" mural because a local Imam called it racist), is evidence of a society who have put their own gun into their own mouth.

Here, from the American Thinker, is an important question, seriously posed:


Hi. Are you nuts?

Forgive me for being so blunt, but your reaction to our reelection of President Bush has been so outrageous that I'm wondering if you have quite literally lost your minds. One of Britain's largest newspapers ran a headline asking, "How Can 59 Million Americans Be So Dumb?", and commentators in France all seemed to use the same word -- bizarre -- to explain the election's outcome to their readers. In Germany the editors of Die Tageszeitung responded to our vote by writing that "Bush belongs at a war tribunal - not in the White House." And on a London radio talk show last week one Jeremy Hardy described our President and those of us who voted for him as "stupid, crazy, ignorant, bellicose Christian fundamentalists."

Of course, you are entitled to whatever views about us that you care to hold. (And lucky for you we Americans aren't like so many of the Muslims on your own continent; as the late Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh just discovered, make one nasty crack about them and you're likely to get six bullets pumped into your head and a knife plunged into your chest.) But before you write us off as just a bunch of sweaty, hairy-chested, Bible-thumping morons who are more likely to break their fast by dipping a Krispy Kreme into a diet cola than a biscotti into an espresso - and who inexplicably have won more Nobel prizes than all other countries combined, host 25 or 30 of the world's finest universities and five or six of the world's best symphonies, produce wines that win prizes at your own tasting competitions, have built the world's most vibrant economy, are the world's only military superpower and, so to speak in our spare time, have landed on the moon and sent our robots to Mars - may I suggest you stop frothing at the mouth long enough to consider just what are these ideas we hold that you find so silly and repugnant?

We believe that church and state should be separate, but that religion should remain at the center of life. We are a Judeo-Christian culture, which means we consider those ten things on a tablet to be commandments, not suggestions. We believe that individuals are more important than groups, that families are more important than governments, that children should be raised by their parents rather than by the State, and that marriage should take place only between a man and a woman. We believe that rights must be balanced by responsibilities, that personal freedom is a privilege we must be careful not to abuse, and that the rule of law cannot be set aside when it becomes inconvenient. We believe in economic liberty, and in the right of purposeful and industrious entrepreneurs to run their businesses - and thus create jobs - with a minimum of government interference. We recognize that other people see things differently, and we are tolerant of their views. But we believe that our country is worth defending, and if anyone decides that killing us is an okay thing to do we will go after them with everything we've got.

If these beliefs seem strange to you, they shouldn't. For these are precisely the beliefs that powered Western Europe -- you -- from the Middle Ages into the Renaissance, on to the Enlightenment, and forward into the modern world. They are the beliefs that made Europe itself the glory of Western civilization and - not coincidentally - ignited the greatest outpouring of art, literature, music and scientific discovery the world has ever known including Michaelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Shakespeare, Bach, Issac Newton and Descartes.

Europe is Dying

It is your abandonment of these beliefs that has created the gap between Europe and the United States. You have ceased to be a Judeo-Christian culture, and have become instead a secular culture. And a secular culture quickly goes from being "un-religious" to anti-religious. Indeed, your hostility to the basic concepts of Judaism and Christianity has literally been written into your new European Union constitution, despite the Pope's heroic efforts to the contrary.

Your rate of marriage is at an all-time low, and the number of abortions in Europe is at an all-time high. Indeed, your birth rates are so far below replacement levels that in 30 years or so there will be 70 million fewer Europeans alive than are alive today. Europe is literally dying. And of the children you do manage to produce, all too few will be raised in stable, two-parent households.

Your economy is stagnant because your government regulators make it just about impossible for your entrepreneurs to succeed - except by fleeing to the United States, where we welcome them and celebrate their success.

And your armed forces are a joke. With the notable exception of Great Britain, you no longer have the military strength to defend yourselves. Alas, you no longer have the will to defend yourselves.


What worries me even more than all this is your willful blindness. You refuse to see that it is you, not we Americans, who have abandoned Western Civilization. It's worrisome because, to tell you the truth, we need each other. Western Civilization today is under siege, from radical Islam on the outside and from our own selfish hedonism within. It's going to take all of our effort, our talent, our creativity and, above all, our will to pull through. So take a good, hard look at yourselves and see what your own future will be if you don't change course. And please, stop sneering at America long enough to understand it. After all, Western Civilization was your gift to us, and you ought to be proud of what we Americans have made of it.


Friday, November 12, 2004

Somebody Give Charles Johnson
At Little Green Footballs
A Book Deal, Please



Since my readership is spiking today because Screaming Memes got a mention from Andrew Sullivan, and then linked to me, I want to throw out a meme myself.

Someone give Charles Johnson a book deal soon.

The guys story is fascinating. As far as I can tell, he's one of the earliest bloggers. He was pretty much a liberal Bush-hater until 9/11, at which point he quickly reassessed his beliefs, and I'm guessing, his entire life.

Since that day he has made it his mission to get out as much information as he can about why we need to support Western Civilization in our struggle against Islamofascism. And he does this in a funny and entertaining way.

Over the years he has built up a huge and devoted readership. In addition, he had the inside track (along with Allah, PowerLine, etc.) in breaking the CBS Rathergate scandal, which, of course, was a national story with international implications.

All this from a freakin' Jazz Musician.

One of the things I admire most about Charles is his enormous brass cojones. He uses his real name and has not been shy about having his photo posted/published, or his whereabouts known.

I want to extend a huge "Thank You" to Charles. His work has helped me on my journey. My whole life has changed since 9/11, and Little Green Footballs has a lot to do with the change.

Pastorius

Thursday, November 11, 2004

Arafat's Legacy


From Roger Simon:


If Arafat had wanted a Palestinian state, he could have had one many times over. He wanted no such thing. He wanted hundreds of millions in the bank and the perks of a Mafia chieftain - and he got what he wanted. Looked at objectively, he had more contempt for the Palestinian people that anybody alive.


One need only read Dennis Ross' (chief Middle-East negotiator under President Bill Clinton) book The Missing Peace to see that Roger Simon is absolutely correct.

Check out this short video on Arafat's legacy.

Let's hope that the new Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, really wants to settle this problem.

The Evil Neocons Are Lying To Us


From Melanie Phillips:


The head of MI5, Eliza Manningham-Buller, is reported in the Times as warning against complacency over the prospects of an Islamist terrorist attack on Britain. She said:

‘ “There is a serious and sustained threat of terrorist attacks against UK interests at home and abroad. The terrorists are inventive, adaptable and patient; their planning includes a wide range of methods to attack us”. She suspected that there might be people in the CBI “who doubt this description of the threat or perhaps question the language used to describe its scale… But I would urge you to consider the events of 9-11 (when nearly 3,000 people were killed), in Bali (where 202 died), in Istanbul (31 dead), and in Madrid (191 killed),” she said. She added: “Be under no illusion. The threat is real and here and affects us all.” '

Her warning and observations are timely. For there is a strong current of opinion, gaining ground by the day, that not only was Saddam no threat to this country but there is no Islamist terrorist threat at all. This myth has been sedulously put about as part of the deranged conspiracy theories which are circulating through the media and have now gained serious traction, demonising President Bush and Tony Blair for having produced a massive fabrication of a danger that does not exist.

The seriousness of this great tide of irrationality was illustrated by the BBC2 series by Adam Curtis, The Power of Nightmares. Having now seen all three episodes, I can only say that the alarm that has been sounded in some quarters about this production grossly understates the case. It is hard to exaggerate the mendacity and malevolence of its argument. Episode three told us there was no such thing as al Qaeda, merely an idea — no international conspiracy, no sleeper cells across the world. Just a few disparate terrorists who have run out of steam and hardly present any great threat to anyone. 9/11 was, er, just one of those things. Nothing to get too excited about. Yet you only have to glance at Rohan Gunaratna’s scholarly book, Inside al Qaeda, to realise that while it is undoubtedly true that this is an inchoate grouping which constantly mutates and reforms itself, it is indeed a global conspiracy with cells across the world.

You only have to look at the pattern of terror attacks from country to country. You only have to read what the perpetrators say about their aims in destroying western culture and restoring the medieval Muslim caliphate.

But according to Curtis, the threat of Islamist terror was instead deliberately and artificially confected by a sinister group of people, the American neo-conservatives, who have spent the past thirty years confecting one phantom enemy after another for their own power-crazed ends. Almost everything in this thesis is bogus, distorted, mendacious or wrong.
We are told that the neo-cons dominate Washington. Wrong. They are a tiny group whose opinions came to dovetail after 9/11 with those of the old-style Republicans.


We are told that they do the bidding of their teacher, Leo Strauss, who is presented as a more sinister figure and of more global impact than the leaders of al Qaeda. But Strauss was an obscure political scientist, who taught only a few of the neo-cons. We are told that he not only believed that liberal society in America was decadent, but taught that the American people had to be fed ‘noble myths’ to bring them together, even if what they were being told was a lie. I have never heard any neo-con say anything like this about expedient myths. As for Strauss himself, there have been plenty of people on the left who have tried to assassinate his character because it is undoubtedly the case that what he taught blew a hole through the moral and intellectual basis of the left’s political programmes — so much so that his daughter has protested that the diabolical picture being painted of her father bore no relation to reality.

Be that as it may, the fantasies Curtis accuses the neo-cons of inventing are indeed fantastic. He claims they wanted to create myths of good versus evil, in order to create an artificial threat so they could pose as defenders of the world. The first phantom threat they created was communism. Yup, you read it right. Communism, according to Curtis, was no big deal. By the time President Reagan (another neo-con puppet, as everyone in this story seems to be) started inveighing against the evil empire, it was already crumbling. Well, there’s something in that; but the fact that the west hadn’t realised how near to collapse the Soviet Union was does not negate the threat that it posed, nor the damage it was doing. Curtis tells us that the neo-cons persisted in seeing a threat that the CIA told them didn’t exist. Professor Richard Pipes, the distinguished Russian expert who knows infinitely more about the Soviet Union than Curtis, is made to look a fool for maintaining that the absence of visible weapons programmes indicated they had been hidden (guess where that particular thread was leading). But what Pipes said made sense — that since the Soviet Union had exactly the same know-how and wherewithal as the west, it was just not credible that it had not developed these weapons.

Next, Curtis sneers at the neo-cons’ certainty that apparently disparate terrorist groups, such as the IRA, Baader-Meinhof or the Palestinians were all supported by the Soviet Union. But the release of the Stasi files has shown that this was indeed the case; indeed, it revealed that much of what was feared about the intentions and capabilities of the Soviet Union and dismissed as paranoid red-baiting had been true all along.

The next ‘myth’ invented by the neo-cons was — wait for it — Bill Clinton’s bad character. Forget Monica Lewinsky, Jennifer Flowers and the lies Clinton told about such events. His character was destroyed by the vast neo-con conspiracy — not even the right generally, but the neo-cons — who decided to create a fantasy enemy to make the American people realise the decadent truth about liberal America. Even if some claims made about Clinton were invented by his political opponents, one hardly needs to invent this baroque ideological conspiracy to explain ordinary dirty politics. But the purpose of this risible twisting of history is to make the neo-cons seem worse than Clinton.

As if all this isn’t bad enough, Curtis draws explicit parallels between the neo-cons and the radical Islamists. He claims that their ideologies and political trajectories are so similar they are equal partners in the vast and mendacious conspiracy to terrify the world. This grotesque analysis is based from the start on a glaringly obvious false premise. He equates Leo Strauss, who concluded that liberal society had descended into morally relativistic decadence, with a principal theorist behind radical Islamism, Sayed Qutb, who, he says, similarly concluded that the west was decadent and returned to Egypt to spread the word against western influence through the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the main inspirations of the Islamist jihad in general and Ayman al Zawahiri, the principal theorist of al Qaeda, in particular. But this is a mind-blowingly absurd comparison. Strauss inspired a return to the moral values of western civilisation which he thought had been undermined, and warned against tyrannies which threatened the freedom that characterised liberal society. Qutb’s whole purpose was to fight against such freedom, destroy such western values, and inspire instead religious tyranny.

Offensively and incredibly, Curtis draws parallel after parallel between the neo-cons and the Islamofascists. Thus he tells us that William Bennett, who served in both the Reagan and (first) Bush administrations, blamed the American public’s moral decline for not rising in revulsion against Clinton, just as al Zawahiri blamed the Arab masses for failing to rise against their corrupt rulers —which failing Zawahiri used as the pretext for slaughtering them. Neat comparison, huh? Thus the neo-cons are as bad as homicidal zealots.

Having made this odious comparison throughout, Curtis brings his anti-history to a conclusion by stating that the neo-cons deliberately invented the non-existent threat of Islamist terror in order to realise their mission to spread their ideas about good and evil. Accordingly, they invented contacts between Saddam and al Qaeda that never existed. But there is considerable evidence of these contacts (see many previous posts) — and evidence that, as with the Soviet backing of terror in the past, the CIA screwed up by never acknowledging this. As Richard Perle says on the programme, it is astonishing that people can deny this evidence — a statement of documented reality which merely elicited from Curtis gasps of incredulity.

The conclusion of this vile series, repeated at the beginning of each episode, is that the neo-cons have transformed global politics through a dark fantasy, used to terrify people and thus provide a sense of purpose for politicians who are no longer trusted to deliver the good society.

This is simply deranged conspiracy theory. There is no other adequate description. But the terrifying thing is that in Britain, this is being taken seriously and believed. It was, after all, transmitted by the BBC, our supposed guardians of journalistic standards. There are senior editors in the BBC who took the decision to transmit this garbage because they presumably thought it had a serious contribution to make — rather like the senior executives of Egyptian TV decided to transmit the multi-part TV version of the infamous anti-Jewish conspiracy libel, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Disturbingly, I keep meeting people who tell me how impressed they were by the Curtis series. It has undoubtedly done much to further inflame the current climate of hysterical irrationality.


Someone should be talking very seriously about this to the BBC chairman Michael Grade and to the governors. Such a travesty of journalism, public service broadcasting and truth must not go unchallenged.


If idiotic Brits really believe that the evil Neocons (read Jews) invented the Al Qaeda, well then if we must, here are some examples of a real threat from Al Qaeda right in your neigborhood, from Kenneth Timmerman:


The French police struck just in time, penetrating deep into a housing project in the Paris suburbs on Dec. 16 where for years Islamic radicals have made their nest, hiding among the predominantly Muslim immigrant population. More than 100 police and a 30-member SWAT team stormed the "Cité des 4000" in La Courneuve, carrying assault rifles with laser sights.

When they picked up Marwan Ben-Ahmed, 29, a French-Algerian dual national, he had collected all the ingredients for a large bomb and was planning to strike during the Christmas holidays, possibly against the U.S. or Russian embassies in Paris. In his apartment, police found packages of iron perchlorate and other chemicals which, when mixed together, can make a powerful explosive. They also seized two empty propane canisters, $5,000 in cash, fake passports and a computer with coded instructions.

During a second search two days later, they found timers and detonators hidden in a washing machine. Police also arrested Ben-Ahmed's wife and two accomplices, identified as Mohamed Merbah and Ahmed Belhoud.But it was the discovery of a military-issue nuclear-biological-chemical (NBC) protection suit and bottles of toxic chemicals that most alarmed investigators, leading to speculation that Ben-Ahmed and his network were planning a chemical attack or had gained access to nuclear waste and were hoping to make a "dirty bomb" that would irradiate the greater-Paris area.

Fears that al-Qaeda terrorists were planning to detonate a dirty bomb in the Washington area kept NEST (Nuclear Emergency Search Team) busy for months, as Insight revealed last year [see "A State of High Alert," Nov. 26, 2001], a problem that remains current [see "Searching for 'Dirty Bombs'" in this issue]. Although most experts agree that a single "dirty nuke" would cause little actual damage beyond that of the conventional explosive used to detonate it, the psychological impact of a radioactive cloud rising above a major city could create panic, making it a terrorist's weapon of choice.

Osama bin Laden has spoken repeatedly of his desire to acquire weapons of mass destruction and to use them against the West. Two years before Sept. 11, 2001, the Arab press was ripe with speculation that he had gained access to 20 nuclear "suitcase bombs" that were feared to have gone missing from the stockpiles of the former Soviet Union. Bin Laden's intentions never have been in doubt -- only his capabilities. So when the French discovered the NBC suit in Ben-Ahmed's tiny apartment in La Courneuve, they feared the worst and immediately ordered a thorough chemical analysis of every ingredient seized at the site.

In testimony the day after the arrests, French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy told members of parliament that Ben-Ahmed and his cell were in contact with another al-Qaeda operative named Rabah Kadri, arrested in London on Nov. 5 "on suspicion of planning a chemical attack" on the London subway system. Kadri eventually led them to Ben-Ahmed and his network in France.

The French counterterrorist police arrested "19 persons in November alone who were working with terrorist services," Sarkozy revealed. Because of the risk of a chemical attack, "it was better to arrest them sooner rather than later," he added.

On Christmas Eve, the French suspicions were confirmed when police raided the Minguettes housing project outside the central French city of Lyons, where they found four more alleged al-Qaeda operatives along with lists of chemicals needed to make cyanide, the same chemical agent al-Qaeda networks were planning to use in London. They now believe Ben-Ahmed was planning to fill the propane canisters with a deadly poison gas in hopes of killing hundreds if not thousands of people and was coordinating his efforts with al-Qaeda cells in Britain and elsewhere.


Really, anyone who is still having trouble believing that there really is an Al Qaeda, you should start reading Screaming Memes because their are totally wierd things going on in Amerika right now (after Bush stoled the election, ) and that blog is for you.

Wednesday, November 10, 2004

George Bush - The Champion Of Secularism


From Christopher Hitchens, via Little Green Footballs:


It seems that anyone fool enough to favor the re-election of the president is by definition a God-bothering, pulpit-pounding Armageddon-artist, enslaved by ancient texts and prophecies and committed to theocratic rule. I was instructed in last week's New York Times that this was the case, and that the Enlightenment had come to an end, by no less an expert than Garry Wills, who makes at least one of his many livings by being an Augustinian Roman Catholic.

I step lightly over the ancient history of Wills' church as well as over its more recent and local history (as the patron, protector, and financier of child-rape in the United States). As far as I know, all religions and all churches are equally demented in their belief in divine intervention, divine intercession, or even the existence of the divine in the first place.

But all faiths are not always equally demented in the same way, or at the same time. Islam, which was once a civilizing and creative force in many societies, is now undergoing a civil war. One faction in this civil war is explicitly totalitarian and wedded to a cult of death. We have seen it at work on the streets of our own cities, and most recently on the streets of Amsterdam. We know that the obscene butchery of filmmaker Theo van Gogh was only a warning of what is coming in Madrid, London, Rome, and Paris, let alone Baghdad and Basra.

So here is what I want to say on the absolutely crucial matter of secularism. Only one faction in American politics has found itself able to make excuses for the kind of religious fanaticism that immediately menaces us in the here and now. And that faction, I am sorry and furious to say, is the left. From the first day of the immolation of the World Trade Center, right down to the present moment, a gallery of pseudointellectuals has been willing to represent the worst face of Islam as the voice of the oppressed. How can these people bear to reread their own propaganda? Suicide murderers in Palestine—disowned and denounced by the new leader of the PLO—described as the victims of "despair." The forces of al-Qaida and the Taliban represented as misguided spokespeople for antiglobalization. The blood-maddened thugs in Iraq, who would rather bring down the roof on a suffering people than allow them to vote, pictured prettily as "insurgents" or even, by Michael Moore, as the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers. If this is liberal secularism, I'll take a modest, God-fearing, deer-hunting Baptist from Kentucky every time, as long as he didn't want to impose his principles on me (which our Constitution forbids him to do).

One probably should not rest too much on the similarity between Bin Laden's last video and the newly available DVD of Fahrenheit 9/11. I would only say that, if Bin Laden had issued a tape that with equal fealty followed the playbook of Karl Rove (and do please by all means cross yourself at the mention of this unholy name), it might have garnered some more attention. The Bearded One moved pedantically through Moore's bill of indictment, checking off the Florida vote-count in 2000, the "Pet Goat" episode on the day of hell, the violent intrusion into hitherto peaceful and Muslim Iraq, and the division between Bush and the much nicer Europeans. (For some reason, unknown to me at any rate, he did not attack the President for allowing the Bin Laden family to fly out of American airspace.)

George Bush may subjectively be a Christian, but he—and the U.S. armed forces—have objectively done more for secularism than the whole of the American agnostic community combined and doubled. The demolition of the Taliban, the huge damage inflicted on the al-Qaida network, and the confrontation with theocratic saboteurs in Iraq represent huge advances for the non-fundamentalist forces in many countries. The "antiwar" faction even recognizes this achievement, if only indirectly, by complaining about the way in which it has infuriated the Islamic religious extremists around the world. But does it accept the apparent corollary—that we should have been pursuing a policy to which the fanatics had no objection?



Monday, November 08, 2004

Muslim School Bombed In The Netherlands
Some Thoughts On The Progress of European History


From Eursoc:


More bad news from the Netherlands. It seems right-wing nutters have planted a bomb in a Muslim school in the town of Eindhoven.

While the bomb damaged only the entrance to the school (it exploded at 3.30am) it follows a series of arson attacks on mosques and immigrant community centres. Tension in the Netherlands remains high since an Islamic fanatic murdered film-maker Theo van Gogh last Tuesday.

Thousands attended peaceful demonstrations following the murder, though sadly it appears that some refused to listen to appeals for calm. EURSOC tends to believe that when people set bombs in schools, they fully intend to maim and kill children: The fact that the bomb went off in the early hours of the morning is neither here nor there.

The bombers and arsonists may well have been members of extremist right wing groups, of which there are not a few in Europe. But by carrying out this shameful attack they have tainted the widespread outrage against van Gogh's assassination. Many in Europe's elites appear to fear the native backlash against Muslims more than they fear Islamist terrorists themselves. Bombings like this one confirm their prejudice.

As the Zacht Ei blog , which has been covering events in Holland brilliantly, notes: "If we start taking bombs to the streets, what will distinguish us from the butchers that slit throats? After this is all over, and it will be one day, I'd like there to be a bit left of the civilization and the ideals we claim to be defending."


I agree with Zacht.

I'm well-aware that there are some strange people in the Netherlands. The fact that my blog has the words "anti-Semitic" and "Christian" in it's title ensures that I get hits from wierdos quite often. I get hits from people with "Satanic" blogs, racist sites, etc. And more often than not they are from Northern Europe, many in the Dutch language. Interesting, isn't it?

By the way, I am also aware that, in Europe, many times there is a link between such "Satanism" and the white power movement.

Now, let's put two and two together. Heck, let's maybe even throw a three or four into the mix.

If Muslim Jihad enrages these "right-wing" groups to the point where they decide to kill Muslim children, will that not jack up the Jihad? Could we see an accelerating cycle of violence?

Now, let's move to another idea. I supported George Bush's decision to remove American troops from Germany, but doesn't this leave Germany more vulnerable to threats from inside and outside it's soil? How will the Germans respond? Possibly by increasing it's military spending?

As Germany's economy is inevitably crushed under the weight of it's Socialist system, and it's aging population, and it's flood of unassimilatable immigrants from Islamic countries, will not such a situation, combined with an ongoing two-sided Jihad between Muslims and "right-wingers," lead to a situation where Germany might once again feel the need for a strongman?

You see where I am going with this?

The next forty years of European history are going to be interesting, to say the least.

I believe Europe has much more to fear from itself, than from American hegemony.

Children Telling Ghost Stories Around The Campfire Update


The day after the election I posted about my conversation with my friend, who works in the entertainment industry, wherein he posited a whole list of conspiracy theories to prove that George Bush was all but the anti-Christ.

Well, I have to say that I was amazed when, on Saturday, my friend called me to tell me that, prompted by our discussion, he had looked up the facts of the Patriot Act and the arrests of citizens and what he called "legal immigrants" to the U.S.

He said he now agrees with me that the Patriot Act is not an evil conspiracy against the citizenry of the United States. However, he does not think it's right that the government should be able to access people's emails and library records, even with a warrant. He says we need to fight back against this kind of overstepping of bounds.

Well, that's fine. I don't agree with him, but now at least he and I are living in the same world.

He said, he also found that there has only been one U.S. citizen arrested under the designation of "Enemy Combatant." That would be Jose Padilla. He agreed that Jose Padilla should be in jail, but not as an "Enemy Combatant." He thought Padilla should go through the normal legal process, or that "George Bush should go through the normal process of enacting legislation to designate what an "Enemy Combatant" is.

In that case, I actally kind of do agree with my friend and told him. I also pointed out to him, though, that Bush was following the rules of the Geneva Convention in his definition of what it is to be an "Enemy Combatant."

In addition, I also pointed out to him that in every war the U.S. has fought there has been areas in which our Presidents have stepped over the line of the rights of our citizenry. I pointed out Roosevelt's internment of citizens of Japanese heritage or Nixon's outright lying about his doings in Viet Nam.

I made the point that what Bush is doing is minor in comparison. He agreed, but said that we must fight back against our government when it is overstepping the bounds.

Well, he's right about that. And, luckily for us, there are many good people in the United States who are doing that work. Jose Padilla and the real "Legal Immigrants" who are currently being held in custody here in the U.S. do have a cadre of lawyers working in their interests.

I do not choose to fight that fight for several reasons, foremost being that I am not a lawyer. But, even if I were, I probably would not feel that calling. My purpose is to provide a weight on the other side of our divided country right now. I see too much irrational anger at the George Bush and America. I see too much irrational hatred of the Jews. So, my purpose is to try to provide an antidote to this irrationality.

Anyway, it sure was nice to talk to my friend on Saturday and find that, even though we still don't fully agree, at least we are now both living in the same world.

Sunday, November 07, 2004

Yay For Me


The other day, Medienkritik noted that Europeans are upset and perplexed that we Americans would vote for George Bush. So, they asked American readers to write in and please explain why they voted in such a manner. I am happy to see that my comment was at the top of their post today. Too bad they did not provide my link.

Oh well.






"Thou Shalt Not Kill" Is Racist?


This actually happened a few days ago, so I am very late to the game in posting about it. Oh well. Thanks to Roger Simon for this:


... this extraodinary report from the blog Live From Brussels. In the continuing reaction to the Theo Van Gogh murder, an Amsterdam artist put up a street mural featuring a dove under the words "Thou Shalt Not Kill!" The imam from the local mosque called to complain that the mural was "racist" and the police sandblasted it. You can see all on a remarkable video at the link.

Unfortunately, the Dutch is not translated. Perhaps Pieter Dorsman could get into it.

If you think things are bad in this country, Europe is an incredible bind, relying on cheap labor (for the survival of its system) that refuses to be assimilated. Beware the 1930s. (via lgf)

UPDATE: Pieter Dorsman has now provided partial translations of the video as well as insight into the police instructions in Amsterdam following the murder. Isn't the blogosphere interesting? We have more resources than we know and we're only just learning how to use them.


If it is racist to intone the Sixth Commandment, we might as well pack it all in and call it a day as a civilization.

Goodbye history. I hope you treat us well. Say nice stuff about us. If you find graven images of Ronald McDonald everywhere, please understand that they were not actually our God's.

Oh well, maybe they were.