Phanari

Here's a peek into the deluded world of Muslim conversion. As yet unbeknown to herself (I believe), lately I am given to follow the literary activities of a young female convert - one of 300 in Belgium alone. She has a university grade in higher Marxism, and is actually an activist posing as a journalist. (One wonders just how many of those are around!)

The first article I stumbled on, briefly appeared on the site of The Brunei Times: the word that comes to mind to describe it, is agit prop. It can now be accessed here. At present I have come across another article she authored for the Islamic press, an 'interview' with two other converts on the occasion of Belgian Convert Day, which seems to have taken place on 4th of March this year. Here's the Saudi Gazette with "My Daughter is a Muslim".

The 'discussion' - if it has actually taken place is immaterial - indicates quite nicely what the attractions of Islam are for some Leftist inclined people. I am suspecting the author is a sufferer of Narcissistic Awe, the underestimated form of Narcissism which does not mind enslaving the whole of humanity if they feel this is in the people's own best interest. Like all Narcissists they crave attention. Through identification with a victim group they can share the audience that this group is generating.

"There is not a dominant type of people that become converts. Converts come from all social and educational backgrounds. The strength of Islam is that they are all equal as Muslims."

The author doesn't seem to be aware of above psychological pathology that predisposes some people to identify with victim groups of the Marxist dialectic, or she might indeed be able point at a "dominant type of people".

"Equal as Muslims" underlines the call of egalitarian collectivism that never fails to attract the hive mind. It's as if this type of 'carbon based unit' instinctively feels the need to home back to the collective, the 'group soul' of the drove.

Apart from the aspects I mentioned in "The Unholy Alliance: Conflating the Three Great isms" this is a futher indication that the current form of Islam belongs to the family of subjectivist, collective Counter-Enlightenment ideologies (see also Chart I: The Straight Red Line), and one reason Muslims will never become "the new Joos", as some have suggested.

In a three part post on the pseudo religious aspectsof the collectivist Counter-Enlightenment ideologies of the atheist variety, Communism and National Socialism, we saw that mass events were featuring highly on their indoctrination programs. The monotonous, rhythmic beat of a drum, or the cadence of a charismatic beloved leader-hierophant's prolonged speech, has the hypnotic effect that any right minded demagogue might be looking for. It is the opportunity to subliminally instill the message into the followers, a shot of ideological synchronizing of the watches, if you will. Islam's equivalents of course, are the Hajj and the blood fests associated with the Shia Day of Ashura.

Regarding the latter, Matthias Kόntzel has written touchingly in "Ahmadinejad's World"; how the death cult based on Ashura (link to Time slide show) has sent half a million children into oblivion in mine fields, and wave after wave of underclass Iranians was shot to human pulp, in a way which even caused qualms in Saddam Hussein's battle hardened army.

"They come toward our positions in huge hordes with their fists swinging," an Iraqi officer complained in summer 1982, "You can shoot down the first wave, and then the second. But at some point the corpses are piling up in front of you, and all you want to do is scream and throw away your weapon. Those are human beings, after all!"

In view of the blind sacrifices made in that war by the Basiji - the Iranian version of the Marxist proletariat - they have now been elevated to unofficial police, a sort of SA (Stormtroopers), enforcers of the Revolution and Ahmadinejad's regime apparatus. They are at present also manning the nuclear laboratories.

It is fascinating reading how the sense of 'original sin', originating in the Ashura story has been worked into today's Islamist policies of suicide bombings (the so-called martyrdom operations) and how the Muslim Brotherhood provided Sunnis with their own version.

Blood curling rather than fascinating is the Twelfth Imam dogma that underpins Ahmadinejad's apocalyptic teleology: the more the world is whipped into this Islamic version of political correctness, the sooner the Western Enlightenment notions as symbolised by the Jewish state are obliterated, the earlier this Messiah figure of the Mahdi will materialise, enabling the end game to begin.

This renders the nuclear doctrine of mutually assured destruction absolutely meaningless in this case. And this is why the political flippancy, that we'll just have to learn to live with a nuclear armed Iran, is so criminally ignorant.

Copyright © 2006-7 The Lighthouse

Από Meitje @ 17/10/2007 17:58 | Permalink | Σχόλια
Tags: ashura , ahmadinejad , counter-enlightenment movement , islam , iran , communism

Last Friday morning the traditional neoclassical building, today the Cultural Center of the University of Indianapolis - an architectonic jewel in the traditional old town of Athens at the foot of the Acropolis mountain - was the scenic theatre of the presentation of a book with the skin crawling title "The Coming Balkan Caliphate", written by the American author Christopher Deliso.

Deliso is director of Balkanalysis.com, a leading independent online news and analysis group.

The site utilizes a growing corps of writers and researchers from regional countries as well as from elsewhere in Europe and the United States. Amongst those Ioannis Michaletos, the intelligence blogger and Junior Analyst at Research Institute for European and American Studies (RIEAS) who has kindly provided this blog with unique background information on this summer's devastating wild fires, which - in all probability - were part of a pyro terrorism campaign against the Greek state, for which seventy people have been arrested, twenty of whom are described as 'foreigners'.

Deliso has lived and traveled widely in southeastern Europe and has a master's degree with distinction in Byzantine Studies from Oxford University (1999). Since 2001, he has published many articles on Balkan politics, economics, security issues, travel, history and culture in US and world newspapers, analysis firms such as the Economist Intelligence Unit, and in numerous magazines and websites.

The Balkans (link provides an excellent UN map) is the gateway between East and West, and historically Europe's soft underbelly. Presently organized crime and terrorism present a constant threat. Chris Deliso's eye-opening book details how fifteen years of misguided Western interventions, political scheming, and local mafia appeasement, compounded by a massive infusion of Arab cash, fundamentalist Islamic preaching and Wahhabi mosque building, have allowed radical Islamic groups to fill in the cracks between internal ethnic and religious schisms, and take root in key areas of the Balkans.

Deliso clarifies the situation as follows.

- Bosnia - During the 1990 Yugoslav conflict the Western powers conspired to allow Arab (Saudi, Wahhabi) mujaheddin, surplus of the Afghan resistance against Soviet occupation, to enter the territory as an easy way to counter the Serb attempts to keep the federation of Yugoslavia together, while countering internal Muslim harassment of local Christian populations.

Since the blow-backof this policy has become apparent, the US is pushing Bosnia to expel the radicals who've set up shop in the region. Belatedly, as by now they have gone underground. The present situation is said to be fluid.

There are however direct links between the Islamic radicals who were imported into Bosnia as a consequence of said Western policy, and the attacks of 9/11, the Madrid train bombings and the London attacks.

Another Bosnian connection that surfaced not so long ago was the foiled attempt on US Fort Dix and, just last week the scantly publicised matter of a Bosnian arrested in Vienna, Austria for a thwarted attack on the US Embassy in that city.

- Albania - Already historically a breading ground for lawlessness, tribalism and backwardness, this isolated rugged territory became a radical Islamist safe haven from the moment the old Stalinist regime fell. The US policy was to strengthen the fledgling democratic government. It is this blog's opinion that personal ties between Albania and the Clintons stem from these early years, as the US political order transited from the Cold War. Deliso: "The United States both cracked down on extremists and allied itself with Islamic leaders in the Tirana government, funding these radicals."

Albania became the scene of an influx of Wahhabi mujaheddin and Al Qaeda elements. Wahhabi mosque building is proliferating as we speak, as is Islamist social engineering: providing unemployed villagers with hand-outs to dress up as fundamentalists in an attempt at creating critical mass for the normalization of radicalism; call it the corrupt Islamist version of political correctness. This method is combined with a form of institutionalised thuggery: extortion, blackmail and intimidation. It is happening not just in Albania, but in all less affluent regions of the Balkans, of which there are many.

Albanian clan structure produces a social situation, ideal for the incubation of organised crime. The connection between terrorism and organised crime is by now well established; it is being monitored and documented by the various intelligence agencies.

- Kosovo - As was the case in Bosnia, Western policy has allowed mujaheddin to establish themselves in the territory, creating the conditions for radicalisation and Wahhabi mosque building. Also here the same pressurizing pattern of social engineering and intimidation emerges. (Tony Blair, rather shortsightedly, specifically encouraged mujaheddin who found themselves on UK territory, to join the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) so as to be rid of them).

Whether Kosovo, under American and European pressure, will become independent or not, is no longer really relevant as radical Islamization is concerned. The question is rather, will the matter of independence get sectarian dimensions or not.

Deliso was kind enough at this point to hand the audience a great scoop: there are Albanian-American radicals in Kosovo who had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attack. They were actively recruiting terrorists for 'the war against America'. The UN was aware of this fact, and did nothing.

Saudis and Pakistanis are making sincere efforts to take over the territory by means of (forced) conversions, proselytizing, charity hand-outs, entrenchment of Islamic banking structures, social engineering, intimidation, etc. Islamist functionaries are parachuted below the radar into minor positions, that are nevertheless of strategic interest. The word that springs to mind, is subversion.

Funds are pouring in. Donors are located in the Middle East, Malaysia and Birmingham (UK). The Islamic Heritage Foundation is another of the great Islamic charities exerting social pressure. The organization is banned in four countries, but is allowed to do their damnedest in the UN administered province of Kosovo.

The Bulgarian region of the Rodopi Mountains, bordering Greece, has pockets of radicalized villages, once again the result of Islamist import and social pressure, through charity, hand-outs, and intimidation.

There are tensions as a result of Christian versus Islamic animosity, but there's also competition over Saudi versus Turkish Islamic influence in the region.

While most Muslims - in the Balkans, or anywhere else - aren't fanatics at all, it must be stated that they profit from the situation in the sense that extremism offers them an opportunity to present themselves as the viable, reasonable alternative. Once in key positions, the moderates are threatened, intimidated and bullied into a more radical attitude. Their Islamist enforcers often take the shape of mafia style thugs.

- Intelligence failures - There has been a marked lack of intelligence sharing between countries, as well as between national or federal agencies. This has assisted in creating the current situation to a large extent. Various intelligence agencies per country are competing and fighting out turf wars over competence and jurisdiction. Given the EU's multinational dimensions this competition is even worse in Europe than it is in America. Terrorist groups of course have no such impediments.

The policies on Kosovo and Bosnia have assisted the nesting of foreign radical elements. The UN administration of Kosovo is inhabited by career diplomats whose attitude is to sit it out while pondering the next prestigious career move. Their motto consequently is "don't rock the boat", coupled with a mind set that prefers sweeping dirt under the carpet. Whistle-blowers are known to be stonewalled. There's high level corruption.


At this point Deliso voices concern over the US government's infiltration by spooks to an extent that is alarming. He also mentions there was a second failed attempt on Pope John Paul II's life, which is rarely publicised. I think I saw it reported once, but took it for a mistake. (Google produces no hits at all).

The threat of terrorism is also changing shape: an innovation are the so-called 'white devils', Caucasian converts who escape racial profiling. I think I predicted in these pages somewhere that this will likely be the face of terrorism in the future: a sort of Islamic Bader Meinhoff, just as fanatical, deluded, and radical Marxist as the Cold War set up.

Computer hacking is assisting terrorism by 'remote control', for example attacks on essential installations, such as power grids. The spate of pyro terrorism waltzing through Greece this summer may have been ignited 'remotely' by cell phones. Also in Greece some attacks were perilously close to power grids.

More attacks than we realise are being thwarted.

How's this for a coincidence ... on the morning that the former President Clinton is arriving in Athens to consult the local Socialist Party out of the crisis it finds itself in since losing the general elections - they cannot figure out how they lost it - Deliso is filling us in on some details of the Clinton legacy: "The Coming Balkan Caliphate".

Deliso stresses that he has spoken with high level US officials who have made plain that the 1990s failed policies were conscious decisions. The election of Hillary Rodham Clinton would in all probability bring back the same politicians who signed for the flawed policies of which we only now are experiencing the dire results: Wesley Clark, Madeleine Albright, Richard Holbrooke, to name but a few.

The questionable method of rendition that got the Bush government into trouble, was first used in 1995 in Albania during the early Clinton years. Ray Robison commenting on a Front Page Magazine article by Julia Gorin, "Kosovo  The Epicenter of Islamofascism?" writes on this matter:

"... There are Islamic extremists in Kosovo. There have been for years as evidenced by the Clinton Administration's germination of a controversial policy called "rendition". It was in Bosnia and Kosovo that the rendition of Islamic terrorists to nations like Egypt - which would obviously employ torture and in some cases murderous interrogation methods - began. The reason the U.S. rendition policy became necessary is because the Islamic terrorists were not from Kosovo. They were sent back to Egypt in most cases because they were Egyptians. Now an argument can be made that these Arab jihadists, veterans of the Afghan mujahideen were supported locally by some Albanian Islamic extremists."

The US, having currently concentrated their efforts on the Middle East and Afghanistan, have an intelligence deficiency in the region. In the past the US have outsourced information gathering to Ukrainian and Romanian agencies, but stopped doing so when a inordinate amount of disinformation ensued.

- Greece - Greece has of course always objected to the failed Western policies in the Balkans, but was forced to go along with more powerful allies. Foreign policy instead was concentrated on the minor issues, such as the name of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), or Skopje, on which matter Turkey seems to be very well informed.

Also in Skopje enclaves have been created that are virtual no-go areas for Westerners: ideal safe havens for terrorists and radicals.

Greece should identify and correct the intelligence hiatus. If more information would be available to combat the War on Terrorism, Greece would become a more valuable partner.

What stood out - and this is effectively the reason why Greece in the West is almost a white elephant - was Deliso's underlining specifically that the Greek governments, as well as the Orthodox Church 'have not allowed' and have 'prevented' Islamic radicals from establishing themselves in the country. The habitual means of establishment is through charity organizations.

But what Greece and the Greek Orthodox Church can achieve, can also be done by other countries! All we know is, that they haven't. Was that the result of active, but inapt policies as described here by Deliso, or a lack of political will? Or are we perhaps scratching the surface here of the very purposeful Eurabia doctrineas presented by author Bat Ye'or, of which we are to witness the latest instalment during the forthcoming Arab-European Dialogue on Human Rights and Terrorism, taking place in Copenhagen on 21-23 October?

This seems to be a good moment to go on record that a family member who worked for an intelligence service in the past, once disclosed that the Cold War ended at a good time, as resources would now become available for monitoring radical Islamist elements. This means that in government circles in 1990 there was known to be a threat from that area. Today it is widely forgotton that the problems didn't start on 9/11, 2001.

While many Western countries have severed their historical ties and suppressed national consciousness for ideological reasons, Greece is still a very free, traditional, Christian country, enjoying their historical roots and national identity and all that entails. While Western Europe is wallowing in decadence, and realing from its self-induced uprootedness, Greece is developing the first affluent middle class.

Deliso: "Many countries in the West, for example Germany and the UK, are in trouble through their multicultural policies." Greece on the other hand is still recovering from the historical black hole that was the blessing of being part of the Ottoman Empire. There are people alive today who remember, and there are those who know because their (grand)parents told them. Greece will have to be force-fed by the EU on multiculturalism, will it ever become a politically correct nation.

Deliso travels through the area extensively and has concluded, there are quite a few Western exiles who have found a home in the Balkans as well, the undersigned one of them. It would seem everybody is more or less adrift these days.

Finally, I'd like to remind the readership that the petition against the independence of the Serb province of Kosovo-Metohija, which would enhance the chances of the Balkan Caliphate even further, can be signed here.

Copyright © 2006-7 The Lighthouse

Από Meitje @ 12/10/2007 16:14 | Permalink | Σχόλια
Tags: organized crime , islam , kosovo , albania , clinton , greece

Cacophony Redux, with only one person asking relevant questions ...

- Radio Netherlands: "Dutch parliament queries Hirsi Ali security cut" - "The Dutch Lower House has called for a written explanation from Justice Minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin on the provision of security for Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The former conservative MP has returned to the Netherlands, apparently because the government is no longer prepared to pay for her protection in the United States. ... Last year she left the Netherlands for the United States to work for the conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute."

- Expatica: "MPs want explanation on Hirsi Ali" - "Parliament will not be holding an emergency debate on Ayaan Hirsi Ali's return to the Netherlands but it does want a letter from the cabinet on the Ayaan Hirsi Ali's security. ... The justice department has refrained from comment thus far. ... Parliament also wants clarification on the agreements that have been made with the American authorities and with Hirsi Ali.
The letter should also inform Parliament whether Hirsi Ali's security in the Netherlands is guaranteed. She is currently staying at a secret address."

- Monsters & Critics: "Islam critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali back in Netherlands" - "The former legislator for the Liberal VVD party was allegedly forced to leave the US as American authorities had refused to finance the expenses of her personal security measures. So far, the Dutch government has paid all those expenses, but after more than a year of residency in the US, the Dutch allegedly said they were no longer willing to continue this arrangement."

- Elsevier Magazine - "The Netherlands must protect Ayaan, wherever she is": author Leon de Winter: "... What would be the value of her life in terms of the minister's budget? And on what basis would he come to such an estimate? These are the relevant questions of the sort that Margaret Thatcher never posed in relation to the life of Salman Rushdie, wherever he might might have been."

... and nobody, not one, is commenting anymore why this witch hunt is going on in the first place!

That's how accustomed we've become to being gagged by muzzlemen, who - in their perfection - consider themselves to be beyond criticism and who tolerate no position, other than their own.

Already they're running this world by means of bullying, intimidation and fascist threats. Such is the birth right of pocket potentates, for a while - anyway!

Από Meitje @ 2/10/2007 20:25 | Permalink | Σχόλια
Tags: leon de winter , terrorism , ayaan hirsi ali , the netherlands , islam , usa

For some time now I have been persuaded that, whereas Islamism may pose a serious threat to Western civilization as we know it, a certain brand of Western Leftists should be feared even more. There is of course the cooperation of Islam and the Left in the Unholy Alliance (see here for interfaces and commonalities), but the type of Lefty I am referring to at the moment, is in a pathological league of his own.

This type of Islamist advocate is a sufferer of Narcissistic Awe, ugly sister of Narcissistic Rage. Both variations may be combined within the same person at different instances. I'm leaving the causes of this sociopathology aside for the moment, but hippy parents would be a pointer.

The Narcissistic Awe sufferer craves attention. Either positive or negative attention will do. This is the type of person who would enslave the entire world, if he thought this would be for the good of humanity. With this in mind it becomes apparent why we find this type of patient primarily in extreme Leftist circles.

The patient preferably also identifies strongly with what he or she perceives as the underdog, the Oppressed minority of the Marxist dialectic. In this way they share in the attention the underdog is getting on the basis of his particular victimhood.

This identification with the underdog is a problem if the patient happens to be white and the identifying minority member of another race: you could of course marry, but it's still a poor proxy compared to the real thing. Thankfully there are also homosexual and faith-based underdogs to choose from. In the former case one simply makes a personal choice in sexual preference; in the latter, one converts.

Christianity being the religion of The Oppressor (remember, The White Patriarch), the choice for Islam is an easy one to make (see the Left's and Islam's commonalities in "The Unholy Alliance"). But on doesn't need to go as far as that. As apostasy happens to be a capital offence in Islam, I would surely advice thinking twice before taking the fatal step.

Narcissistic Awe sufferers - as such, entitled to some leniency - are nevertheless unpleasant people, if only because they dictate the world to conform to their wishes and requirements. Within the discourse about Islam in Western society I come across this type of pocket potentate more frequently than I care for.

In the run up to the 9/11 Stop Islamization of Europe demo in Brussels I stumbled upon a young Belgian convert. She is an activist aligned with Hizbollah adherent Dyab Abu Jahjah, leader of the Arab European League. Posing as a journalist, she proliferates vitriolic pieces in periodicals in the Islamic world with the obvious view of stirring the passions against the West. The Brunei Times ran one such invective briefly, until their attention was presumably drawn to the fact that the article excels in lies, half truths, irrational revisionism and abject nonsense. Currently it has resurfaced on an Indian Blog under the title "Eye on Europe's Islam hypocrisy".

Another example of the Narcissistic Leftist for Sharia can be enjoyed here (Liberty Bell). This one is related.

In reference to the recent discourse initiated by "Muslims Against Sharia" I stumbled this morning on a site in the Middle East which regretfully doesn't give reason for optimism. "MidEast Youth Thinking Ahead" is a site by "a diverse group of young students, bloggers, and activists who strive for coexistence through democracy ... dedicated to eliminate extremist ideologies and ignorance from the Middle East".

Only a brief perusal yielded an article on that staple of American society: not freedom, but racism. According to this piecethe definition of racism is, that it is exclusively directed - not against a race, but against Muslims: all other instances of 'racism' are actually mere 'mistakes'; the intended victims are Muslims, always! What a truly sad piece of paranoia!

But that's a side issue. Back on the trail of Lefties for Sharia is a commentary made by a member of Troofers United (The Real Truth Behind 9/11 conspiracy movement!) on an article "Muslims Against Sharia": Islamic Reform Movement. While the MidEast Youth Thinking Ahead itself terms the initiative an "interesting project", Mr Narcissism alias Randell Jones - in a pedantic talking down to the natives - is enlightening the MidEast Youth readership that:

... "The fact they include Yassir Arafat in the list shows that this organization is more concerned about promoting Zionism than in reforming Islam. ... they make a comparison of the Iranian President Ahmadinejad to Hitler. ... There is so much misinformation on that website I am surprised that you chose to put a link to it. This websiteis more concerned with demonizing Muslims than reforming Islam."

Like the Belgian convert, pathological projection has turned him against the civilization he stems from. He's stirring the Islamic cooking pots of hatred in the Middle East against the West as a veritable Graduate Ne Plus Ultra from the Marxist School for Agents Provocateurs. He's too pathetic to understand that the sad fate of traitors is, that - once used - they end up being loathed by all parties: betraying the one, why not the other as well!

Copyright © 2006-7 The Lighthouse

Από Meitje @ 27/9/2007 21:26 | Permalink | Σχόλια
Tags: projection , narcissism , muslims against sharia , islam

Muslims Against Sharia(the readership has been requested not to abbreviate) is making the headlines in the blegosphere. But not all is well! While some are singing their praises, others are doing their very utmost to expose the movement as Neocon based, or are hinting at the obligatory Jooish conspiracy.

Self appointed defenders of the purity of faith are scrutinizing "Muslims Against Sharia" texts and Manifesto for insufficient in-depth knowledge of Muzzlemanic scripture, and for contradictions that no born Muslim would stoop to.

The former kind of critic is represented by a rather vicious exemplary of the self styled Free Thinker (since 1881!). You know the type: the McCarthys of the faith-based press, habitually confusing Enlightenment with the new dogma and compensating their irrationality with hyperbolic sarcasm. The witch-finder general's shriek must have pierced cyberspace today as Free Thought remembered to associate Sharia Law with the Muslim version of G*d! Whatever.

In Muslim circles there are nowadays examples aplenty of the opposite sort: the lay exegete, or amateur Zealot. One of them hastily established a personal blog, entirely devoted to the 'debunking' and 'exposure' of "Muslims against Sharia".

Regretfully, what Muhairi8 - the blogger behind "Exposing Muslims Against Sharia" - is doing in fisking the Manifesto, is simply abrogating "Muslims Against Sharia's fine job. In his zeal to expose the people behind the movement, Muhairi8 is confirming many counter-jihadists' claim that Islam and democratic values are mutually exclusive. Take the following commentary from his end:

- Muslims can't go against Sharia. Sharia is orders of God and the Prophet from the Koran and the Hadiths, so going against the Sharia means going against the Islam. [sic]

Furthermore:

- What kind of a Muslim wants to change the Koran?

- Q: "Muslim fundamentalists believe that the Koran is the literal word of Allah."
- A: Of course we do.

- Q: "Could it be possible that the Koran itself was corrupted by Muslims over the last thirteen centuries?"
- A: Again no Muslim will say such thing.

- Q: "The following verses promote divisiveness and religious hatred, bigotry and discrimination. They must be either removed from the Koran or declared outdated and invalid, and marked as such."
- A: Again no Muslim will say such thing.

- Q: "Support 'Muslims Against Sharia' and help moderate Muslims fight Islamofascists!"
- A: Yeah right.

He concludes: "I think that I provided enough evidence that they are not Muslims", while confirming in the process that:

- Koranic scripture is untouchable, even if it encourages Muslim exclusiveness, intolerance of others and justifies violence;

- (Self) Criticism is rejected, rendering Muslims beyond improvement;

- Sharia Law is elevated above all other law, encouraging Muslims to break the law in the Dar-al-Harb, where and when incompatible with Sharia.

Read the entire exchange and "Muslims Against Sharia's refutation.

The question remains: who's behind "Muslims Against Sharia"? Is it the Neocons, is it The Juice? Or the missing Mahdi? Are we actually witnessing the birth pangs of a true Islamic Enlightenment Movement: the Muslim equivalent of Vatican II? Is this the long awaited liberalization process that the Orientalist experts have been promising for so long?

Confused ... wait till next instalment ... (we ain't seen nottin yet, is my guess!).

Copyright © 2006-7 The Lighthouse

Από Meitje @ 25/9/2007 17:45 | Permalink | Σχόλια
Tags: muslims against sharia , islam

~ Urgent Blog Burst Request ~

In reply to yesterday's crosspost from Gates of Vienna on the Lars Vilks Modoggies Art Project, we received following message from "Muslims Against Sharia":

"Muslims Against Sharia" praise the courage of Lars Vilks, Ulf Johansson, Thorbjorn Larsson and the staff of Nerikes Allehanda and Dagens Nyheter and condemn threats issued by Abu Omar Al Baghdadi and the Islamic State of Iraq.

Muslims Against Sharia will provide a payment of 100,000kr (about $15,000) for the information leading to capture or neutralization of Abu Omar Al Baghdadi.

Muslimer mot Sharia berφmmer Lars Vilks, Ulf Johansson, Torbjφrn Larsson och φvriga anstδllda pε Nerikes Allehanda och Dagens Nyheter fφr deras tapperhet och fφrdφmer hotet frεn Abu Omar Al Baghdadi och Islamistiska Iraq.

Muslimer mot Sharia betalar 100 000 SEK (ca 15 000$) fφr information som leder till gripande eller oskadligφrande av Abu Omar Al Baghdadi.

Muslims Against Sharia - Defend Freedom of Speech - Support Sweden!"

Από Meitje @ 20/9/2007 16:33 | Permalink | Σχόλια
Tags: muslims against sharia , the arts , islam , sweden , iraq

The auto censoring machinations at the MSM spin factories have created an interesting derivative, almost reminscent of the time of earliest printed newspaper: the itinerant reporter! The news as it happens (as opposed to 'the news as we like to report it') - the items that the MSM is suppressing, doctoring or manipulating - is being picked up by the bloggers and other niche reporters.

This week concentrated on the Stop Islamization of Europe (SIOE) demo on 9/11 in Brussels, which was ninety percent MSM suppressed and some ten percent re-framed/selectively emphasized. Now that the dust is settling it can be said it is no surprise that participation was low, as large numbers of would be picketers were hauled in by the police, long before even reaching the place of action. Here's one astonishing account.

I am suspending endorsement by this blog of the SIOE, until some leadership issues have been settled satisfactory: the removal of my critique, while it is dealt with by the British Branch in the usual defensive terms, is but the last straw. I do owe the readershipan account of the day's press conference. Here it is. Skender has the latest slide show.

In all the suspense and emotion the virtual itinerant reporter might almost overlook a mighty interesting article that was published in the MSM, in this case in today's Times Online: an account of how Israel this week flattened Syria's nork pile: "Israelis 'blew apart Syrian nuclear cache' - Secret raid on Korean shipment":

"It was just after midnight when the 69th Squadron of Israeli F15Is crossed the Syrian coast-line. On the ground, Syria's formidable air defences went dead. An audacious raid on a Syrian target 50 miles from the Iraqi border was under way ... As a bonus, the Israelis proved they could penetrate the Syrian air defence system, which is stronger than the one protecting Iranian nuclear sites. >>>

And ...

Copyright © 2006-7 The Lighthouse

Από Meitje @ 17/9/2007 0:50 | Permalink | Σχόλια
Tags: north korea , sioe , press from hell , islam , iran , israel

Every once in a while I receive messages from mainstream Leftists who tell me that they too want to defend the freedoms and rights of Western democracy against the encroaching theocracy of Islam. They should know they are dissenters in the face of the recent EuroParl Socialist Group's claims of leading the condemnation of the "Stop Islamization of Europe" movement. I consider them from hereon the political Owners of this vital subject in Europe.

With them are any number of local and national Leftist parties that are also overtly siding with Islam, if only because they cannot resist the attraction of the 'bloc' vote; but there are similarities of an ideological nature between Islam and the Left as well, worthy of a dedicated post in the near future.

In the past I would have said, okay, we have a common cause: let there be a coalition and let's set aside our differences for the moment. Not anymore. Here are a few reasons why.

- The Left may say they too want freedom and Roman Law defended against encroaching theocracy, but the "Stop Islamization of Europe" (SIOE) 9/11 demo in Brussels has been prohibited by the Left wing Mayor of that city. This has come about as the result of the Left's legalised redistribution of speech rights to unequal minority groups at the expense of universal equality and the established majority. [1]

- The Left may say they too want freedom and Roman Law defended against encroaching theocracy, but they have left brave Muslim apostates, freedom lovers like Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the lurge. Instead she's accused of being a Liberal fundamentalist, whereas intolerant critics are excused. While many Leftists are converting to Islam, there are also a great number of Muslims that can muster the courage to leave; but they need not apply at the Left for help, is the message. [2]

- The Left may say they too want freedom and Roman Law defended against encroaching theocracy, while making ridiculous charges about an impending phantom coup by the far Christian right, or a Catholic theocratic dictatorship emanating from the Vatican that will plunge the world in a prolonged era of darkness. It is a feeble attempt to collate Christianity with Islam, a favourite Leftist pastime. [3]
On the other hand, when worries as expressed by a movement as the SIOE, theirs fears are dismissed as xenohysteria, racism and Islamophobia and sometimes - a case in point is the Mayor of Brussels - even as criminals.

- The Left may say they too want freedom and Roman Law defended against encroaching theocracy, while a false discussion is raging on Intelligent Design versus Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Any options other than these two, are a priori excluded from the debate. Darwin's unproved theory provides the Left with the 'scientific' basis for their atheist ideology. Which explains the fanaticism and the dogmatism with which they've been clinging to it since 1880 and why Charles Darwin has been included in the Marxist pantheon. [4]

- The Left may say they too want freedom and Roman Law defended against encroaching theocracy, while decrying those who come out against it as racists, Fascists and Nazis in the most vile racist, Fascist and Nazistic terms possible, removing the evidence within 24 hours to avoid detection. These 'Ministries of Information' are actively harassing and closing down websites and weblogs. This undesirable development has to do with the Postmodern Leftist view, that everybody (with the exception of the members of the White Patriarch tribe [1]) is right from his or her particular perspective, rendering all forms of critique a humiliation, no person should have to endure. This leads to intolerance, which leads to more dictatorial attitudes. Immunity from criticism has almost become a human right! [5]

- The Left may say they too want freedom and Roman Law defended against encroaching theocracy, while making common cause with Turkey and the Turkish immigrant electorate in denying the historical fact of the Armenian holocaust. While Germany has gone through a painful, decades long process of national acceptance and conciliation with regard to World War II (Japan in still working on it), Turkey is allowed to duck the past and get away with genocide. It is a shame and an embarrassment! [6]

- The Left may say they too want freedom and Roman Law defended against encroaching theocracy, while increasingly siding with antisemites of various hue against the state of Israel, in defiance of the historical realities, the protected rights of Arab minorities living within Israel's borders and the primacy of the rule of law in that country, even to the point of endangering its own defenses against terrorist attacks. [7]

- The Left may say they too want freedom and Roman Law defended against encroaching theocracy, while engaging in mutual appreciation relationships with Iran, Syria, the Cuban dictatorship, and the regime of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, to name but a few. This is in keeping with the general Leftist tendency of apologising Marxist dictatorships, no matter how many victims have ensued. [8]
Instead the Left prefer making false accusations against a friend and ally - the American administration - of having killed 2,000 innocent people in cold blood for political gain, and in doing so give credence to irrational conspiracy theories that defile the memory of the victims of 9/11. For the Left it is easier to deal with conspiracies that they can control, than with the reality of having cold hearted murderers in our midst.

- The Left may say they too want freedom and Roman Law defended against encroaching theocracy, while apologising and/or denying terrorism (case need both at the same time!). A short term state of denial is understandable and healthy, but at a certain point reality has to set in. Confronted with the dilemma to hold those responsible to account at the risk of provoking Muslim wrath, they chose to project their anger on to their own governments, who as a consequence are painted hateful, divisive, full of vitriol and bile, bigoted, intolerant and hatemongering. [9]

- The Left may say they too want freedom and Roman Law defended against encroaching theocracy, while simultaneously denouncing 'eternal truths' and 'dogmas' in the face of their unshaken belief in Human Rights and democracy. [10]

- The Left may say they too want freedom and Roman Law defended against encroaching theocracy, while simultaneously undermining the opposition's endeavours towards the dissemination of freedom and democracy whenever the opportunity presents itself. [11]

- The Left may say they too want freedom and Roman Law defended against encroaching theocracy, while reviving a pernicious ideology that has negatively influenced global politics since the philosopher Rousseau published his position on egalitarian collectivism. This school of thought has gone through many cultural and political guises, from Romanticism to Communism and National Socialism, from cultural Marxism to its latest incarnation, Islamic Leftism (or Leftist Islamism). Estimated number of victims to date: 110 million. [12]

- The Left may say they too want freedom and Roman Law defended against encroaching theocracy, but even after the fall of the Soviet Union, Marxism has never conceded defeat. The subversion program that aims at destructing the West from within was completely forgotten, while in fact it was secretly ongoing and is now nearing completion. [13]

- The Left may say they too want freedom and Roman Law defended against encroaching theocracy, but you are actively foisting the morality of your ideology onto people of other persuasions - either by the soft pressure of political correctness, or by furthering legislation to that effect. It turns otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals, should they feel the need to assert their consciences. There is a word for that: it's tyranny. [14]

In spite of vehement Leftist denial, each of us, Left, Right and mainstream, today stands at a major cross roads in human history. Will you follow the Left into a post-democratic era under crypto Islamic Leftism?

This is the reality we face today: a prospect that is in the making as we speak. Europe is not only morally and culturally sick, it is also literally, demographically 'dying' thanks to Cultural Marxism's 'non family planning' and the rest of the "progressive" moral subversion program [12].

Or, are we re-taking the road that has made us who we are? A choice for true Enlightenment: liberty, mutually beneficial free market capitalism, universal equality, limited government for and by the people, equal chances for all mature, responsible individuals on this continent, that came into being through Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian values, on which the present unequaled prosperity, freedom and human rights rest?

Will we finally tell the collectivist pocket potentates where they get off? That enough is enough! Collectivism - be it Leftist, Rightist or Islamic - is mutually exclusive with individual freedom.

You, our nice, mainstream Leftist friends, need to be educated about the ideology you keep so close to your heart. You need to know that it isn't about "being nice towards working class people at the expense of rich fat cats"; just as multiculturalism isn't about "being nice to immigrants". It is a covert means to redistribute power and rights at the expense of Western civilization as we know it. It weakens and distracts us. The diabolical ploy has long been exposed as the cynical excuse for the power grab that it is: power for power's sake!

My friends, your denial of the reality of terrorism is but the last drop ... your irresponsible attitude in the face of a crucial moment in time urges me to declare that there's a line in the sand for you too! The time of muddling through with 'Left Light' must be over. Make the choice for freedom now while you can! If you are willing to do that, there will be a coalition and together we can try to stem the tide that you have unleashed through your brainless idealism.

Lux et Libertas,
Cassandra.

Copyright © 2006-7 The Lighthouse

Από Meitje @ 9/9/2007 20:17 | Permalink | Σχόλια
Tags: genocide , ayaan hirsi ali , islam , holocaust , israel , germany

While already in the process of 'fisking' captioned news item on the official website of The Socialist Group in the European Parliament to shreds, I concluded with a certain tired melancholy that one doesn't actually know where to begin.

As a supporter of the SIOE, personal insults on the basis of Socialists' "beliefs" aside, let's restrict ourselves for the moment to the main conclusions:

1. The European Socialists are leading "international support" for the SIOE 9/11 demo ban by their ideological colleague, the Mayor of Brussels. They do so by reaffirming their "belief" that "intercultural dialogue is the best way of dealing with the sources of fundamentalist terrorism" - a discourse they propose to conduct with a cultural and religious section of society (Muslims) who have no relation whatsoever with said "fundamentalist terrorism". Why then have the dialogue, about "the sources",in the first place? This circular reasoning doesn't make sense and begs for a rational clarification!

2. In the face of the seriousness of the situation - this week alone there were two thwarted terrorist attempts, one in Germany and another in Denmark, both of which were unrelated to the Religion of Peace - the Socialists seem to be leaning rather heavily on their "belief". Actually it's rather inadequate, considering authorities' first duty: assuring the safety of the population.

3. The Socialist Group leader's title wouldn't be unbecoming the Head Boy of a local Scouting Club, but that doesn't stand in the way of launching some serious investigations. Later in the letter, belief makes place for conviction: "Like you, we are convinced that the people behind this demonstration want above all to stigmatise a community for dark racist and xenophobic reasons as is proven by the readiness to lump Islam together with fundamentalist terrorism."

It's quite obvious how Mr Schulz has convinced himself of the above, but one thing is for sure: his vigorous research didn't extend to visiting the SIOE's websites or the reading of SIOE press releases. But then, he didn't have to, did he? 'Lumping' is all the proof required for vile accusations and the withdrawal of democratic rights. Hey, let's lump some more! All Socialists are paternalistic authoritarians!

- "Stop Islamization of Europe" HQ
- "SIOE England: No Sharia Here"

Sign the petition!

* Racism is the lowest form of stupidity! Islamophobia is the height of common sense!
* No Sharia Here!
* Democracy not Theocracy!
* Enough is Enough!

Copyright © 2006-7 The Lighthouse

Από Meitje @ 7/9/2007 17:43 | Permalink | Σχόλια
Tags: terrorism , sioe , socialism , islam , ep

It's been some time since we've done loose niche noos. There are some worth the bother:

The MS (and not so MS) M:

- Military.com: "China's People's Liberation Army hacked into a computer network at the Pentagon in an attack that has US officials concerned about the growing regularity and sophistication of China's technological assaults" ... "two days before German Chancellor Angela Merkel met Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao in Beijing last week (that) Chinese hackers had infiltrated German government computers with spy programs." >>>

- The BBC is reporting that the Mother of the Taliban is heading home: "Former Pakistani PM Benazir Bhutto says she will return to the country "very soon", despite having reached no power-sharing deal with the government ... she would announce the date of her return on 14 September." >>>

- EUX: (N.B.!) "The European Commission ... on Monday outlined what it called "radical" changes to its relations with the countries that border on the union ... European Commission Vice President Benita Ferrero-Waldner said the Commission proposes to open up the European markets to workers, services and goods from the EU's neighbours." >>>

From Stop the Islamization of Europe (SIOE) Headquarters:

- SIOE HQ: There have been some rumours that different political parties and organisations have planned to hold several demonstrations in Brussels (on 9/11). This could not be further from the truth! ... we are brothers and sisters for this one day. ... No Sharia Here! Democracy not Theocracy! Enough is Enough! >>>

The Blogs:

- Flanders Fields: "The next step toward the dissolution of the USA was officially put into place on Saturday. The beginning of the NAU (North American Union) has now been officially established ... This is the American equivalent of the forcing of the EU constitution on the people of the formerly independent states of Europe ... The intent is ... to merge areas which were once sovereign into manageable regional authorities, and that there will be no cohesive group which has power to oppose the consolidation ... wait until you face the interjection of innumerable regulatory committees into the bureaucracy of such an entity. Europeans already face this ... The same fate is planned for the USA and it's citizens, of that I have no doubt. >>>

- A different take on dysfunction in Islamic societies, by The Truth Shall Set You Free's Justin Halter, Professor of comparative religions, a rare species in contemporary humanity, the Seeker of Truth: "Arabs formalized and guaranteed permanent polygamy through their religion, and thus introduced a powerful destabilizing element in their own societies ... This continual and perpetual shortage of women created a continual and perpetual surplus of warriors, fodder for the expansion of the society through conquest. >>>

- "Chimes of Freedom!" Let Liberty Reign! Let Freedom Ring! ... or A Real Live Example of Narcissistic Awe or Psychological Projection (probably both): if you think of yourself as a nice and peaceful person, while actually you are full of wrath and hatred, the psychological coping device of projection makes the object of your wrath the one that's hateful, divisive, full of vitriol and bile, bigoted, intolerant and hatemongering ... something like:

"BS! This blog is very much an incitement to racial hatred ... the cynicism of capitalist business organisations ... endorse fascist movements ... Fascists and racists are not so much birds of prey but scavengers ... should (not) be tolerated ... by allowing scum the freedom to publish, both Blogger and Google put themselves among the lowest and most vile company of the human species. ... the scum of the earth, the lowest of the low, parasites, viruses indeed, unworthy of living ... The sooner they are dealt with, prevented from spewing their venom, the better ... nothing but a lowly coward ... canaille are parasites, blood-suckers who feed like vultures ... devils like Bush, Blair & Co whose interest is ... to rape the Earth and its peoples. It is THEY who are the Evil Ones, the "forces of dajjal" as Islam calls them ... We remind these new chickenhawk fascists of the words of the Spanish Internationale: "‘No Pasaran! In this filthy game you dare to play, you will not win ... the phrase 'Peace be Unto Him' ... is "Hello, my friend, I respect you." Similarly PBUH." >>>

More from the Dept. of Information next time round. For those who - in the face of perpetual persecution by 'the voice of freedom' and his ilk - wish to join me in a request to Blogger to reinstate the publishing rights of the culprits, Le Blog de Cochon Hallal, go here.
Bees pee upon them all (BPUTA)!
Hat tip: Le Blog de Cochon Hallal

Updating throughout the day, as The News As We Like To Report It, presents itself.

Update: In Denmark and Germany four and three men were apprehended respectively in 'major terrorist threats'. Of the lot arrested in Germany, two were converts to Islam. I'd like to make a prediction here and now that within the foreseeable future most terrorist threats will come from converts, men and women. Sad, but true. They are certainly as fanatical as jihadis ("the fire of the convert" is proverbial) and about three times as pathological! Of course you have to be an insane totalitarian in the first place to resort to such practices.

Copyright © 2006-7 The Lighthouse

Από Meitje @ 6/9/2007 13:29 | Permalink | Σχόλια
Tags: nau , eu commission , human rights , pakistan , islam , china

This is the third and last instalment in a series of posts on the effects of Postmodernism (Pomo, or cultural Marxism, or Subjectivism, or relativism) on journalism and the MSM. If you've read the preceding two instalments you might want to skip this introduction and jump to "Continued from Part 2" four paras down.

To remind ourselves of the heart of the trouble: it's the basic fallacy of the industry's pet philosophy that objective reality does not exist. The danger of this deliberate mistake is, that the line between reality and perception becomes blurred, causing any amount of confusion.

One consequence is, that fact - which is based on objective reality - is also rejected as a result, which is a bit of a problem if you're dealing with facts on a daily basis, as is the case in journalism. So what we see reported by the media aren't so much cool, detached facts, as much as the reporter's personal version of reality.

Another, moral consequence of the rejection of reality is, that good and bad, right and wrong, truth and lie, are denied in the same way; or to put it in another way: everybody is 'right' from his or her own particular point of view, and anything 'bad' is called 'bad', only because it doesn't fit into our present, defective idea of society.

The spectacle of pretended journalistic objectivity has run for a long time, until quite recently - at last, pretence was dropped altogether. But the objective realists are now starting to fight back. Lists are appearing with facts, detailing when, why and how the facts were manipulated to conform with somebody's particular 'narrative', attempts at disinformation, censoring, fraud, spin and counter-spin, fibs and lies, fabrication, selective emphasizing, manipulation and censoring, the whole dishonest spectrum.

~ Continued from Part 2 ~

I recently reported, and made some work of, an example of the typical modern activist in the person of a young Belgian convert to Islam. Eva Vergaelen is academically trained in higher crypto Marxism and obtained a degree in Neo Imperialism (or, How We Rule the Third World) at Antwerp University. She expresses an interest in Identity and Gender Politics. In short, she is a glorified activist posing as a journalist, producing work on Islamization and Multiculturalism that is stripped of anything even remotely approaching balanced objectivity.


In the recent showdown in Brussels involving the institutionalised forces of Subjectivism as represented by Socialist mayor Freddy Thielemans on the one hand, and the Paneuropean organization "Stop the Islamization of Europe" on the other, she joined forces with the radical Hizbollah affectionate, Dyab Abu Jahjah of the Arab European League, in producing a thoroughly toxic article that was filled to the brim with lies and revisionism. It was briefly published on the site of The Brunei Times, but has since been removed. The sole purpose of such invective can only be the poisoning of the atmosphere against the West within the Dar-al-Islam. One wonders just how many Eva Vergaelens roam the tortured land.

Rummaging further through my archive yielded:

- Douglas Hanson's article "The Real Lesson of the Beauchamp Affair" (there may be another such an affair in the making). The Hanson article not just lists that recent scandal, but also throws another light on the Abu Graib scandal, which he terms a "high quality disinformation operation" that played off Iraqi and Arab historical ethnic, racial and cultural biases, indicating that this was run by seasoned professionals in journalism and their government 'sources';

- Tito's bunkers in Iraq, containing the illusive WMD;

- The NIE report;

- The Hamari atrocities, as covered by independent journalist Michael Yon, and ignored by the MSM;

- The Haditha Massacre is another case in point: read the whole article on Accuracy in Media "Haditha Massacre: Media and Terrorist Hoax", which prompted NewsMax to a spot of impromptu fund-raising to cover the legal expenses of the accused;

- Or the reporting on the Beslan massacre. On the same link you will find how normal, professional journalism has become so rare, that it is covered in laurels!

Inconvenient facts are preferably spun into favourable public perceptions, or they are reduced to 'somebody's personal opinion'; alternatively they are suppressed altogether (voluntary or otherwise), or - case need - dealt with through the courts.

These days we have Leftist inspired hatred laws at the expense of free speech and freedom of conscience. These laws are little else but legal back up for political correctness, in other words, the Left's soft social pressure to conform with their morality and political agenda, which they share with their partner in the Unholy Alliance, institutionalized Islam. Read "Stop Forum Shopping Terrorism" by Flanders Fields for a very important case. Said Rachel Ehrenfelt was recently the guest of Pamela Geller's at BlogTalkRadio. The broadcast is available here.

Consider this from Doug Giles' recent article on Townhall: we are "bamboozled into believing that Islam is a peaceful, Little House on the Prairie religion being temporarily hijacked by jihadist renegades".

The combined, cultural egalitarianism of the Unholy Alliance may have prompted a commentary in Examiner by John R. Thomson "Whose Genocide Will it Be": "America is berated for heinous crimes, minimizing whatever may have been done by the regimes of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein and, currently, Sudanese President and Field Marshal Omar al-Bashir".

Let me stress at this point that all these totalitarian dictatorships are based on the rejection of reality fallacy (see Chart I: the Straight Red Line), sharing the same Counter-Enlightenment heritage as originated by Rousseau.

Giles again: "Simultaneously, the accusations are calculated to inflame the credulous Arab/Muslim street, in order to justify murderous Muslim terrorism, to recruit gullible suicide bombers and to attract covert support from Saudi Arabia, once a stalwart U.S. ally." Hm, the 'inflame' part reminds me of Eva and The Brunei Times ...

"This propaganda campaign seeks to distract the world's attention from the real murderers, the true ethnic and religious cleansers. For the truth is, the perpetrators to an overwhelming degree are the Muslims themselves." To make the sinister list:

- Indonesia 500-600.000 - Bangladesh 1.4-2 million - Somalia 600.000 - Sudan 5-6 million and counting - Afghanistan's Soviet invasion 1.5 million, "the American invasion in 2001 created perhaps 10,000 fatalities" - the Iran/Iraq war 1.5 million on the side of Iraq, and 450-970.000 Iranians - in Iraq, Saddam's war on his own people, another 1 million deaths - Syrian fratricide in Syria 20.000, and in Lebanon 130.000 - The article further mentions Chad, Jordan, Mauretania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Turkey, Yemen and Zanzibar.

The apocalyptic figures are only rivalled by the hecatombs piled up by the heirs of Marx on the same altars of egalitarian collectivism! This, of course, is no coincidence. Both vistas enjoy an inherent justification to violence, and an end-justifies-the-means mentality.

I have no doubt whatsoever that any Pomo activist with an agenda would gladly counter those figures with the perversity of the Iraq Body Count (go ahead: check it!) - and "the Christian counterpart of the Iraqi fratricide", the Irish Troubles (4,000 fatalities), just so that things are put into perspective!

It's only appropriate to wrap this post up with Randall Hoven's "It's Not Just Scott Beauchamp" in American Thinker, a brave effort in almost comprehensively listing all the "lying and fabricating, doctoring photos, plagiarism, conflicts of interest, falling for hoaxes, and overt bias" in the recent history of damaged journalism.

Hoven's figures break down as follows: of the total count of 62 cases in the United States alone, 7 are in relation to Iraq, and 4 to the Middle East. Case number 28 makes clear that the Leftist press has been at it since The New York Times' Walter Duranty hailed the accomplishments of Stalin era Soviet Union. I conclude with Randall Hoven that:

"If it is 'too good to be true', or just too politically correct to be true, take it with a grain of salt - several grains, apparently, if from The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The New Republic, CNN or Reuters ... If this is the visible part of the iceberg, just how big is the iceberg?"

To which I can add a query of my own: I'm just so curious what the figures for Europe would be!

In the meantime there's an update in which Hoven effortlessly lists another 21 cases, of which 4 relate to the combustible Islam, Middle East, AQ triangle.

Copyright © 2006-7 The Lighthouse

Από Meitje @ 30/8/2007 0:36 | Permalink | Σχόλια
Tags: postmodernim , counter-enlightenment movement , marxism , press from hell , islam , the left

First a reminder that the SIOE Petition to the Mayor of Brussels, Freddy Thielemans to allow the 9/11 rally "Stop Islamization of Europe" can be signed HERE.

Another petition, addressed to the Mayor of Londonistan for a SIOE activity in England, is available HERE.

Mayor Freddy "Champagne Charlie" Thielemans' prohibition of the Brussels rally is informative in more ways than one. He's not just showing his true totalitarian Socialist colours, not merely wiping his feet on the basic rights of indigenous Europeans, his prohibition is also a slap in the face of families that made personal sacrifices to ensure, that Europe would be democratic, and free of dictators with grandiose vistas of bringing about their version of a collective Utopia by coercion.

Consider the latest update from SIOE HQ: an open letter to Freddy Thielemans, reading:

"Dear Sir: You obviously need a historical reminder. My Father served in the Canadian Armed Forces during World War II. He and countless others sacrificed their youth and their lives, to give you and your fellow European citizens the very freedoms that you have enjoyed these past 60+ years ... Your denial of this protest is a very clear indication that Europe is once again on the threshold of falling to another group of fascist thugs. Who will help Europe to free themselves from the new brand of fascism  Islamic fascism?"

"... If the SIOE are not given permission to proceed with their demonstration, complaints will be lodged against the European Union with the Canadian government, and all European embassies located in Canada. Also, protests will be launched urging fellow citizens, including family members of World War II Veterans to boycott all products from the European Union and travel within those countries.
Jane Hand, Canada >>>

To which I might add that my family in all probability would not have been threatened by extinction, had my uncle - a medical student, and 22 years old at the time - not been shot down as a United States Air Force man over the Black Sea.

This is the face of a young man who might have lived, have had children and grandchildren, become a physician and saved lives, had it not been for the ideas and actions of collectivists of the like of Champagne Charlie. L'Histoire ηe repθte.

Another open letter, another slap in the face ... of another subjugated indigenous people, Egypt's Copts:

"Dear Mayor Thielemans,
Regarding your decision to ban the "Stop Islamisation Of Europe" demonstration ... I would like to remind you that there are many communities, other than Muslims, who have settled in Europe. Many of these communities have chosen Europe for their home because of its tolerance, democracy and free speech. Some of these have had to flee Islamic persecution ..."


NACA is "dismayed that you have unilaterally decided to ban the demonstration ... This goes against the principles of the European Union ... you are yourself culpable in the Islamisation of Europe ... It would have been far better if you had advised your Muslim constituents to either ignore the demonstration or better still to hold a peaceful counter demonstration on the 11th, or at some other time. If you fear violence from your Muslim citizens you would be far better employed in educating them as to Western values the rest of us enjoy and uphold.
Yours truly
Morris Sadek Esq >>>

Yes, terror works ... In the meantime in Copenhagen ... it takes more than the sad dhimmitude of a Socialist quisling to demoralize the intrepid Vikes:

"In the light of Brussels' mayor Freddy Thielemans's prohibitions of SIOE's march 11/9:

We feel that Belgium as host country of the EU has a responsibility that E.U. citizens can express their concern for the E.U.'s decisions. Like any other dictator Thielemans has changed all this with a stroke of a pen. Meet up in front of Belgium's embassy in Denmark on Friday August the 17th at 19.00 and participate in a peaceful demonstration for the freedom of expression in the E.U. and in Denmark.
Action group "Freedom of Speech NOW!"
Anders Gravers
SIOE Denmark >>>

Update on the coverage:

The Bloggers:
- Halal Pig International: "We'll March to Celebrate Freddy Thielemans' Birthday!"
- The invective on the Halal Pig French language site is screened behind a Blogger censor disclaimer (so incorrect, all those democratically expressed opinions!)
- The Belgian Hunter (De Jager) is pointing to a prior demo in Denmark and asks "Who's aggressive here?"
- Dutch politician Geert Wilders' Forum for Freedom is worried. The Forum lists a number of obstacles:

- The demo is being held mid-week, reason why many people shall not be able to participate.
- There is no direct political trigger for the march, for example impending European legislation expected to have a negative impact on further Islamization.
- Another problem is that Neo Nazis have already taken an interest. This was anticipated, reason why participants have been urged to observe the rules set out by the organization. This notwithstanding the trolls have already booked transportation. Regretfully the democratic anti Islamists have not managed to claim ownership and organize bus transport themselves. This can still happen. In any case it will be difficult to have the demo radiate the required message: Pro Democracy and Anti Islamization [siq]. (Otherwise Very Free translation.)

And the Rest of the Press:

- Investors.com: "Backlash Overdue" (!) - Recommended: a very interesting article with further evidence of Islamization.
- Cybercast News Service: "Anti-Shari'a March Banned, But 'Spontaneous' Actions Likely"
- HLN.Be: "Burgemeester verbiedt anti-Islambetoging in Brussel" (Flemish)

Copyright © 2006-7 The Lighthouse

Από Meitje @ 17/8/2007 0:21 | Permalink | Σχόλια
Tags: sharia law , sioe , islam , eu

Today, 15th August - the Celebration of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary - departing Bishop Muskens of the provincial Diocese of Breda, in the southern Netherlands - is shocking us with a proposal for non Muslims to use the name of 'Allah' for God.

I have to give the reader fair warning: this is an interesting story if you're into it, but there are no abbreviations or short-cuts here.

The cleric's proposal is a shock and an education at the same time, on a number of levels. At first sight his proposal isn't a contribution to 'the multicultural society' or a shot at syncretism, but rather a further step in the mono-cultural and mono-religious direction - of Islam, that is: a proposal to voluntarily give up the single most essential principle of Western culture, our name of God and all what that entails, presumably in exchange for .... what?

On an intellectual level the proposal is a typical Postmodern one: truth does not exist, all cultures/beliefs are equally valid. This ridiculous Marxist lie gives birth to the further fallacy, that everything under God's sky that shares a generic term, is by consequence 'the same'.

We touched on that yesterday, when we educated the Dutch in relation to the new Robert Spencer book "Religion of Peace? Why Christianity is and Islam isn't", that not all religions are 'the same'. Departing Bishop Muskens falls into the same trap with his proposal, which entails that Allah and God are fully synonymous and readily interchangeable.

Not being a theologian, it doesn't befit me to go into this very far, but obvious differences are that the Christian God is a threefold principle, who loves man, whom He created in His image, and - not without significance - is knowable, intelligible, which brings Natural Philosophy so far as to posit: the more Intelligible, the more Being.

Until Marxism taught us better by blessing us with minorities, this idea gave rise to the equality of all men - and by extension to human rights and democracy, to scientific enquiry (investigations into nature and the universe), and the idea - simply abhorred by Muslims and Postmoderns alike - that humanity progresses towards a teleological, predestined end game.

Allah on the other hand, is One and transcendental, flighty and chaotic, and is basically unknowable to us poor humans, who are His playthings, to dispose over as He sees fit.

An investigative short cut to Bishop Muskens relevant Wikipedia entry learns he didn't attend seminary. Well, it figures - also in relation to a number of things he has said in the past - he does seem to suffer from an intellectual lacuna which plays tricks on him at crucial times.

A few years ago the Red Bishop gave us the first shock, in admitting - in reference to wars and genocide - he has a problem with Christianity, stemming from the apparent existence of evil and injustice in the world. To him it doesn't follow that Goodness cannot even exist in the absence of Evil.

Catholic Scholasticism, which gave us Natural Philosophy (or Moral Law - Pope Benedict XVI is at present working on a popular re-introduction) is taught at seminaries, and teaches human voluntarism or free will, rendering such miseries not mischievous Acts of God, but simply the result of human action.

If men hadn't free will, how can we possibly come to any moral decisions? This lays the basis for the idea, that the only natural environment for man, is liberty. This being the reason why mentally and emotionally mature people prefer freedom over Statism and Collectivism.

Those ideas obviously aren't part of the Red Bishop's theological tool kit. The cleric has made a habit out of transmitting the wrong message. A few years back, at the time of an economic downturn, he came up with the morally deplorable missive that is was "okay for the poor to steal a loaf of bread".

That was probably not what he literally said - and apparently it is part of Catholic morality provided the choice is misappropriation or starvation - but in a rich country like the Netherlands where dying of hunger isn't an issue, his words in practice meant that it was acceptable to defraud the state, if that could get you a social security benefit.

So now we are faced with the Bishop's proposal of dhimmitude. Reactions to his words are mixed, but it figures that the chairman of the Dutch Muslim Council "has no problem with it" and that the difference between the two is "in the details"; I dare say that - seen from the perspective of an a sterile religion, the scientific approach to Creation, liberty and human rights, might seem mere details - they are however the essential substance of Western existence!

That bastion of Marxist Catholicism, the peace movement Pax Christi, thinks the proposal is 'worth further deliberation in such polarizing times' (that's probably after they've gotten over the regret, they haven't thought of it themselves!).

The site of the Diocese of Breda goes into historical, linguistic and cultural detail [1] and it is of course very reassuring to read that 'Allah' has really very little to do with Muslims, Islam or the Koran, as this name of God already existed before the Islamic conquest. But that explanation begs the question, what then - for crying out loud - is the meaning of the proposal in the first place?

To placate the Copts and other 'oriental Christians' so that they don't take to the Arab streets, shouting Hell and Brimstone over some perceived grievances, while committing arson and murder in the process? What a load of BS!

The poison has been in the bloodstream for decades: after Red Catholicism and Liberation Theology, thank Heaven! we've got dhimmitude as a vehicle to destroy the Roman Church from within (see Chart II: the Subversion Program).

Red Bishop Muskens is about to join a monastery to spend the last days of his activist life growing giant cauliflowers, or brewing monastic ale, or perhaps playing a significant role in the production of traditional monastic cheese, but I dare say - for Catholicism his goodbye doesn't come a moment too soon. At least Pope Benedict XVI will have one relativist element less to deal with.

The clarification on the site of the Diocese of Breda concludes with the assertion that if Muslims and Christians address God with the same name, "this contributes to harmonious living together." I posit that quite the opposite is the case, and that it would be far better if - instead of proposals to merge - we would engage in actions of mutuality and respect.

Bees Pee Upon Them All!

Copyright © 2006-7 The Lighthouse

Από Meitje @ 16/8/2007 0:06 | Permalink | Σχόλια
Tags: scholastics , marxism , catholicism , islam , relativism

This blog, for some time now, has been strongly decrying the present day, overtly biased journalistic efforts as practiced by the mainstream media (MSM), in violation of any professional code that may stand in the way of the new calling!

At present limiting ourselves to an European example, journalism has allowed the E.U., and in turn national governmentspokespersons, to enact Orwell's 1984 new speak, guiding them on the use of terminology and idiom: which words are allowed and which are deemed politically incorrect, and thus blacklisted by the boys in Brussels.

Here's but the latest reporting: a post by Conservative Beach Girl on the role of the MSM in the Beslan matter. I predict it will shortly reach the point of active aiding and abetting!

Self-censorship and suppression of 'undesirable' news items is regretfully, today, normalcy in journalistic circles. The self-confessed bias of the erstwhile icon of independent quality journalism, the BBC, has reached such infamy that it may even pride itself on a number of dedicated blogs, exclusively following the beeb's sad track record.

Spin and manipulation of the public have become the merchandise of the mainstream media; political activism a second nature, not standing in the way of professional reporting.

It therefore stands out like a honest newspaper in Oceania when a bread-and-butter news site like the Irish Independent is publishing a reality-based report on the encroaching Islamization that is taking the West by stealth.

In the article, "Forget lily-livered liberalism, time to take stand and say we don't want Muslim immigrants", the Independent is indeed doing just that - Hat tip Foehammer's Anvil

Therefore belatedly (the article is dated 17th July) these pages are awarding the first "Lighthouse Laurels for Journalistic Courage" to the "Independent" of Ireland!

Lest we be accused of bias on the side of Islamophobia, xenophobia, racism, jingoism, culturalism, or whatever other divisive term the neo totalitarianscan think up in order to control the masses and public opinion to enforce soft submission, herewith again the usual caveats and disclaimers towards peaceful, freedom loving Muslims living in our midst, who also decry Al Queda c.s. for what they are.

Which reminds me to draw some attention to a recent postby Dr Sanity, analyzing the current predicament. I think the following describes beautifully and incisively the violence a defender's soul must endure in order to preserve freedom against a ruthless enemy ... "they have deliberately brought civilization to a "time beyond human wisdom."

"When we are finally cornered and must allow our own barbarism to surface to combat theirs head to head, then we must be prepared to live with the consequences, including the agonizing guilt that will ensue, or everything we hold dear, everything we aspire to become, will forever perish from this earth." "We could have lived with them, did they not insist that we must become what they are or die. But it is they who have defined the ground rules (or the non-rules) of this conflict; and it is they who have set the playing ..."

Copyright © 2006-7 The Lighthouse

Από Meitje @ 7/8/2007 19:29 | Permalink | Σχόλια
Tags: nuj , beslan , al qaeda , islam , islamo-nazism , eu

In yesterday's post on Islamic designs emanating from Albania, on Kosovo for starters, we have spoken of the line in the sand of the Kosovo Polje. While Islamization is taking the West by stealth, it would appear that the process in Kosovo, being played out since the eighties of the last century, took more overt modes of operation.

Little did the West know - or even care - what happened behind "the Iron Curtain", the place where Yugoslavia resided. That may also have been the reason the public was so easily hoodwinked by the unfolding effects of 4th Generation Warfare, viz. spinning the facts into favourable public perceptions, a trick the Socialists By The Third Way (viz. Messrs Clinton & Blair c.s.) have elevated to a form of fine art. I will come back to this shortly in another post, but right now I'd like to showcase Europe's line in the sand, because there always is sooner or later... a line in the sand.

The question is, where, when and how? Where? Well, for one in Denmark, the country that hosted the Mohammed cartoon row, causing all that Muslim rage and indignation. On the initiative of Danish political party SIAD (Stop the Islamization of Denmark) Europe's indigenous grievances are to be taken to Brussels. A Europe wide demo is to be be staged on 9/11. I'm not sure what that date means: American style 11th of September, a symbolic if dramatic choice indeed, or the European way of indicating the 9th of November? I hope that will be cleared up.

The SIOE (Stop Islamization of Europe) site further clarifies that "researchers at the University of Copenhagen, after conducting population studies, have calculated that the ethnic Danes (the original population) will become a very small minority in their own country by the end of this century." This is true for a great many European countries.

While politicians, from the ill-informed to the naive, from the KGB ideologically demoralized baby-boomers now in power, to the plain evil and treacherous - urging unwilling indigenous populations to submit and integrate themselves into the Muslim culture - the character of the continent is in the process of being changed forever beyond any recognition.

The Reverend Monseigneur Georg Gδnswein, Pope Benedict XVI's private secretary, in a recent interview with the Sόddeutsche Zeitung Magazin warns Europe not to underestimate the dangers of the increasing Islamization. He underlines that the persecution of Christians in the Dar-al-Islam has increased dramatically. And according to repeated assertions issued by the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the count-down for the destruction of Israel has begun.

"The dangers associated with a changing identity of Europe may not be ignored out of erroneous considerations. The Pope's Regensburger speech was supposed to work against a certain naivety." Personally I don't see it any longer in that favourable, innocent light, having gone from naivety to conceit and plain treason. "Erroneous considerations" probably being Ideologically Correct Silence or possibly, the Postmodern (Neo Marxist, relativist, subjectivist) fallacy of holding one culture as good as any other.

The SIOE site posts an article - a cry for help really - by French philosopher and secondary school teacher Robert Redecker, first published in Le Figaro on 19th September 2006. It is just one of many stories of Europeans, exercising their right of free speech, only to see it answered by threats against their lives: fatwas setting them on the run in the own countries, even to the point of protective custody, as was the case with Geert Wilders and Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the Netherlands.

Dr Sanity's psychological analysis - always insightful - is particularly fruitful the last days. Those still at a loss what moves our Muslim brothers and sisters might be well informed by reading the following joint efforts by the entire Sanity Squad:

- A Deer in the Headlights;

- The Ring of Power;

- Paranoia and Projection in the Arab World: the Externalization of Blame for Arab/Islamic Dysfunction **UPDATED**.

The problem very briefly boils down to the fact that the 'superior' faith of Islam should have brought the faithful prosperity, knowledge and riches. Instead it has rendered the opposite: it led to ignorance, poverty and squalor. Faced with the intractable dilemma between that, or giving that pernicious faith up, they now project all evil that is of their own making, externally.

If only Israel didn't exist, if there was no 'Palestinian problem' the Middle East would be a prosperous place. If only they were no Christians, Islam would rule the world. This is the reason Muslims are incapable of accepting criticism. Crisis point has been reached, it now being full blown pathological paranoia. In fact, were peace to break out tomorrow, they wouldn't know what to do with themselves. This being the reason things are unsolvable.

I don't want to leave you without sharing Dr Sanity's post of today, which particularly moved me: inspirational and beautiful, if reality weren't so bloody brutal. Here's an excerpt from "The Cost of Freedom: Fighting and defeating the new barbarians will exact a great toll. The question is, are we willing to pay it?":

"Remember how quickly the West was willing to compromise our freedom of speech in the Danish cartoon matter in order to accommodate the enemy's threats? Consider how many other accommodations many of us are willing--and eager--to make to ensure the Death-Eaters of our own world won't get angry or upset with us over anything.

"And we can't even criticize their insane religion/ideology of death without having the priests of multicultural nihilism swoop down upon us. Very soon, we will have compromised away all that matters to us for the sake of "peace" (but which is really a sort of voluntary enslavement enforced via a societal suicide pact); and in the end, we will no longer have either our precious freedom, nor will we have peace.

"Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

Note for the Greek readership: The 9/11 demo organization SIOE has let it be known it seeks volunteers in Greece for translation and P.R. work. If interested please leave a comment, detailing name and email address.

Copyright © 2007 The Lighthouse

Από Meitje @ 28/7/2007 16:33 | Permalink | Σχόλια
Tags: ideological demoralization , islam , denmark , eurabia , albania , israel

When posting "Of Political Entertainment and Slumber" a few days ago, on the ludicrous dithers and slithers taken by the U.S. Democrats, so as to convince the anti-war grassroots of the Democrat defeatist credentials, in an update I linked to the latest Works and Days article by Victor Davis Hanson "Defeat and Flight from Iraq". His comments and outline of the inevitable, long term, geopolitical consequences of white-flagging the Iraq war, are very ominous indeed.

Going through the entire article again I stumbled upon two 'angry' letters he received - otherwise known as hate mail - that are quite revealing. One is from a 23 year old postmodern who in a quite unreasonable tone, based on his exploits in Chinese, claims to be more capable of reasoning than the accomplished writer himself: it is of course typical of people in certain stage of development to make such miscalculations.

Both letters are from recent arrivals in the United States. In the one case his parents probably took considerable risk to illegally move from Mexico, so that their children would have better opportunities in the U.S. He's now a orthopedic who cannot spell, so that was probably the right career move on his part.

The 23 year old postmodern with Bush Derangement Syndrome, apart from the mastery of Chinese and his obvious accomplishments in Marxist Critical Theory, suffers from a whole lot besides, but that is not the point I'd like to make.

Both letters simply ooze envious hatred, for the author, towards white culture, for America in general, and by extension towards - what I would like to term by now, The White Patriarch paradigm: the archetypal Counter-Enlightenment Oppressor, the litany well known by regular readers of present pages: white, rich, powerful, Christian males and all they stand for.

That's when it hit me that - while these two crass examples are probably new Americans of Hispanic descent, and Europe has similar experiences with Muslims of any part of the Dar-al-Islam - these immigrants don't come to their adoptive country out of admiration for customs, people or culture, but out of sheer hatred with a view of milking it for what it is worth.

Their objective isn't integration into these societies as proud new citizens, taking thankful advantage of all the opportunities that free, liberal, Western societies have to offer, they come as conquerors who hate the people that made the West what it is today. If they didn't set out as such, I'm sure there are quite a few indigenous, postmodern adherents to Marx' and Rousseau's narratives of Oppressed versus Oppressor, to brief them on the subject.

If all this sounds like stating the politically incorrect obvious, then why - for crying out loud - are we pretending it isn't the case, convincing ourselves instead that immigrants come with all the good intentions? This, with the usual caveats and disclaimers about obvious heaps of well intentioned, sincere ...... etc.

Frontpage relays an article by Ed West in The Catholic Herald of 18th July, "Jihad Will Destroy Us If We Don't Act Now". It is an interview West had with Robert Spencer, author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades)" and blogger on the recently censored Jihad Watch.

Contrary to the predictable prejudice from the multicultural Left, the author has a broad and thorough background studying Christian heritage, as well as Islamic scripture. He too noticed the reasons why the cooperation of broadly The Left and Radical Islamism in the Unholy Alliance isn't strange or even a coincidence!

While I call my argument of the Straight Red Line, based on the brilliant analysis of Stephen Hicks into recollection (here's the chart and here's a link to the first part of the series), in Spencer's words:

"There is a deep ideological affinity between the Left and the jihadists. Whenever the hard Left gained power they instituted a reign of terror in order to create what they envisage as a just society, brought about by force. Islamic law works in much the same way: utopia created by force."

What they share is of course - for starters - the subjectivist, primacy of consciousness base [1] of the Counter-Enlightenment, which basks in the cruel sun of Rousseau's and Marx' political justification of violence to bring about social change.

Spencer too mentions the numbers game - the disastrous demographics which the Left has reframed into the tired 'advancing geriatrics' excuse instead of facing the truth, viz. the exceedingly low birthrates, the result of problems created by Socialist policies: the gradual and deliberate destruction of the family as the operative unit, and other advancing forms of social engineering) (see also Neo Totalitarianism (6): Liberty for Social Security and Chart II: The Subversion Program).

Spencer is spot on in his perception of the widening gap between on the one hand the persistent push of the postmodern multicultural elite for Western society's integration into an "Eurabian" culture (see recent remarks by a Dutch senior government minister to that avail), a goal shared and pushed by both the mainstream national political parties and the boys in Brussels, and on the other hand the actual situation in the streets of cities and towns all over the West, the growing discontent of the voters.

Any attempt of as much as naming the taboo, causes the mainstream to break out in knee-jerk apoplectic shock, recalling visions of Nazi Germany and pictures of the holocaust - which by the way doesn't keep the Left from currently developing nasty cases of unadulterated antisemitism, a reminder of the Collectivist common necessity of a scapegoat, to blame the negative effects of otherwise picture perfect policies on.

Psychologist Dr Sanity is also at work on above article by Victor Davis Hanson, but leaves the hate mail for what it is and moves on to a similar case of the Left's responsibility for Spenser's cataclysmic vista of civil war: in "Without a Blink" she observes correctly:

"Interesting to note that what 'gives the pre-modern fascist killers a pass' is the post-modern rhetoric and dogma of the left. It is precisely this inherently psychologically dysfunctional cognitive strategy that is able to shift, 'without a blink' from one subjective conviction to its exact opposite without a shred of self-awareness or mental dissonance."

She draws a comparison of Radical Islam with a malicious physical condition: likewise it "has manifested itself today and is spreading rapidly for pretty much the same reason, having been given an ideological carte blanche by the political Left ... with its political correctness and relativistic multicultural fantasies have managed to suppress and otherwise short-circuit the natural defense mechanisms of Western civilization."

"Radical Islamic ideology is itself an unexpected combination of several toxic memes ... which has been carefully synchronized with the failed totalitarian ideologies of the last century ... the remaining outposts of communism and socialism in the world are thriving in academic and "intellectual" circles in the West; together with the Islamic fanatics of the world, they have created a postmodern symphony whose cacophonous music only facilitates the descent into emotionalism, hysteria and murderous suicidality. Without a blink, the left switched from their lip-service championing human life and liberty to championing those whose main desire is to suppress it and bring all of humanity into submission."

A truly ugly picture is gradually emerging of how the role of Bezmenev's de-moral-ized generations that are currently in power, is costing the West its future, its culture and its freedom. The totalitarian Left to date has got away with 110 million victims. I - for one - have no intention of letting them add to that - Liberal moral hatred lawsor not.

Copyright © 2007 The Lighthouse

Από Meitje @ 22/7/2007 0:54 | Permalink | Σχόλια
Tags: antisemitism , counter-enlightenment movement , islam , eurabia , iraq , europe

Nation: c.1300, from O.Fr. nacion, from L. nationem (nom. natio) "nation, stock, race," lit. "that which has been born," from natus, pp. of nasci "be born" (see native).

Meet the transnational state of the future: Kosovo. It is roughly 100 square miles or 140km2 of highly rugged territory, sandwiched between Serbia and Albania, and Montenegro and - courtesy of the Greeks who for the time being object to the story of their nation being hijacked by historical upstarts, the diplomatic entity going by the elegant acronym of FYROM.

The Balkan Peninsula, being traditionally one of the world's highly inflammable tender spots, is an NGO paradise come true for experiments in international social engineering (multiculturalism and transnationalism: see also "Yes, to an Islamic State in the Balkans" and "Some Darned Thing in the Balkans"). Like bringing democracy to the Middle East it is a high stakes gamble, akin to lighting a cigarette in a kerosene depot. The last time I opened a history book the local buzz words were self-determination and autonomy. The Balkans ever have been the living proof of the futility of multiculturalism. So it is a bit of a challenge to The Construction Team but the pay-off will be well worth the effort. And the international community will boast yet another peace producing export product after the completion of the E.U.

The Balkans - like the Middle East - is awash with cloak and dagger stories. One documented conspiracy theory of Serbian origin is based on the Yugoslav wars of the late last century and the planned Albanian Macedonian Bulgarian Oil Corporation (AMBO) pipeline, carrying Russian Caspian oil via the Bulgarian port of Burgas to the Albanian port of Vlore. As the joint venture is registered in the U.S. - the beating heart of Capitalism - and Germany is seen to have rang in the first Yugoslav war by adexterous diplomatic maneuvering, this has given rise to theories about outside economic interests and the wars of independence having been willfully caused to break up the happy national-socialistic unity under the late President Slobodan Milosevic.

The same mechanism is at work from all sides in respect of the U.N. protectorate of Kosovo. NGOs are accused of gross favouritism towards Albania and the Albanian Kosovars, ostensibly because they need their cooperation with regard to the pipeline. It is an area rife with conspiracy theories, reason for me to stay away from these aspects of the case: remember 'oil' conspiracies in the earlier stages of the Iraq war - a subject now dead ...? I'm still waiting for the apologies ...

It is certain however that diplomatically and politically something is afoot. The U.N. does not have the legal power to declare countries independent; nevertheless, if Security Council member and Serb ally Russia doesn't veto the transnational plan, drawn up by the U.N. Secretary General's special envoy Martti Ahtisaari, de facto the U.N. will have done exactly that.

It will provide a precedent for any other area in the world with separatist aspirations or with an axe to grind, to go the same route. But perhaps this is exactly what the Transnational Progressive community have in mind: supporting the breaking up of nation-states, thereby creating a faithful future clientele in the "NGO community of free nations", and the gradual end to the monocultural remnants of the era of "sectarian war after war, and wave after wave of ethic cleansing", as the latest postmodern propaganda slogan goes. Reason for a game of international hypocrisy: while the plan doesn't use the i-word, all parties understand it allows the protectorate E.U. supervised independence and all the trappings of statehood - in the Balkans still articles of reverence: a flag, an anthem, but also a parliament, a constitution and citizenship, moreover the ability to contract and join membership of international "communities of free nations".

Pertinent to our investigation in Transnationalism are the comments in an article written by one the Three-fold Kings of the Multicultural Borg ("Resistance is Futile"), Timothy Carton Ash in his pamphlet of preference, Al-Guardian on 15th February, carrying the revealing title "Why Kosovo should become the 33rd (E.U.) member - and Serbia the 34th (E.U. member)": "The way forward for Kosovo is not nation-building or even state-building, but member-state-building. And for Serbia too. This means European leaders having the courage and vision to say that we actually want a further enlargement of the E.U., because only then will peace be secured in the Balkans and Europe be whole and free."

For all Garton Ashes' glorying of transnational entities and disdain for the nation-state, he doesn't lack a sense of symbolism: he sees the entire Balkan to join the union, "as proposed a few years ago by a commission chaired by Giuliano Amato, on the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of the first world war, the Sarajevo summit of 2014 should celebrate this achievement"

Kosovo moreover provides a chance of experimenting in the development of a moderate, liberal, European, form of Islam, long seen as The Solution to the problems of integrating a large Muslim population into Europe. It proves to the Turks and Eurabia that the E.U. isn't a Christian club (God forbid!) and it may be an important asset in isolating Jihadism. If a beautiful Utopian thought, as is usual with the ideologues it doesn't reckon with the Wahhabi type assertively in seeking world Islamic dissemination: it has already been reported that Saudi financed mosques and madrassas are being built on the territory of Kosovo. In this chilling Front Page article it transpires that even some Jews are taken in by the propaganda.

It is rarely mentioned as such, but in the mainstream press, in the international community and in the eyes of common citizens in the West it is often Serbia that is seen as the jingoistic culprit, held responsible for the anachronistic goings-on in the Balkans during the 1990's, ruining postmodern and middle class appetites night after night, watching the news reports on television.This common wisdom is made easy by the guilt attached to the roles played in the wars by N.A.T.O. and the U.S., but above all by the cowardice of the E.U. and the pathetic, immoral attempts at 'field marshaling' by the U.N.

The whole confounded thing came crashing down with the proclamation of strategically counter-instinctive enclaves, the so-called 'Muslim safe havens' by a sentimental, if single-minded French general with a conscience and a misplaced sense of chivalry. But after nobody appeared to be willing or able to preserve the neutrality of the enclaves, and Muslim fighters launched daily attacks on Serbian forces out of the safe havens, the Serbs in the person of General Mladic decided to put an end to this unsustainable situation.

The U.N. declined to defend the safe havens that were created in its name, resulting in the execution of thousands of Muslim civilians (or fighters, as the case may have been - in any case they were all men), and Dutch U.N. troops at Srebrenica - whom the U.N. had seen fit to arm in conformance with the Boys' Handbook of Scouting so as not to 'provoke any violence' in the war zone - had the heroic task of overseeing the dismantling of one of the monstrosities.

"We never want to do this again", a N.A.T.O. Defence Minister is held to have said. "This" being conducting a war by committee, making moral and military issues subservient to legal U.N. niceties, resulting in the U.S. going it alone in Iraq without U.N. green light later on in history.

One thing and another seems to have caused blindness and disinterest for the facts and the Serbian side of the story. The Front Page article already mentioned also reveals that the late reporter Daniel Pearl as early as 1999 made a case for - gross exaggeration at best, or a war of propaganda at worst - on the part of the Albanian UCK (or Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA)) against Serbia. I remember at a time having the unsettling feeling of watching a film production rather than a journalistic news report; I dismissed it of course as unwarranted suspicion on my part.

What fills me with apprehension is the ease displayed by the international community to give in to Albanian threats, who see independence as "the only acceptable outcome", in the words of Kosovo President Fatmir Sejdiu. It is said that tensions could plunge the turbulent region back into violence.

More curious - what to think of a passage in a recent report produced by the International Crisis Group, an independent NGO, that by the way effortlessly reproduces a link to Garton Ash' biased article on Al-Guardian.
"Kosovo's Status: Difficult Months Ahead" states, and please note the emphatic imperative:

"The Contact Group should not permit further delay in Ahtisaari's proposals after Serbia's January elections and should not dilute them ... The E.U. Council should give its preparations and requirements for assuming post-status responsibilities in Kosovo more prominence, both for European public opinion and the Security Council. The incoming German Presidency should make uniting member states behind the Ahtisaari proposals a top priority. The Security Council should act promptly and positively when it receives Ahtisaari's proposals, recognising that delay would likely mean a return of Kosovo to its agenda soon in crisis circumstances." Alex Anderson, Crisis Group's Kosovo Project Director adding: "If Kosovo is to graduate to independence in 2007 - as it should - it must at the same time grow up."

No pretence of any neutrality there. The fear (or threat) for a new crisis by denying Kosovo independence doesn't convey any credibility in the face of the future crises that will follow the Kosovo precedent, which may cause entire regions to break away from nation-states. It makes no sense if the goal is stability!

Remarkable is Fourth Generation War theorist William Lind's comment in an article "That Flapping Sound you Hear": "... I want to state it as plainly as I can: in a Fourth Generation world, multiculturalism is the death of states ... cultural loyalties super-cede state loyalties."

While some nation-states will inevitably fall prey to the separatist Kosovo precedent, the international community's will on the other hand, as witnessed by the break away of Bosnia (and also witnessed in Iraq) want multicultural and multi-ethnic entities bound firmly together in federations and other umbrella unions. Huge semi democratic constructs are built as seen in yesterday's post, proportional power-sharing among unequal groups to replace traditional voting systems: the transnational version of democracy.

Serbia is being punished for misbehaving towards minorities by losing a large chunk of what it considers to be its heartland, conveying the message to the world at large, that multicultural or multi-ethnic states had better behave towards their minorities - even if it is the minorities that start causing trouble in a quest for independence - under the subjective principle that unequal groups must be compensated in proportion to their inequality. That the nation-state is seen to be losing legitimacy fast, is simply part of the message: you don't abide by transnational principles, you stop to exist.

As different groups and peoples are locked into multicultural states by social contract as we shall see in the last instalment, states themselves are locked into larger umbrella systems of interdependency, so as to ensure politically correct transnational behaviour amongst states, thus making the possibility of future wars virtually impossible.

Let's take a look at "The Ahtisaari Plan - what's inside?" "Ahtisaari's proposal is first and foremost a document designed to make Kosovo a multi-ethnic society. This means that the non-Albanian communities have been granted substantial powers. With more than 90% of Kosovo made up of Albanians, the minority Serb, Roma, Ashkali, Gorani, Egyptian, Turk and Bosniak communities are given tremendous influence in all sectors. In brief, Ahtisaari has designed an asymmetric state." The finer details, such as parliamentary seating arrangements and how in some areas one can only have heart by-pass surgery, in say - an Orthodox hospital, can be read in the full article.

Seeing - as in some recent cases, for example in Bosnia which rigidly kept Croats, Serbs and Muslims, separated together in one country, with no apparent benefit but hating each other to the core from up close - one wonders what the objection against the creation of a monocultural, or mono-ethnic nation-state exactly is?

Read 'Jurist' guest columnist Antony D'Amato of Northwestern University School of Law who says that creating an independent multi-ethnic state in Kosovo would almost certainly be a human rights disaster for the 200,000 Serbs living there, making up some ten percent of the total population. Nota bene: this is what you get if you lose the numbers game! D'Amato asks: "What about partitioning Kosovo into a Serbian and an Albanian territory?

The short answer is, that it wouldn't be conform the multicultural and transnational ideology. If Transnational Progressivism is seen as a method towards a conflict-free future, we will see the encouragement of the breaking up of states with a leading culture by way of the Kosovo precedent, while the interlocking into multicultural and multi-ethnic constructs under the benevolent management of democratically unaccountable NGOs, will be the favoured form of Empire for the future.

Since it conforms with the ideology (read: is politically correct), it is not expected that blood shed of any significance - caused by a heightened sense of nation, religious fervor or cultural differences - is likely in the transnational state of the future.

Από Meitje @ 27/5/2007 18:21 | Permalink | Σχόλια
Tags: fyrom , islam , kosovo , multiculturalism , albania , eu

Let us first turn to Fjordman and his buzz provoking article "Communism for the 21st Century", the University of Helsinki's critiques and Fjordman's subsequent rebuttal in "A Great Conversation", and various other commentators thereto.

It would appear from the text of the article that the University has remarked, that communism is neither synonymous with multiculturalism, nor with unlimited migration. Fjordman obviously recognises this and underlines that by 'neo-Communism' [sic] he means the 'whole package deal': they aren't identical, but they frequently coincide.

The reviewers further pose the astonishing remark that the opponents of multiculturalism labour under the false impression that multiculturalists do not consider culture to be important: "On the contrary, they find culture so important for each and every person, that it is considered a human right to be able to maintain at least some of it, regardless of where one happens to live."

At which point I am seriously in danger of bursting a blood vessel! This confirms my opinion that multiculturalists are either liars and hypocrites, or that they've had their brain cells relativised out of existence ("having lobotomized themselves, having already forgotten their lobotomies", as the present metaphor goes).

They know full well you cannot preserve anything of value by exposing it to the raw forces of (cultural) Darwinism. Unless you want the contenders to fight it out and let the best one win of course, and never mind the bloody mess which presumably they'll clean up afterward! (Note also the hapless attempt to separate identity from the place of birth, or any other accidental place where one happens to find oneself by the forces of nature!)

Fjordman's rebuttal to this piece of hypocrisy is important: in the heat of the arguments it is easily forgotten that:

"... by settling in another country, you have indirectly admitted that this country has a superior culture and should thus be required to adjust yourself to this culture, i.e. to assimilate."

I heartily agree with Fjordman, and would add that postmodernism's lack of wisdom and philosophical insight is probably to blame for not understanding, that if you value all equally and love none in particular, in fact you love none. Especially if you don't declare your own dogmatic belief in Darwinism applicable when it comes to cultures: when none is superior and predatory ones are taken not to exist, except of course Western culture which is inherently and uniquely evil. Once removed, they take for granted no other will fight its way to the top of the cultural food chain! This is Marxism's grave error! As with individuals, now with cultures.

When chasing the philosophical tenets of multiculturalism, Fjordman hits the relativist totalitarian jackpot when coming to the unavoidable conclusion as I did, as described in the post "Conned by the Left, Again", that ...

"... There are those who claim that it was never supposed to be logically consistent and that we shouldn't look for any cohesive, rational arguments behind it because there are none. What little can be discerned from its ideas is sometimes quite disturbing, with elements of anti-Western hatred [sic], totalitarian impulses and Utopian ideas involving large-scale social engineering."

He poses the great rhetorical question: "But isn't this alarming? Multiculturalism is now official state policy in many countries ... millions of people are subject to a radical ideology that is almost impossible to comprehend, and thus to criticize? Many ... know that it cannot be rationally defended, which is why they simply shut critics down with charges of racism and shame them into silence whenever they sense some opposition. In fact, it is now more or less illegal in some countries to criticize it, although it could mean the most massive transformation of our countries in modern history."

I can go further than that: if multiculturalism gets its way we will see a feat of social engineering in the coming decades, the likes of which have not been seen in human history. I also want to stress again and I keep on repeating it, because it is key to understanding multiculturalism:

multiculturalism is based on the pseudo philosophy of relativism, because that is the only way one can maintain that all personal opinions, cultures, religions, countries and what have you, are equally valid, and there is no such thing as good or bad. This in turn depends on the obvious lie that objective truth doesn't exist when they do claim the validity and eternal truth of human rights!
.

Because it is a lie, this fallacy is riddled with unanswered contradictions and oxymora [2], but the proponents couldn't care less. To them, the end justifies the means. All is subservient to The Cause. The principles of the scientific method (a theory must be falsifiable, which btw also Darwinism fails to do), and the basic law of natural philosophy (to be), don't apply to them! But in an effort to make the nonsense marketable to rational society, they presently propose to drop the multicultural cuckoo's egg in the Liberal nest, that they reason "is all about freedom anyway" (see the Easter Egg cycle, starting here).


According to Fjordman's Finnish correspondent, the multicultural 'solution' to migrant problems is to declare a number of human rights valid across the board and for the rest we simply " ... allow immigrants the right to keep their culture provided that they adhere to the central core of our values and follow the rules in our legal system."

Brilliant! Why didn't anyone think of that before now?! As if there weren't the teachings of Judeo-Christianity, and there never was a U.N. Declaration of inalienable Universal Human Rights! Which makes one wonder if the source of the problems with multiculturalists doesn't simply lie in their arrogance, a basic lack of knowledge and a very poor education ... (we'll come to that in a later part of the series).

Apart from the obvious fact that Islam - which is basically the law of a jealous, intolerant God - is inconsistent and incompatible with any laws ever thought up by humans, we also have the minor matter of deciding which human rights should be adopted as universal: largely due to the Left's inability to curtail their urge of engineering, Positive Human Rights have proliferated over the years to the point of farce.

That mushrooming of positive rights alone has greatly undermined and devalued them, whereas they should be untouchable and cast in granite, out of reach of the fickleness and illusions of the day. Human Rights are at the core of Judeo-Christian beliefs and values: they are the beating heart of Western culture.

Leftist secularism has hijacked and perverted them to the point they have become virtually unworkable. For those unfamiliar with the concept of Positive and Negative Human Rights and the hierarchy of Rights, this would be a good place to start reading about them. Or enter the key word into the search box above - we have written frequently on the subject and there are texts with very interesting links to the subject matter.

Fjordman also sees the problems and has no other solution than giving the indigenous culture precedence over immigrating ones. I agree. Migrants come voluntarily (if they aren't refugees) and they do so because they think to have better lives in the Western world. Also it is illogical and unpractical to ask the host to conform to all the adjusting tastes of his guests. But here we touch reason - which, as we know - isn't a postmodern strong point.

Furthermore, even multiculturalists see that for a balanced society the separation of church and state (secularism, laity) is required (by which I do not mean a religiously sterile state). The source of this principle [1], is Christianity, which should be a reason to honour and maintain its existence. Postmoderns have the simplistic conviction that it doesn't matter which culture is leading! A trip to the Dar al-Islam should suffice to prove otherwise.

Fjordman goes on to bring up the chilling 2001 article written by Hudson Institute Fellow John Fonte, "The Ideological War Within the West", which warrants its own post (part 4).

~ To be continued:  Dr Sanity provides us with a wonderful if shocking piece on the history of totalitarian education. Needless to say that indoctrination is the appropriate description. ~

 

Copyright © 2007 The Lighthouse

Από strieale @ 22/5/2007 18:32 | Permalink | Σχόλια
Tags: human rights , darwinism , islam , christianity , communism , multiculturalism

"I did what I thought was right". The end of an era. Tony Blair today announced he will tender his resignation to the Queen on 27th June after ten years in office. His Labour economic legacy is debatable. I haven't had the pleasure of seeing the U.K. up close for a while, and cannot really judge the fairness of statements like "whole towns are on the state's payroll: we have no one on the dole, we only have civil servants". What I do admire is the man's core decency, his patience and power of persuasion - at least, his efforts in casu the Iraq War, which I still consider to be a Liberation.

I still see him endlessly debating TV studios filled to the brink with hysterical anti war activists.Teenagers, some moved to tears with frustration over their incapacity to understand that removing a murderous tyrant from one of the world's strategic hot spots, is of a higher moral order than letting the bastard sit out his time at the rate of hundreds tortured to death on any given day, only to be succeeded by a dynasty of recreational serial rapists. Tony, you did the right thing!

There's no debating postmodern sentimentality and irrationality, is there? The time of great statesmen is definitely over as baby-boomers hold the reigns of power. Since postmoderns have done away with the concept of objective truth, it is consequently not something they aspire to. So we don't have seekers for truth, we have activists whose opinion is formed by blurting out the very opposite of what they deem to be "the enemy's".

For instance, if U.S. President George W. Bush seeks to disseminate democracy in the Middle East, if only because democracies are on the whole more peaceful nations than Islamic versions of Nazi-Germany - the concept of democracy is vilified and its virtues relativised out of existence: suddenly "so overrated!"

Similarly, if author Melanie Phillips "is a British neoconservative" (no need to ask any less shallow questions: she's a neocon, isn't she?) "who has devoted herself to warning England that Muslims are taking over and destroying its culture" , as stated in her "oh-so-cleverly titled book, Londonistan", this is considered a hype and a gross exaggeration (or something). Let me not fall into the trap of retaliating at the italics at this point with a list of laughable Leftist book titles, their particular fruits of cerebral ravings!

The point is that if someone finally unearths Marshall Tito's Iraqi bunkers, an obvious WMD storage facility and hiding space as there ever was (one that was destroyed is described here), these reports are consigned to the muck-heap as "drooling, deranged, self-evidently moronic conspiracy dribble" ... have you quite finished? Let me ask the reader in all honesty: what age do you suppose the producer of this infantile graffiti is?

This champion linguistic distance urinating is Glenn Greenwald, blogger at Salon.com. His juvenile invective is condensed in an article with the brilliant title "Right-wing blogs discover massive conspiracy to hide WMDs in Iraq", together with updates II, III and IV. Here are links to Melanie Phillips' article "I found Saddam's WMD bunkers" and to Front Page Magazine's item "The Iraqi WMDs That Slipped Through Our Fingers".

Let's remind ourselves at this point that the WMD as a casus belli was a British canard, initiated by Tony Blair to make his task at home a little easier - and fat lot of good it did him! Factual reason was that Saddam had been violating the terms for ending the 1st Gulf War for twelve long years, an offence the Security Council for economic reasons best known to themselves, failed to enforce.

This item warrants much more in-depth coverage, which I will certainly do, but early awareness - if not hot-blooded activism - is important on this point. Michelle Malkin yesterday in "Jihadists Exploit Our Hospitality and Open Borders ... Again" describes a 'plot' in CNN inverted commas to massacre U.S. soldiers at Fort Dix. One of the suspects, "Abdullahu was familiar with the base because it was the first place he landed when arriving in the United States as a refugee from Kosovo ... Abdullahu arrived at Fort Dix as a teenager in 1999 as part of a group of about 4,400 refugees from Kosovo, officials said".

Thanks, says Michelle Malkin. Thanks, says I, after the U.N. and the E.U. with U.S. endorsement - are saying Yes to a potentially Muslim state in Europe's heartland. "As said by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos at a recent Kosovo hearing "Here is yet another example that the United States ... stands foursquare for the creation of an overwhelmingly Muslim country in the very heart of Europe."

Diana West's Townhall article "The 'limited' war for 'hearts and minds'" from which the above is an excerpt, carries an icon at the top: "Take Action"; please hit it!

As Europe, the U.N. and America console themselves with the thought that, since "we're all interconnected now" which seems to warrant "peace at any price", and the Balkan's Muslims moreover are a far cry from the Saudi desert, the signs are there - if suppressed by the MSM - that things are already starting to go very wrong indeed! Try that ... and this, for an appetizer of some darned thing in the Balkans ...

Copyright © 2007 The Lighthouse

Από strieale @ 10/5/2007 19:21 | Permalink | Σχόλια
Tags: george bush , middle east , islam , kosovo , eu , iraq

Από strieale @ 8/5/2007 19:18 | Permalink | Σχόλια
Tags: uk , the netherlands , islam , eurabia , the left , eu

An article by French columnist Sylvain Ephimenco in Dutch newspaper 'Trouw' brings the subject of present post to three concurring events: the fifth anniversary of the assassination of Pim Fortuyn at the hand of an animals rights fundamentalist stirred into action by Leftist invective - expressed amongst others by the former Socialist leader Ad Melkert - presently at the World Bank grinding neocon Paul Wolfowitz to Gerbil Mix; today's final round of French presidential elections in which the Gaullist candidate Nicolas Sarkozy is favorite by a margin of 10 percentage points or thereabouts, and the dangerous cards played by Socialists.

Five years after the Fortuyn revolution ended in tears, events are commemorated as postmodernity knows best: with useless polls. Forty percent of Dutch surveyed would vote for him again today, if they could. The man was popular because he broke the mold in which Dutch politicians are usually made, and because he hadn't a politically correct bone in his body.

After the dominance of politics per Ad Melkert, who was the champion of both traits, Fortuyn's eccentricity came as a fresh breeze. He was Melkert's alter ego in many respects. The situation was without precedent, and established politicians reacted as they do at present in France: by vilifying the opponent to the point of some nut taking it upon himself to "save the world of this dangerous upstart".

Ephimenco writes: "... this man was dangerous and therefore had to be taken out. If anything hasn't changed since that day, it is the cynical intolerance of politicians and pundits who hung themselves with the rags of tolerance and progressiveness to demonize him. I write this while my heart is filled with anxiety, for what I see in this French campaign for the land's highest office, strongly reminds me of the those days in the Netherlands, five years ago. The hatred towards the rightist favorite, Nicolas Sarkozy during the French election campaign is similar to what Fortuyn underwent in his short political career. The vindictive Left sometimes seems to have the exclusive rights to use improper instruments to foster intolerance. With dangerous consequences. l'Histoire se rιpθte: as soon as electoral defeat gets into sight, demonization becomes the weapon of the poor of spirit."

If that isn't blood curling enough, he continues: "The director of the film 'Shoa' on the Jewish holocaust, Claude Lanzmann writes in magazine 'Le Point': 'I believe that never in my life in France, I have experienced such negative campaigning, so filled with stinking libel against a candidate for the presidential election. I never imagined a democratic debate could go this far.' The left camp around Sιgolθne Royal has struck at anything to picture the rival Sarkozy as the new Pinochet. Just to cause fear and civil unrest. Last Friday morning, on the point of losing, Royal brought forward the most repulsive arguments yet to save her campaign: with a victory of Sarkozy, France will be brought to the edge of civil war, she suggested: "It is my responsibility to sound the alarm concerning the dangers of a Sarkozy win, and the violence that will occur in this country. Everyone knows this and everyone is silent, because it's a taboo". It is my conviction that this woman who is provoking the suburbs, is deeply malicious."

Just how vile, personal and bordering the surreal the political polarization is, is exemplified by a tiny piece of vitriol on the BBC website: "In Argenteuil, the town north-west of Paris where Mr Sarkozy notoriously talked of hosing out 'rabble' before the 2005 urban riots (my emphasis), Doratine Ekoka, a 70-year-old retired computer programmer, said she trusted Ms Royal to 'clean up public life'. A Sarkozy victory, she added, "would be like a punishment from God" because of his "terrible character". How, in the name of anything that's holy did we get so far, that God and a rabble rousing moral relativist are invoked against a politician for stating the obvious, as his personal character is smeared in the process?!

Which begs the second question: just how far is the Left prepared to go in accommodating and placating the Muslim electorate and play the Islamist card, euphemistically dubbed "the suburbs"? If the Socialist win in Spain was brought about in reaction to a massive terrorist attack, the above picture is one of political blackmail and threats against the public order. All this poison might be the result of sheer panic over what's brewing in 'the suburbs', but playing it as an electoral card is a mighty dangerous game.

Muslim assertivity, discontent and victimhood might be harnassed in the service of a Socialist electoral win, it may be placated, apologised and appeased against better judgment, but it will be next to impossible to get this particular genie back into the bottle.

Today we are witnessing the next major instalment in the global culture war. At stake: survival of Western civilization.

Από strieale @ 6/5/2007 17:02 | Permalink | Σχόλια
Tags: pim portuyn , the netherlands , socialism , islam , the left , france

The question posed yesterday, i.e. is any majority ever justified in abolishing the state of democracy, was not only given in by the constitutional problems presently playing out in Turkey - by which the E.U. blindly sides with fundamentalism over preserving democracy - but also by the remarks made by a Dutch Government Minister that - if such would be the wish of a constitutional majority - it should be possible to impose Sharia Law in The Netherlands. That remark was made some months ago, but frankly - after a storm of protest - I haven't seen him retract the statement!

The consequences of wars and revolutions excepted, it might so come to pass that even a minority government stands before the question. I take that to be insufficient in any case for such existential decisions. Frankly, I think all the world's nations would be well advised to set a few constitutional rules in stone about this matter.

The question might be excused if Dutch Minister Piet Hein Donner is perhaps intellectually challenged or morally impaired. Or is he simply criminally naive? Is he a psychiatric patient on the loose, or is he suicidal to the point that he even wants to take the Dutch welfare state with him to his grave? Alternatively, perhaps he's just a relativist? Or a multiculturalist who ran out of patience to see Islamic rule replace Western ethnocentric hegemony at its natural demographic pace?

Truth is Mr Piet Hein Donner's pedigree is simply above any suspicion: decency is his middle name and he has an above average intellect, at least officially so. He comes from good, solid Calvinist stock, born in a patrician family with a long history in government and the judiciary. Actually, his remarks may have been 'quoted out of context' by the MSM. Mr Donner himself says he meant issuing a warning. Indeed.

I think however that's not the whole story. Black and white Calvinist as he is, I believe he may have been coldly extrapolating future demographics and taking the state of democracy to that ultimate result: a two thirds majority that is required to change the Constitution and vote the rule of law out of existance and with it - de facto - democracy. Mr Donner's no fool, he's a democratic fundamentalist!

As we have concluded in the 'Easter Egg' series of posts, that contrary to multiculturalist tenets that "all faiths are the same", the religion of Islam isn't your any home and garden, bread and butter faith at all. Far from it. We shouldn't confuse our Buddhist ammonium nitrate collectors with our Evangelist disenfranchised bombists, as it were. By Muslim admission, and as the founder of the modern Turkish state, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk well knew, the religion of Islam isn't compatible with democracy: the people would be usurping the power of Allah, it's that simple.

From my part here I'd like to argue that by allowing a government by the people, the rule of law, and the separation of Church and State to be replaced by a theocracy to which either three don't owe one iota, such would be an unnatural and irreversible step backwards that cannot be man's destiny.

By which I mean this: the people can decide to impose an Islamic theocracy, an Islamic theocracy would never freely choose to impose a rule by the people. By the same token - and contrary to any ordinary European Christian Democrat party - a Koran based political party is an anomaly: it's like giving the fox the ballot about raiding the hen house!

Another way yet: while democracy has Greek classical roots, the rule of law is founded on Jewish biblical tradition and Roman law, the separation of Church and State (secularism, laity) is a Christian principle, Islam is bent on replacing all that by the law of 7th century desert raiding.

The ultimate goal of democracy can never be the irreversible end of its own existence. No wonder Ataturk gave it a formidable watch dog to prevent it from committing suicide, boys of Brussels!

Copyright © 2007 The Lighthouse

Από strieale @ 1/5/2007 17:12 | Permalink | Σχόλια
Tags: judaism , the netherlands , islam , christianity , eu , turkey

In "You can't make an Omelet without Breaking Eggs" we concluded that the problems of the West's defence against assertive Islam lie in Liberal morality. Yes, they do have morals, which is why telling one lie is perfectly acceptable and gets you citizenship provided your name isn't Hirsi Ali, but that telling two lies is considered one too many.

Had we not abandoned objectivity, according to which - all people are treated alike in alike cases, irrespective of gender, religion, race, class or bank account - we wouldn't have created subjective minority groups that due to perceived victimhood are awarded special status and privileges. The presence of these special groups at present do not allow the West to stand up to people who are expanding their freedoms at the expense of others.

Another article of Liberal morality is in evidence in the knee-jerk E.U. choice of the machinations of an inherently undemocratic, pernicious, Islamic party over benevolent constitutional military intervention that is at present taking place in the Turkish political arena. E.U. Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn yesterday lost no time in warning the Turkish military to stay out of the country's presidential election:

"It is important that the military leaves the remit of democracy to the democratically elected government, and this is a test case if the Turkish armed forces respect democratic secularism and the democratic arrangement of civil-military relations", Rehn told journalists in Brussels.

Taken at face value this is an unbelievable statement: the Turkish military have the constitutional duty to safeguard Kemalist democracy and secularism in Turkey against the inherently undemocratic Islamic machinations of the AK Party, a wolf in sheep's clothing if ever there was one! The EU is telling the legal guardians to back off and return to barracks where they belong!

Not only is Mr Rehn not respecting the country's constitutional intricacies in interfering in its internal affairs, as well as with the military's all important task of preserving secular Kemalism, Rehn's also protecting potentially undemocratic Islamic developments in the name of democracy!

The mistakes made in the election of the Hamas government in the Palestinian territory are repeated in Turkey. I don't see what is the problem of discouraging (and prohibiting where possible) potentially undemocratic parties from participating in a democratic process! Europe never had any problem in barring, what they consider to be extreme right wing parties from getting an electorial foothold. But coming from Islamic quarters these dangerous developments are encouraged and supported!

Is the EU simply stupid, or are they just irresponsibly naive? Does the unchristian club consist merely of dumbed down baby-boomers without an inkling of higher Hobbesian politics, or are they just dangerously and dogmatically attached to their Liberal moral principles, whatever the cost? Or perhaps is Dr Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis right in his article "European Manichaeism*, the End of Turkey, and the Subversion of Europe".


If you consider my posts invective, feast your eyes on the good doctor's brilliant vitriol which owes nothing to postmodern, politically correct Europeanism! His pedigree however is above suspicion, as far as I can see. And if he's right in his prediction that this episode spells the end of Europe and Turkey as we know it - the former probably will not be to great chagrin of a great number of people.

* Manichaeism means dualism, thinking in terms of black and white shades.

Από strieale @ 29/4/2007 16:26 | Permalink | Σχόλια
Tags: liberalism , islam , the west , eu , turkey

Apart from the simplicity of the fallacy, it also underscores a lamentable and potentially fatal lack of knowledge and understanding of Islam. How ever does one explain to postmoderns that any Christian clergyman is not the equivalent of every Muslim imam, and that Jihad isn't any war that somehow involves religion? The concept of Jihad is based on Islamic dogma alone. Within Christianity there isn't anything even remotely resembling it. 
 
Even the much vilified Crusades were wars to reconquer Christian holy lands that had fallen under the terror campaigns of the Prophet's armies and as such don't qualify for Jihad.

Another bee in the postmodern bonnet - the discovery of the Americas and the subsequent conversion of the native Indians - was originally a quest of exploration for a shorter route to the Indies, and as such doesn't qualify either. Social wrongs by the way, were addressed by the totally innovative Laws of Burgos (1512), Valladolid (1513) and the New Laws of 1542, instituted on the initiatives of Dominican Friar Antonio de Montesinos and Father Francisco de Vitoria. These Acts are considered the birth of international law.

For a shortcut, reading the Politically Incorrect Guide (PIG) to Islamwould help towards a better understanding of the concept of Jihad, but for the time being our Hindu friends can help out. The Editorial to "The Next World Conflict" on The Naimisha Journal (Volume 2, Number 1, 2002) warns us that Jihad's principle tactical tool is terror sanctioned by religion ... it cannot be treated as ordinary war ... "terror struck into the hearts of the enemy is not only a means, it is the end in itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponent's heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved."

This makes instructive reading for the aficionados of hotchpotch! The Journal goes on quoting a book, 'The Quranic Concept of War' written by a brigadier in the Pakistani army. The tome carries a prologue by one of Pakistan's former presidents, another military strongman known as General Zia Ul Haq. "The source of this ideology is the Quran, and the doctrine of total war ... of the military campaigns of the Prophet. More than mere military campaigns and battles, the Holy Prophet's operations ... are an integral and inseparable part of the divine message revealed to us in the Holy Quran ... The war he planned and carried out was total to the infinite degree. It was waged on all fronts: internal and external, political and diplomatic, spiritual and psychological, economic and military."

I kept this link to the BBC news article "Islamabad faces suicide bomb call" for which the Biblical quote "as you sow, so shall you reap" could have been invented. Pakistan's President Musharraf may be having tea and sharing jokes with John Stewart, but I can't help feeling - as with the Saudi's - he's playing two tableaux at once, since duplicity towards infidels is entirely considered a done thing. Let's not forget that Taliban Afghanistan was Made in Pakistan: hanging rape victims in football pitches and banning general education, as well as wrecking the entire local entertainment industry seemed at the time preferable over chaos. Getting the genie back into the bottle in another matter.

It also sheds light on the breathtaking way in which Islamists always seem able to turn the tables. It leaves one half of the audience reeling with astonishment, while the other fifty percent or so, blindly repeats the irrationality. Although Al Qa'ida's attacks on the US/S Cole, the Twin Towers and the African Embassies to name but a few, all happened prior to the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, which were a reaction to 9/11 (yesss they were!), in their view it is Islam that was first attacked; they are the defenders and it is the West that is the aggressor, as the anti war crowd doesn't stop reminding us.

Naimisha Journal contributor N.S. Rajaram in 'Background: Jihad as Threat to Civilization' explains this triumphantry of unreason as follows: "The central theme behind the causes of war ... was the cause of Allah ... In the pursuit of this cause, the Muslims were first permitted to fight, but were later commanded to fight the Way of God as a matter of religious obligation and duty. As a result, those who resist it are the aggressors, and it becomes necessary to fight a 'defensive' war to overcome them in their own territory! But this Jihad doctrine does not stop here; it goes on to encompass the whole world ... It is a universal doctrine, to be applied to all of us, and not just the believers."

You can see and hear the doctrine in action here. Islamists deal wholesale in these unreasons (no wonder they are admired by postmodernism). Note for example that suicide bombing isn't considered suicide - which is Haram in Islam; since however the deed causes the actor to be dispatched to 'paradise' forthwith, it cannot be considered suicide. This is also the reason why Muslims killing Muslims isn't murder: the victims go straight to their inevitable and ultimate destination in paradise, so it's just sending them on their way a little earlier. By this rationality, killing them is actually doing them a favour.

Which is all very well, as far as the alarmist and the 'cynical exploitation of an obvious lie to crassly enhance neocon c.q. Republican political power' is concerned. On the contrary according to some, nothing particularly epic or existential is at hand. As far as they are concerned "the great secular triumph of (more or less) free markets, a world economy, democracy, individual rights, socialized economic security, and their management by merit-based technocrats will be an inevitable continuity in human affairs", comments Tony Blankley in 'Is there Writing on the Wall' yesterday on Townhall.com.

"Our nation and Europe seem to have hardened in their divisions on those topics ... a sense of futility is increasingly hard to resist." It would seem the discourse isn't going anywhere, any time soon. The age of reason was in another epoque.

Copyright © 2007 The Lighthouse

Από strieale @ 26/4/2007 19:24 | Permalink | Σχόλια
Tags: catholicism , islam , postmodernism , christianity

Today's blegosphere harvest offers us a juxtaposition of two dualistic versions over the present situation, meaning and potential consequences of immigration in general, and the influx of Muslims into Western society in particular. While immigration is not entirely made up of Muslims by any means, the two positions have statehood and unity - or lack thereof - in common: both quote "E Pluribus Unum" in the case of the former, and a free translation to that effect in the case of the latter: "All of them together".

The position of Victor Davis Hanson and former Democratic Governor of Colorado, Dick Lamm primarily centres on the views and politics of the Liberal Leftists and multiculturalists on migration in general. The other is a romanticized, if not entirely well informed vision of Dutch author, Margriet de Moor with regard to Muslim immigration specifically, which in the Dutch context, is almost synonymous.

We will top that up with shattering advice and clarification from Indian quarters and a conclusion from an American on Townhall, Tony Blankley who served as press secretary to former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich and is the author of "The West's Last Chance: Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations?"

For proper understanding it must be said that where America, Europe or any E.U. compositing country are mentioned, these are virtually mutually interchangeable. I habitually use the term 'the West' in these pages.

In a post titled "How to destroy America" on TechPowerUp Forum a participant in last week's immigration-overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, describes the view of Victor Davis Hanson and Dick Lamm's, which states that America does exactly those things which it should, had it decided to commit suicide. Again, under influence of Leftist Liberal and multicultural political views, it is precisely what most E.U. member states - egged on by the harmonization boys in Brussels, are also up to.

On the German culture site Signandsight Dutch author Margriet de Moor published an article yesterday with the enigmatic title "Alarm Bells in Muslim Hearts". In contrast to myself - I didn't know how fast to get out of there - Mrs de Moor seems to be enjoying herself thoroughly 'in that remarkable country'. I give her that, remarkable it is, but the same could be said of Atilla the Hun!

She rightly connects the dots that respect and tolerance go hand in hand. Her conclusion that the perceived and rather famous Dutch tolerance is non-existant, and is mere contempt, is justified. It is a misnomer and the attitude has more in common with the Soviet concept of 'peaceful coexistence' as a result of mutual non-interference, than with tolerance in the true sense of the word. It is cold shouldering at best.

Regretfully she goes off the rails in equating the Hispano-Dutch Eighty Years' War of Independence (1568-1648) with Jihad. It is a common Western fallacy, reminiscent of the infantile equations that are fashionable among relativist quasi philosophers: for example, brick and cement are both building materials, brick and cement are identical. Likewise when searching for guidance over Islamic intricacies one goes for reference to the Christian context. In the assumption that Jihad simply means 'religious war', in a desire for proper understanding we hunt for a Christian equivalent and come up with a war of independence, that had as much to do with religion as the more recent Irish Troubles: one combattant was of another religious persuasion than the opponent, but the essence of the conflict was of a political nature.

~ To be continued: "Apart from the simplicity of the fallacy, it also underscores a lamentable and potentially fatal lack of knowledge and understanding of Islam." ~

Copyright © 2007 The Lighthouse

Από strieale @ 25/4/2007 18:55 | Permalink | Σχόλια
Tags: the netherlands , islam , multiculturalism , eu , europe , usa

There's no ducking it. The new EU Council Framework Decision on Combating Racism and Xenophobia adopted last week is another step towards Liberal totalitarianism and is already dubbed 'an appalling piece of legislation' by The Brussels Journal.

The EU Justice Ministers have been haggling and compromising over curtailing nothing less than our basic freedom of speech. The legal framework deals with the harmonisation and the E.U. proper's legal ability to combat "forms of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law", "against publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising the crimes directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin when the conduct is carried out in a manner likely to incite to violence or hatred against such a group or a member of such a group."

Trust the E.U. not to see the ethical problem of what they're doing, and to come up with a subtle text that outlaws bad jokes and the Jewish Shoa, but doesn't cover the Armenian holocaust, or Stalin era communist crimes against the civilian populations.

Since the member states' existing legislation differs wildly, full harmonisation of criminal laws isn't yet possible.
But more stringent laws, such as in Germany and Austria, remain applicable in the member states.

Especially noteworthy is the EU's ability under the framework to prosecute cases of their own accord, and without the victim's consent. Crimes can carry sentences of upto three years in prison and forfeiture of employment as well as benefits. The latter is simply unheard of in post World War II Europe and a measure of the wrong way it's going.

The following may sound like linguistic nitpicking, but is indicative of the gross imprecision in these Liberal morality laws. Phobia means fear, not hatred, and fear isn't a matter of free choice. Depending on the underlying cause of the phobia - and I don't know that hatred is always of free choice either - but you can rest assured I have an almighty phobia for Islam ... what with terrorist attacks and Al Qa'ida's media manipulation that is specifically tuned to disseminating as much fear as possible. That is the whole point of it, and the reason it's called terrorism, which derives from the Latin word terrorem meaning great fear or dread.

While they should be prosecuting intolerant organizations the EU is potentially punishing the victims. But far from it, under the Four Freedomsthey have a positive duty to keep their citizens from Fear! For terrorism is worse than war: it is an act of war against unarmed civilians.

In "You Can't Make an Omelet Without Breaking Eggs" we have already seen the tendency in the West to elevate Left Liberal ideology to moral standards across the board. These tenets don't foster equality, but on the contrary, victimhood and inequality so as to "compensate groups for their inequality in proportion to their difference."

In a post "Victim obsession leading to more oppression, not less in modern Britain" former University teacher John Ray from Brisbane, Australian gives a review on a book called, "Religious Discrimination and Hatred Law", in which practising barrister Neil Addison provides the first comprehensive survey of legislation concerning religion in diverse areas such as criminal law, discrimination, employment and harassment, and charts the growing role of courts in regulating this messy dimension of society.

Addison is concerned about the legal expansion into a complicated moral aspect of human life, and fears that a new generation of laws will remove people's powers to criticise, challenge or defend their religious (or non-religious) views.

He "sees the expansion of law into the terrain of religion as part of 'a new type of philosophy': 'We used to have laws because we considered them necessary, but now it seems we have laws because they are desirable. If something is regarded as good or bad, we use the law to direct it. In effect, we're trying to legislate morality.' For Addison, the law has now become a tool for some groups to impose their moral positions on others, whether it is the ban on smoking or the ban on foxhunting or restrictions on what we can say about minority groups.

We have to ask ourselves if any group's activism and victimhood outweighs the loss of a society that respects the freedom of speech! Instead of overcompensating for the Left Liberal lack of universal equality, in treating all religions as 'identical', it would be right, fairer and wiser to convince those minorities that hold excessive views, that living in a free world means furthering tolerance and respect for the freedom of others, and that there's no place for violent forms of self-assertion.

What the E.U. is in the process of doing, is making our societies less free, so as to accommodate intolerant minorities. By adopting their standards, we are getting it backwards.

As for gays and women's libbers, they need to develop a sense of responsibility: grow up!

Από strieale @ 23/4/2007 19:17 | Permalink | Σχόλια
Tags: dictatorship of liberalism , liberalism , islam , the west , eu

Delorme and great number of other Liberals are making the mistake of thinking that Islam is as any other minority group whose victimhood must be compensated, not taking into consideration its perceived superiority, its exclusivity and its intolerance of other faiths and schools of thought. They are aware of it - or they could be, if not in denial - but the public secret is that of their own choice, they choose to ignore it in the hope that almost overnight a friendlier, more liberal, Western variety of Islam will develop.

Some politicians feel other paths may yield better results. They try to avert the consequences by appeasing, smoothing over, imposing temporary stop gaps and half measures, uttering sedating mantras they hope will make the threat go away, hoping against hope to avert the inevitable, betraying their own people in the process if they have to (oh, I'm sorry - was that terribly fascist of me?). Some French Police Departments for one, are more realistic.

Others, totally in denial, require immediate commitment to an institution for the criminally insane (or wherever it is they send the hazards of society to these days). Amsterdam Mayor Job Cohen (proclaimed Mayor of the Year by his peers for crying out loud!) - who together with the parties of the leftist coalition that is ruling the city, have come to the conclusion that the Muslim Brotherhood may not be a dangerous organisation at all!

Yesterday we had a look at a Middle East Forum report to the effect that Islam in its present state, isn't fit to be integrated into free society. This conclusion may be an obvious one to any unblinkered observer who isn't dazzled by the prospects of a global Ummah. But so as to avoid admitting the fact, things are exacerbated by excuses that hardly stand up to closer, Liberal scrutiny. Delorme mentions one such example, of a Bavarian court coming up with stops like the headscarf is 'fostering paternalism' and is 'hampering women's lib'. That's elevating the values of the Left Liberal school to the accepted standard of general morality: the mechanism of political correctness!

The basic, absolute, and universal right to liberty cannot be defended without violating the Left Liberal moral standard. This is why we stand aghast when confronted with the fact that Liberalism stands for freedom, but that this principle apparently doesn't extend to practicing Muslims. This standard is thus self-defeating in the face of radical Islam, which needs confronting head on, and on proper grounds.

The present trouble with Islam could have been averted, if we hadn't lost our objectivity in abandoning the principle of equal value (N.B. I purposely use this term, which is not to be confused with equality, often taken to mean: identical). Mostly to blame is the Left who keep on arbitrarily compensating victimhood, if only for reasons of self-perpetuation. Relativism and its ugly stepsister, multiculturalism, did the rest for the distorted, subjective world view.

Another taboo is that what caused the problem in the first place - the Left's principle of good intentions that always outweighs the regard for negative effects.

While volumes have been written and (inter)national agreements have been signed over any kind of positive right, benefiting perceived unequal groups - be they animals', children's, civil, collective, group, men's, women's, workers' or youth's rights - we have lost sight of the real hierarchy of rights. To remind us of the most elemental, basic and absolute ones: the right to life, liberty for all, and the pursuit of happiness. All else is secondary.

The fundamental question of a government should be, is anyone expanding his freedom at the expense of someone else's and if so, do we have the means to address it? The prime government's role in the Classical sense is the defense of these rights, but that cannot be done if certain groups are empowered at the expense of the government's ability to do their job. This is a matter of proper balance. After the transition from Classical to Left Liberalism the government became an institute for taxation, and redistribution: compensating groups for their inequality in proportion to their difference.

We have to ask ourselves: if we let ourselves be demoralised by the call of the Borg: "Resistance is Futile - Prepare to be Assimilated ... !" and if we waive our right to self-defence, which is primer in any one's book, the Borg's one uniquely excluded - there will shortly be no Liberal rights or values at all to uphold.

The best generation defended the free world at the cost of millions of lives, so that the worst generation had the liberty to wreck two millennia of civilization in the stretch of four decades. Feast your eyes on the following quote from the comment section of Elsevier Magazine, a repro from an article dated October 10th, 2004 on Daniel Pipes Weblog, "Europeans Fleeing Eurabia":

"The German author Henryk M. Broder recently told ... that young Europeans who love freedom, better emigrate. Europe as we know it will no longer exist 20 years from now ... Broder pointed to ... passers-by and said melancholically: 'We are watching the world of yesterday.' Europe is turning Muslim. As Broder is sixty years old he is not going to emigrate himself ... he urged young people to get out and 'move to Australia or New Zealand. That is the only option they have if they want to avoid the plagues that will turn the old continent uninhabitable'."

That's right .... this is the answer of the worst generation: flee while you can! Flight is easier than showing moral courage and fight for what's right! It is time we did what must be done: return to basic values, get objective and state unequivocally: this is what made us who we are, this is for the good of us all including freedom-loving Muslims; accept and live them, or leave us!

Από strieale @ 17/4/2007 20:05 | Permalink | Σχόλια
Tags: libertarianism , liberalism , islam , the west , the left

New Left Liberal, subjective, morality laws are in the making: people have already been sentenced to fines and it is just a matter of time before the first priest or vicar will be jailed for inciting hatred under the relativist reasoning: race discrimination is bad, gender discrimination is bad, 'phobias' for Islam, homosexual behavior and abortion are bad and must be banned for violating the subjective rights of unequal minorities (is hatred). In the meantime denial of Jewish and Armenian holocausts are quite the done thing, resulting in more laws against an objective, basic Classical right: free speech!

Islamic fanaticism and its incompatibility with other religions and ideologies, are leading atheist and anti-theist movements - to whom all faiths, as per above reasoning, are in essence 'the same' - to increasingly view religion as a threat to the Liberal society, rather than as any section of humanity worthy of representation, like anyone else ... (not an subjective, unequal minority ... evidently).

This is leading to what could paradoxically be termed, signs of a Liberal dictatorship in the making. To mind come two recent affairs. One is the matter of the Italian candidate for the European Commission, Professor Buttiglione, who was rejected by the Euro Parliament for being 'too Catholic'. Everyone is welcome to join the democratically elected, freedom loving, European institutions, as long as you underwrite the Liberal ideology which says that gender is race and does not exist, the usurpation of ecclesiastical institutions by secularism is perfectly natural, human rights are fine but feticide is a women's right alone, and ventilation of opinions to the contrary are an incitement to hatred.

At present in The Netherlandsthere's a question over an M.P. who also happens to be a member of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, apparently a criminal organization by Liberal standards. Although it is not altogether clear what the problem exactly is, it is safe to assume that the fear is that she holds politically incorrect views, as per the above, or - worse - that she may be a rejectionist of the Liberal epistemology, called Darwin's Theory of Evolution: journalistic commentators make kindergarten comments - quite normal these days - to the effect that "she's in a creepy sect", and that they wouldn't be surprised if this entails "denying the Theory of Evolution".

Instead of which it would have been more in line with serious Liberal thought, to point out that "yes, we have freedom of conscience in this country" and "yes, the Theory of Evolution is indeed just that, a theory, that after 150 years still hasn't been proved - that the chances of basic enzymes of life arising by random processes are 1 to 1 followed by forty thousand zeroes". If they'd done so, they should have acted as genuinely open minded, truth-seeking journalists would have done. Instead they explain to the nation in baby-talk that the M.P. has to go as she might be committing crimes against the politically correct. For those not old enough to experience a dιjΰ vue at this point: this happens before political correctness is elevated to law: such was part and parcel of the Soviet Union and perpetrators spent lengthy sentences in Siberian work camps for their dissent.

These are serious and ominous signs. Dissent from the prevailing Liberal thought is sliding from the politically correct suspicious, into full fledged crimes against the ideology. Very slowly but surely we are descending into a society which is tuned to totalitarianism and dictatorship, instead of one that is free, based on Judeo-Christian values and Greco-Roman principles. We are in danger of losing ourselves.

If we have a cold, hard, objective look at the remedies that have been put to work for better results, it is plain these haven't worked. Often even worked to the contrary. Due to its subjectivism and the departure from Classical Liberal values (see Dr Pat's chart), Left Liberalism is defenseless and self-defeating in the face of upholding basic freedoms against radical Islamism. The multicultural approach is worse than the problem it sets itself to solve: Resistance is Futile, Prepare to be Assimilated! French secularism, laοcitι, has failed as well.

International laws, so often invoked in explaining why tougher measures simply aren't on the cards, are not acts of God, but human-made legal edifices, often raised on Utopian grounds. There were reasons for putting them there, there are even more vital reasons for evaluating them. It is of existential importance that the Western world regains the ability to defend its proper values, before there won't be any left to defend.
I think it is high time we take a step back and examine what it is exactly we are forging here.

~ To be continued: Delorme and great number of other Liberals make the mistake to think that Islam is as any other subjective unequal minority group they are dealing with, not taking into consideration its perceived superiority, its exclusivity and its intolerance of other faiths and schools of thought ~

Από strieale @ 15/4/2007 18:58 | Permalink | Σχόλια
Tags: catholicism , libertarianism , liberalism , islam , christianity , the left

That said, on other vital areas Islamic principles and Liberal values collide irreconcilably; the problem areas are numerous and fundamental. A recent report published by the Middle East Forum "Can there be an Islamic democracy?" explained it like this: "Ironically, while Western scholars perform intellectual somersaults to demonstrate the compatibility of Islam and democracy, prominent Muslim scholars argue democracy to be incompatible with their religion ... Islamic law regulates the believer's activities in every area of life, and ... some Muslim scholars further reject anything that does not have its origins in the Qur'an."

In consideration of my personal health I go out of my way in avoiding the calls to dhimmitude issued by The Kings of The Borg, Messrs Garton Ash, Sim and Buruma as per their cold, robotic mantra: "Resistance is Futile - Prepare to be Assimilated ... !" Regretfully I had the misfortune to stumble upon an article that the Dutch-American product of multiculturalism, in the person of Ian Buruma, recently published in Pakistan's Daily Times, entitled rather counter-intuitively "The strange death of multiculturalism". Well, not due to wishful thinking on his part, I should think.

Anyway, apart of the usual nut-cracking that kept me sleepless till six this morning - and the habitual whispers of Resistance is Futile: "... like it or not, Muslims are part of Europe ... so ... learn to live with them", he singles out Indonesia as the crowning evidence that "Liberal democracy and Islam are reconcilable." That is, conveniently passing over acts of terrorism - which, according to The Borg are to be taken in our stride, in the life in the new nationless Empire: just ask the Hapsburgs and the Romanovs; beheadings of young Christian girls are but a small price to pay for so much celebration of diversity!

It so happens that the Middle East Forum reportalso mentions Indonesia, but as an example that Islam is the antithesis of any secular Western democracy: "Outlining his plans to establish an Islamic state in Indonesia, Abu Bakar Bashir, a Muslim cleric and the leader of the Indonesian Mujahideen Council, attacked democracy and the West and called on Muslims to wage jihad against the ruling regimes in the Muslim world. "It is not democracy that we want, but Allah-cracy," he explained". The Borg's sense of reality has been totally relativised, I'm afraid! But that doesn't keep them from serving in governmental advisory committees. Want to bet?

Western society as a whole is in serious trouble due to Liberalism's relativist view on religion as a result of the erroneously reasoning that is typical for the pseudo philosophy, of which Buruma is a master. For instance: "Christianity equals religion, Islam equals religion, all religions are equally valid, Christianity is Islam". This infantile fallacy causes radical atheists and agnostics to seek refuge in the Christophobic French secular system, by which religion is pushed to the very margins of society. There, in the fringes it may play a silent role within the confines of the private home.

As is in evidence in the French suburbs with the violent rioting of Islamic - no, strike that last word - unemployed youths, this approach of the religiously neutral state - as warmly recommended by author Pascal Bruckner - apparently doesn't work either. It doesn't produce a better integration, or a more peaceful society, while it does create a religiously sterile public space in which even the wearing of a small crucifix on a necklace amounts to a crime. And, by Bruckner's own emphasis, this state of affairs is built on the blood of priests and nuns. No, thanks!

The bane of subjectivism within the judiciary was recently in evidence when in a German case, a Muslim mother of two petitioned for an expedited divorce from her violence prone husband. Judge Christa Datz-Winter didn't apply German law, but instead saw fit to single handedly declare Sharia law in Germany, denying the woman's request on the grounds that the couple hail from a "Moroccan cultural environment in which it is not uncommon for a man to exert a right of corporal punishment over his wife." We may not notice it any more, but this is pretty serious Eurabian stuff! Justitia blind? Objective? This isn't class justice, it's sheer racism!

Western society and the Liberalistic philosophies underpinning the legal system, are tuned to a free, responsible people that respect other person's freedoms. Adjustment of legislature to the intolerant dentencies is threatening to undermine these civic freedoms, the foundation of Western societies.

~ To be continued: New morality laws are in the making: it is just a matter of time before the first priest or vicar will be jailed for homophobia or abortionphobia ... In the meantime, denial of Jewish and Armenian holocausts are entirely the done thing ~

Από strieale @ 14/4/2007 18:37 | Permalink | Σχόλια
Tags: libertarianism , liberalism , islam , holocaust , christianity , the left

While Jesco Delorme in his article "Multiculturalism is not cultural relativism!" states that in Liberalism the fundamental idea is that "the human being is autonomous, takes precedence over the collective ... metaphysical concepts such as God, History and The People may not be invoked in the formulation of political demands", he goes on to state at least three - in his eyes legitimate - examples of Muslims invoking Allah (or the Koran) in demanding privileges in re of headscarves, separate swimming pools and beaches for Muslim women. Those that mind about such minor details are merely being shortsighted and petty bourgeois. Yesterday we saw that Mr Delorme's brand of Left Liberalism justifies granting certain special rights to unequal minorities.

I don't propose screening Mr Delorme's article further on inconsistencies and inconsequential reasoning, but to move on instead to another very important point that he raises, which sets Left Liberalism (or free-market Socialism), apart from Classical Liberalism (or Libertarianism).

It is the fundamental leftist mistake of abandoning universal equality, thereby introducing subjectivism into politics and society. Decades ago I was taught the virtue of trying to be as objective as possible: to assess a casus or a situation on its own merits, without taking into consideration the persons involved: their social class, status, race, gender, or the amount of money in their bank accounts. This premise was based on the biblical principle that God created man in His image, and that consequently all people are of equal value, have equal rights and possess dignity in and of themselves.

With the Left in attendance of politics, the judiciary, education, housing, welfare, social services and a number of other fields, this universal principle was abandoned - objectivity made way for subjectivity - with grave consequences all round. Jesco Delorme justifies it as follows: "Aristotle himself insisted that equality must be understood as proportional equality. To treat persons equally in the strictest sense is justified only when they are truly equals. However, if they differ from one another in normatively relevant respects it is justified - indeed imperative - to treat them unequally in proportion to their differences". This principle may be philosophically sound when pertaining to plastic balls and pieces of fruit; it doesn't make good policy towards a healthy social state of society.

Since the departure from objectivity in politics it has become the norm for people and groups to formulate and foster any number of perceived grievances and inequalities, so as to claim special status and privileges over and at the expense of other people's rights and freedoms. It has caused the cultivation of victimhood, it has kept people from taking responsibility for their own actions, and caused the waiving of acceptance and atonement for the consequences of mistakes. That is, apart from the endless debates over how and in what measure perceived unequal proportions must be determined and compensated.

Mr Delorme's article brings us right to the heart of today's trouble when on its basis a number of privileges for Muslim women are demanded: we are not to whine pettily over headscarves and separated bathing areas. In the past decades we have been likewise subjected to positive action for women and blacks, unreasonable demands on the mentally and physically impaired, special housing and services for lower income brackets, ditto for immigrants, ditto for students, funds for violence prone youths, pregnant women, sufferers of particular diseases, AIDS victims, teen mums, the elderly, underprivileged youths, the morally challenged, divorcees, the list is endless and the struggle for inflated victimhood goes on ...

The result is the virtual incarceration of people within social and mental ghettos, poverty, class justice, ludicrous situations as a result of positive action, unfair mirroring of society in group quotas, and the excruciating phenomenon of the politically correct: the inviolate face of the prevailing ideology, the representation of today's red handkerchief. Still worse, it has made inequality the norm in Western society.

Dr Pat's chart shows in which areas the Left and Islam's social views coincide: socialism, collectivism - the subordination of the individual to the group, subjectivism, anti-realism and a socially constructed victimhood. The Unholy Alliance presently extends to a growing Muslim constituency adding to the Left's vote and a growing influence on politics in general, on immigration policy, and of influence of foreign governments on Western soil.

On a less directly visible plane of operation it could be said that the multicultural branch of the Unholy Alliance is disseminating ideological confusion, while the terrorist off-shoot takes care of radicalization in copying Marxist-Leninist revolutionary theory. The multiculturalist's view of a world without national borders - one huge multi-ethnic Empire without a worldly Emperor, coincides very happily with the Islamist's vision of the Khalifate.

Islam's unprecedented special status of victimhood backed up by terror threats has led Liberal subjectivism to allow distortion of history, adjustment of school curricula, denial of the holocaust, all so as not to hurt Islamic sensitivities. The story is ongoing. Further special privileges are demanded or coercedat the expense of other groups, and cohesion of society as a whole. Especially the more radical versions don't accept the democratic tenets, nor do they accept - or even appreciate - democratic values. We have passed "go home if you don't like it here" a long time ago. This has turned into "let's change it in accordance with our wishes". It's the West that does the assimilating, at home.

The incompatibility is to a large extent due to the Islamic principle which holds that society is subservient to the all transcending laws of Allah, as laid down in the Koran. The concept of free will is non-existent. Assertive Muslims don't accept, nor are they willing to understand, Liberal c.q. Western values which they take for weak and degenerate. As an exclusive, superior religion it expects global conversion and victory of Islam over the infidel. Neither does it accept socially deviant behaviour of the faithful, nor does it tolerate dissent.

With regard to Delorme's proposition one wonders how he reckons to police the Liberal rights of the individual within the Islamic singularity. I'm thoroughly looking forward seeing him do that!

~ In Part II: That said, on other vital areas Islamic principles and Liberal values collide irreconcilably; the problem areas are numerous and fundamental ... ~

Copyright © 2007 The Lighthouse

Από strieale @ 12/4/2007 18:05 | Permalink | Σχόλια
Tags: libertarianism , liberalism , islam , christianity , the left , multiculturalism