The Elbonian

The August 2011 UK Riots

2011-08-11T14:51:00.000-07:00

There is much talk about why these riots have occurred. It comes largely from either people that have never been part of a riot or from some of the media's pet social community commentators.

Subsequently all the usual excuses and condemnations are regurgitated by the usual suspects. The theme of these tends to be along the lines of: "this happened because the world is not the way I think it should be".

I have been in a number of riots. I lived for many years in inner London in a variety of dead end jobs. E.g. Retail store warehouseman and a cardboard box factory operative, so I understand clearly the feelings, thoughts and emotions of the rioters.

For a member of a gang, it will be something like this:
There will be some period of wild expectation and speculation prior to the event. Many talks about "we'll do this" or "we'll do that". We will all know this speculative nonsense for what it is but it's fun anyway.

The concept that the police and *any* business or manifestation of government is 'the enemy' is implicit and unquestioned (here lies the actual problem) so the 'how, where and when' of the attack is all that the discussions will consist of. The 'who' is obviously 'us'. There will be a multitude of suggestions and rumours, culminating at some point, in actually going out to see what is happening. This is an exciting time as we are going to take part in a big confrontation and we don't know what the outcome will be. We could all be arrested or get a kicking from the police so it's exciting.

Once we are on the streets and have encountered other groups like ours, we become part of a mob. Mobs have an implicit command hierarchy. There will be one or more people that are used to giving orders (called natural leaders in the army) and so when orders are given this results in instant obedience from the immediate group. All the others then follow. This is how mobs seem to respond so quickly. These 'Commanders' may have a loose plan, but their main purpose is to achieve their personal agenda which could be any one or more of these, or similar: 'steal valuable goods', 'get revenge on the police', 'take control of their manor, yard or hood to enhance their reputation', 'smash up some disrespectful shop owner', 'get on the TV' etc.

When it kicks off, (the initial acts of violence or vandalism) the mob crystallises into the initial small groups. We start looking out for our mates. We are surrounded by other well or less well known faces and many other strangers but everyone has a combined purpose. This may be something that we have never, and may never again, encounter (especially in our fractured society) and is the most powerful of human emotions. We become unstoppable.

Individuals take greater and greater risks, confronting well armed police lines individually, torching cars, gaining entry to premises or destroying something spectacularly and gaining respect accordingly. Imagine how some of these kids reputations will have been immortalised as they individually attack riot police with just their hands and get away with it. They can walk tall. They are now top men and have the media to prove it. It's their fifteen minutes of fame. Many, many young men will happily swap a year in jail for this as the youtube video will allow them to brag about it for years.

Throughout all of this, the feeling of being part of something huge, with a common purpose, clear opponents and clear membership of our group is all pervading. This bonds us all. We become something bigger than ourselves, our group, even our riot, we become part of a national movement to fight back against the oppression that we feel. We take risks for each other, we operate as a unit, we achieve our objectives, we gain a feeling of control, we prove our ownership of the streets (our streets), we prove our valour and we enhance our reputations so 'it is all good'. Irrespective of the consequences of the police operation, the arrests, the short sentences and community orders dished out this has been a great thing for us and we shall define ourselves for it for many years to come.

To see this in action we only need to look at the number of 'ex-gang-members' and participants in previous riots that are still trading on their criminal exploits as social or community workers to the extent where they can get a regular income from it.

The other side of the coin that is not visible to the public, is the immeasurably enhanced reputations from riot exploits for individual gang members that will help them to graduate to higher levels of criminality which is after all their life ambitions. Some people want to be a successful Banker or Politician, others want to be a successful Gangster.

BBC Country profile: Yemen

2008-04-17T13:03:00.001-07:00

Where and what is Yemen Children?

Let's ask Auntie BBC?
The reputed home of the Queen of Sheba, Yemen has been at the crossroads of Africa, the Middle East and Asia for thousands of years thanks to its position on the ancient spice routes.
The Romans knew this fertile and wealthy country as Arabia Felix, in contrast to the relatively barren Arabia Deserta to the north. And today it maintains its distinct character.

Sounds romantic doesn't it? Having a distinct character...

Meanwhile back in the real world the same BBC fails to report this...

A Yemeni judge dissolved the marriage of an 8-year-old girl to a man nearly four times her age, and the girl's lawyer said Wednesday that the court also ordered the youngster removed from the control of the father who forced her into the wedding.

Yes you heard it right an 8 (EIGHT) year old Girl!

But that's allright, justice was served in the end when the Pedophile that married her was granted $250 compensation by the Judge.

I can feel another Fatwa coming on...

2008-04-16T16:31:00.000-07:00

In an article a London based Iraqi Author, Aref Alwan has described how the Israelis have as much right to Israel as te Arabs do and how the denial of this and successive distortions of Islam has created the mess that the Arab world finds itself.
A kind of personal responsibility really rather than the continual assertions that all is the fault of the West.

Political Correctness

2007-11-30T15:37:00.000-08:00

One of the best explanations of the origins of Political Correctness is in a speech by Bill Lind. The Origins of Political Correctness. He tends to harp on excessively about the tendency in Academia but it is an interesting historical insight into P.C.

In 1923 in

Germany

, a think-tank is established that takes on the role of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, that creates Political Correctness as we know it today, and essentially it has created the basis for it by the end of the 1930s. This comes about because the very wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by the name of Felix Weil has become a Marxist and has lots of money to spend. He is disturbed by the divisions among the Marxists, so he sponsors something called the First Marxist Work Week, where he brings Lukacs and many of the key German thinkers together for a week, working on the differences of Marxism.

And he says, "What we need is a think-tank." Washington is full of think tanks and we think of them as very modern. In fact they go back quite a ways. He endows an institute, associated with Frankfurt University, established in 1923, that was originally supposed to be known as the Institute for Marxism. But the people behind it decided at the beginning that it was not to their advantage to be openly identified as Marxist. The last thing Political Correctness wants is for people to figure out it’s a form of Marxism. So instead they decide to name it the Institute for Social Research.

Weil is very clear about his goals. In 1971, he wrote to Martin Jay the author of a principal book on the Frankfurt School, as the Institute for Social Research soon becomes known informally, and he said, "I wanted the institute to become known, perhaps famous, due to its contributions to Marxism." Well, he was successful. The first director of the Institute, Carl Grunberg, an Austrian economist, concluded his opening address, according to Martin Jay, "by clearly stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a scientific methodology." Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at the Institute, and that never changed.

The initial work at the Institute was rather conventional, but in 1930 it acquired a new director named Max Horkheimer, and Horkheimer’s views were very different. He was very much a Marxist renegade. The people who create and form the Frankfurt School are renegade Marxists. They’re still very much Marxist in their thinking, but they’re effectively run out of the party. Moscow looks at what they are doing and says, "Hey, this isn’t us, and we’re not going to bless this."

Horkheimer’s initial heresy is that he is very interested in Freud, and the key to making the translation of Marxism from economic into cultural terms is essentially that he combined it with Freudism. Again, Martin Jay writes, "If it can be said that in the early years of its history, the Institute concerned itself primarily with an analysis of bourgeois society’s socio-economic sub-structure," – and I point out that Jay is very sympathetic to the Frankfurt School, I’m not reading from a critic here – "in the years after 1930 its primary interests lay in its cultural superstructure. Indeed the traditional Marxist formula regarding the relationship between the two was brought into question by Critical Theory."

The stuff we’ve been hearing about this morning – the radical feminism, the women’s studies departments, the gay studies departments, the black studies departments – all these things are branches of Critical Theory. What the Frankfurt School essentially does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s to create this theory called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious because you’re tempted to ask, "What is the theory?" The theory is to criticize. The theory is that the way to bring down Western culture and the capitalist order is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse to do that. They say it can’t be done, that we can’t imagine what a free society would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we’re living under repression – the repression of a capitalistic economic order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression – we can’t even imagine it. What Critical Theory is about is simply criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in every possible way, designed to bring the current order down. And, of course, when we hear from the feminists that the whole of society is just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism is a derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not the 1960s.

Other key members who join up around this time are Theodore Adorno, and, most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Fromm and Marcuse introduce an element which is central to Political Correctness, and that’s the sexual element. And particularly Marcuse, who in his own writings calls for a society of "polymorphous perversity," that is his definition of the future of the world that they want to create. Marcuse in particular by the 1930s is writing some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation, but this runs through the whole Institute. So do most of the themes we see in Political Correctness, again in the early 30s. In Fromm’s view, masculinity and femininity were not reflections of ‘essential’ sexual differences, as the Romantics had thought. They were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined." Sex is a construct; sexual differences are a construct.

Another example is the emphasis we now see on environmentalism. "Materialism as far back as Hobbes had led to a manipulative dominating attitude toward nature." That was Horkhemier writing in 1933 in Materialismus und Moral. "The theme of man’s domination of nature," according to Jay, " was to become a central concern of the Frankfurt School in subsequent years." "Horkheimer’s antagonism to the fetishization of labor, (here’s where they’re obviously departing from Marxist orthodoxy) expressed another dimension of his materialism, the demand for human, sensual happiness." In one of his most trenchant essays, Egoism and the Movement for Emancipation, written in 1936, Horkeimer "discussed the hostility to personal gratification inherent in bourgeois culture." And he specifically referred to the Marquis de Sade, favorably, for his "protest…against asceticism in the name of a higher morality."

How does all of this stuff flood in here? How does it flood into our universities, and indeed into our lives today? The members of the Frankfurt School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933 the Nazis came to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut down the Institute for Social Research. And its members fled. They fled to New York City, and the Institute was reestablished there in 1933 with help from Columbia University. And the members of the Institute, gradually through the 1930s, though many of them remained writing in German, shift their focus from Critical Theory about German society, destructive criticism about every aspect of that society, to Critical Theory directed toward American society. There is another very important transition when the war comes. Some of them go to work for the government, including Herbert Marcuse, who became a key figure in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), and some, including Horkheimer and Adorno, move to Hollywood.

These origins of Political Correctness would probably not mean too much to us today except for two subsequent events. The first was the student rebellion in the mid-1960s, which was driven largely by resistance to the draft and the Vietnam War. But the student rebels needed theory of some sort. They couldn’t just get out there and say, "Hell no we won’t go," they had to have some theoretical explanation behind it. Very few of them were interested in wading through Das Kapital. Classical, economic Marxism is not light, and most of the radicals of the 60s were not deep. Fortunately for them, and unfortunately for our country today, and not just in the university, Herbert Marcuse remained in America when the Frankfurt School relocated back to Frankfurt after the war. And whereas Mr. Adorno in Germany is appalled by the student rebellion when it breaks out there – when the student rebels come into Adorno’s classroom, he calls the police and has them arrested – Herbert Marcuse, who remained here, saw the 60s student rebellion as the great chance. He saw the opportunity to take the work of the Frankfurt School and make it the theory of the New Left in the United States.

One of Marcuse’s books was the key book. It virtually became the bible of the SDS and the student rebels of the 60s. That book was Eros and Civilization. Marcuse argues that under a capitalistic order (he downplays the Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, but the framework is Marxist), repression is the essence of that order and that gives us the person Freud describes – the person with all the hang-ups, the neuroses, because his sexual instincts are repressed. We can envision a future, if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in which we liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of "polymorphous perversity," in which you can "do you own thing." And by the way, in that world there will no longer be work, only play. What a wonderful message for the radicals of the mid-60s! They’re students, they’re baby-boomers, and they’ve grown up never having to worry about anything except eventually having to get a job. And here is a guy writing in a way they can easily follow. He doesn’t require them to read a lot of heavy Marxism and tells them everything they want to hear which is essentially, "Do your own thing," "If it feels good do it," and "You never have to go to work." By the way, Marcuse is also the man who creates the phrase, "Make love, not war." Coming back to the situation people face on campus, Marcuse defines "liberating tolerance" as intolerance for anything coming from the Right and tolerance for anything coming from the Left. Marcuse joined the Frankfurt School, in 1932 (if I remember right). So, all of this goes back to the 1930s.

In addition to the links to Hollywood and the CIA some members of the Institute for Social Research, among them Theodore Adorno went on to work for the Princeton Radio Project, a social research project funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. The work of the Radio Project included the development of methods of measuring the response of subjects to stimuli from radio programmes. The primary tool developed for this was the Stanton Lazarsfeld Program Analyzer named after Frank Stanton who went on to become the President of CBS.

It can be seen that these people were ideally placed to present the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School and begin to influence society by the initial dissemination of Political Correctness in the media.

These people, both by their access to the media and their academic credentials were absolutely fundamental in the presentation and development of Critical Theory. In the Dialectic of Enlightenment by Max Horkheimer and Theodore Adorno they manage to shift the emphasis of Critical Theory from the initial Marxist critique of Capitalism to Western Society as a whole.

So under the new ideology of Political Correctness. Hey Presto! We are the villains and there's
absolutely nothing that anyone can say or do to deter the Politically Correct as their remit is simply to criticise. There is no need for reasoned argument or the application of facts or common sense as Critical Theory only needs to criticise. It has no need to construct.

We are outraged but surely we are not surprised?

2007-11-30T13:17:00.000-08:00

The latest useful idiot to fall foul of the barbarity of the very "helpless victims of western imperialism" that she felt compelled to assist in person is British Schoolteacher Gillian Gibbons.

Having allowed a child in her class to name a teddy bear Muhammed she has been sentenced to 15 days in a Sudanese hellhole of a prison narrowly escaping the usually obligatory 40 lashes.

The streets around the courthouse were filled with chanting mobs armed with knives and mobilised by the local Imams who always seem manage to rise to the occasion whenever a mob of armed lunatics frothing at the mouth are required to defend Islam from crusading infidel 54 year old female Schoolteachers.

Apparently the the semi-official Assembly of the Ulemas, or Islamic clerics, said Wednesday that Gibbon's action was "another ring in the circles of plotting against Islam."

There's really nothing else to say is there?

One reason less to worry about Irans Nukes

2007-11-23T01:47:00.000-08:00

It seems from Aviation Week that when Israel bombed the Dayr as-Zawr Syrian nuclear reactor they had already hacked the Syrian radar systems.

A good word for the Great Satan?

2007-11-16T15:29:00.000-08:00

Anti-Americanism is hypocrisy at its finest. You can spend your evening catching the latest episode of "24" and then complain about Guantanamo the next morning. You can claim that the Americans have themselves to blame for terrorism, while at the same time calling for tougher restrictions on Muslim immigration to Germany. You can call the American president a mass murderer and book a flight to New York the next day. You can lament the average American's supposed lack of culture and savvy and meanwhile send off for the documents for the Green Card lottery.

Not a day passes in Germany when someone isn't making the wildest claims, hurling the vilest insults or spreading the most outlandish conspiracy theories about the United States. But there's no risk involved and it all serves mainly to boost the German feeling of self-righteousness.

Moral Relativism

2007-11-16T14:40:00.000-08:00

David B. Wong in his book Moral Relativism (U.C.P. - 1986) asserted that there is no single true morality. There is a plurality of true moralities existing across different traditions and cultures.

The concept of Moral Relativism was subsequently discussed and expounded in the rarefied atmosphere of US academic philosophy by a number of academics over the rest of the 20th Century finding its way into liberal social thought as a convenient defence to the anti-social behaviour and criminality of minority cultures.

Acceptance of Moral Relativism means that *any* behaviour, no matter how grotesque, can be justified by the assertion that only our contrived Western social mores and our priveleged position make violence, intolerance and criminality immoral and that what we would refer to as immorality has a standing no less valuable and right.

Inherent in the assumption of us arrogant Westerners that our considerate sociable behaviour has an impeccable morality is an inbuilt sense of superiority that clearly implies racism. And when racism is implied then clearly the argument is won. Isn't it?

The A.P.U. is alive and well and living in Iraq

2007-10-31T05:37:00.000-07:00

If you remember from some earlier posts I blogged about the concept of the Arab Parallel Universe.

This universe was created by Arabs to explain to themselves why they are in the rut they have been for so long, while also glorifying their personal victories against a world that is always conspiring against them. In the A.P.U. events that happen in our real universe also occur, except that the fashion of their occurrence and their outcome are very different then what we- in the real universe-know them to be.

This phenomenon has an amusing side in addition to the alarming aspects such as how Arabs are fully convinced that the WTC was an Israeli conspiracy and the US moon landings were a fake.

The amusing side can be found here;
The British release strange bear-like man-eating beasts into the wild in Basra.
The Americans transport a shark 200k upstream to eat Iraqi kids swimming in the local rivers.

Isn't life interesting?

Cui Bono?

2007-10-29T16:30:00.000-07:00

From the Latin "To whose benefit?", ascribed to Marcus Tullius Cicero.

Liberalism has become the de-facto set of principals that define progressive political and philosophical thought for a large and influential section of society. Propagated by the media as a base set of assumptions from which acceptable behaviour is defined, these principles constitute an undisputed value system that has infiltrated the progressive judiciary, the media and decision makers.

With no debate, discussion or consensus these values have gained widespread acceptance and stealthily transformed our lives.

The European Court of Human Rights decides that criminals rights are paramount. The United Nations decides whether we can choose to admit foreigners or not. The European Union decides how our goods are counted and measured, how we do business and taxes us to perpetuate its beureaucratic hegemony.

So what have we actually bought into here? Where did it come from and what are the consequences?

The foundations of this doctrine are Multiculturalism, Political Correctness and Moral Relativism.

These concepts have much in common; They are all relatively new (initially expounded in the last century), they are all largely unscientific, they are devoid of testable logic and largely undocumented.

Although these concepts are enshrined in law their origins are obscured.

Let us take each in turn to understand it's historical context.

Islam and Slavery

2007-10-29T16:23:00.000-07:00

An amazingly complete and balanced perspective on the history of Islam and Slavery.

Barbarians at the Gates

2007-10-24T07:12:00.000-07:00

dec•a•dence (d k -d ns, d -k d ns)n. A process, condition, or period of deterioration or decline, as in morals or art; decay.

Gibbon stated that the Roman Empire succumbed to Barbarian invasions because of a loss of civic virtue among its citizens. They had become soft, using Barbarian Mercenaries to defend the Empire, who then became so numerous that they were able to overthrow it. Romans, he believed, had become effeminate and unwilling to live the military lifestyle.

History is the story of civilisations rising and falling. A society becomes successful when its citizens are motivated to support it in contest with its competitors. To achieve this motivation, there must be a balance between the needs of the individual and the common goals. When that balance is right it leads to the greatest possible degree of freedom for the individual. In its time Rome was an island of civilisation in a sea of barbarism. Although the Romans were undoubtedly cruel they lived in a cruel world. Since the 17th century, Europe has been the torch bearer of civilisation.

The greatest single achievement in human history was the global abolition and suppression of slavery. Until that point in time, slavery was an accepted fact of life for all of mankind. At the end of the eighteenth century, three quarters of humanity lived in bondage. Although some cultures did not practice this, they invariably tolerated it. For abolition to occur, two things needed to happen. One was global hegemony, without which global suppression would be impossible; the other was a global superpower with a morality that believed strongly enough that slavery was evil to abolish it and ensure that it was eradicated.

This has always been the enduring choice; Freedom or slavery. Nothing is so important, the choice of living in a society in which all are free to make the choices that shape their lives;
Can we can choose our beliefs, move or stay, marry or not, choose who we marry, work here or work there, study or not? Or do we have those decisions made for us and imposed on us should we resist? This dichotomy was the driving force behind all of the changes that have shaped our world. Wrapped in different guises; monarchy or commons, church or state, religious conflict, one nation or alliance against another. Millions have suffered and died for the right to make these choices.

Although the abolition and global suppression of slavery occurred in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the battles against its re-emergence shaped the twentieth and continue today. There were two great tests for the new freedoms in the twentieth century. Fascism forged successful martial systems that allowed Germany and Japan to create empires in which millions of slaves were worked to death to assist Imperial expansion and the enrichment of the new master races. In the historically inevitable perversion of the ideals of humanitarianism that accompany communist regimes, millions were enslaved and suffered untold misery and early deaths to accommodate the twisted ideals of their leaders and the maintenance of their power. The Chinese killed millions. The Soviet regime created the GULAG, a vast network of slave camps that combined with contrived famines and oppression to waste the lives of an estimated thirty million people.

It is a new century with new challenges but the fundamental question still remains. Do we want a society where we are all free to make the basic choices about the way we live? Or are we prepared to accept the imposition of a society where those choices are imposed on us?

Are we prepared to allow an alien jurisprudence to apply to a minority in place of our hard won legal systems?
Are we prepared to accept execution, mutilation and amputation as the basis of penalties for our penal code?
Are we prepared to allow Homosexuals to be persecuted?
Are we prepared to lose the choice of who governs us in favour of a prehistoric religious hierarchy?
Are we prepared to allow women to be treated as second class citizens?

Or is Western society truly as decadent as the Islamists assert?

He's done it again!

2007-09-28T00:53:00.000-07:00

I can feel a fatwa coming on...

Not having blogged for a while it's interesting to take up pretty much where I left off last year with praise for Pope Benedict.

In a recent speech which will undoubtedly outrage Muslims yet again, sigh...
The Holy Father has had the temerity to point out that "the defence of religious liberty, is a fundamental, irrepressible, inalienable and inviolable right rooted in the dignity of every human being".

Not naming any names of course but guess which *modern* religion advocates the execution of apostates?

He also pointed out that "Terrorism is a serious problem whose perpetrators often claim to act in God’s name and harbour an inexcusable contempt for human life."

Pretty indisputable applying any logic really but expect the usual response from the Religion of Peace...

Relative Poverty is well....

2007-08-29T01:07:00.000-07:00

Relative!

Truth and Lies

2006-10-04T14:37:00.000-07:00

In a fascinating exclusive Patterico is interviewing a Nurse from Guantanamo Bay.

Today while discussing the detainees he made a statement that struck quite a chord with me. He said that “The concept of reasonable doubt does not hold much sway for them, people are believed or disbelieved more for the relationship between the two people more than any affection for the truth.”

The pathological propensity for deceit in some cultures has always fascinated me and the Jihadis are particularly prone to it. Is this an Arab thing?

A perfect example is OBL’s assertions that his organisation denied any involvement in 9/11 followed by triumphantly proclaiming that it did. How could anyone possibly stay committed to someone like that?

Well for these guys that’s all they’ve ever known. Reality for Arabs is what your friends or Imams tell you. Effectively they are continually, collectively brainwashing themselves. As I have blogged before, Rantings of a Sandmonkey identifies this as The Arab Parallel Universe. The interesting thing about the interview above with Stashiu the Psychiatric Nurse is that these people are actually living in that world.

Palestinians reap what they have sown.

2006-09-20T14:31:00.000-07:00

This article from the LA Times recounts how since the election of Hamas the Gaza Strip has descended into Anarchy.

J & M sum it up

2006-09-20T14:11:00.000-07:00

This one is entitled fire.

Lord Carey joins the fray...

2006-09-20T13:58:00.000-07:00

Lord Carey, formerly Archbishop of Canterbury has joined the debate begun by Pope Benedict last week. He adds weight to the opinion being formed by having been a global advocate of inter-faith dialogue and communication for a number of years.

A shot across the bows of the good ship Jihad...

2006-09-20T13:52:00.000-07:00

One of the defining characteristics of the Vatican that allows it to punch far above its weight in the secular world, other than an absolute wealth of intellect at its disposal, is its intimate contact with, and knowledge of, the historical context of current affairs.

Should anyone doubt the timing or relevance of His Holiness's remarks, they should consider its context most carefully. Bear in mind that on countless occasions throughout history it has been the Papacy that has united the perennially divided west behind a common cause in the face of Muslim aggression.

In this case, as in the case of his predecessors, the Holy Father will achieve his objective and win the initial battle to promote unity because he has carefully chosen his ground.

This particular issue will not go away.
The Vatican are not Cartoonists. His Holiness has made a careful definition in his remarks that will become the wedge that will separate jihadis and their supporters from acceptance in the western public consciousness.

While the sound-bite generation's dysfunctional attention deficit allows its fickle opinions to be swayed by whichever images supersede the previous set, the need for a reasoned analysis has become ever more essential. The compelling logic of the Holy Fathers reasoning will endure the initial tantrums of an Ummah that has finally been informed in no uncertain terms that it has no clothes.

What possible response, other than the inevitable violence that has proven his point beyond doubt, could there be to the assertions that there is no place for violence in religion, that religion must rely on reason and that Islam is essentially prehistoric in its evangelical methods. Violence clearly results from an absence of reason, therefore any faith that tolerates or encourages violence is by definition not founded on reason but blind faith and subsequently relies on ignorance to survive. In the case of Islam’s followers it has plenty to spare.

Pope Benedict, cast in the mould of his martial predecessors, has done us all a service. His carefully considered comments have illuminated the issues at the heart of the matter. He has correctly identified the jihad as a matter of faith rather than the politically correct version which tries to justify a global war of Muslim supremacy as some sort of petulant response from justifiably wounded souls lost purely due to the machinations of global capitalism.

The silence from the MSM is deafening. Other than a handful of Guardianistas desperately trying to paint him as some sort of loose cannon. If that is the case then he has fired the first shot right on target.

Heard about the German Terrorist train attacks?

2006-09-16T15:01:00.000-07:00

The one where German authorities discovered a conspiracy to plant explosives at a station in Cologne...

You haven’t? That’s not a surprise then because they have been conveniently eradicated from the media because they violate the sacred principle that a policy of appeasement will protect nations from the jihadis.

Filip van Laenen of The Brussels journal does an excellent job of exposing this fallacy.

For information on this attempted Terrorist atrocity we must rely on suche erudite news souces as The Rutland Herald of Vermont.

So what exactly did His Holiness say?

2006-09-16T14:12:00.000-07:00

As usual whenever there is a suggestion that Muslims have been in any way offended, rightly or wrongly, we are lectured by the Usual Suspects, namely the NYT and the BBC about how everyone and anyone can be wrong except for proponents of The Religion of Peace.

The New York Times suggests "He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology".

The BBC points out that "The BBC's Arab affairs analyst, Magdi Abdelhadi, says the reason for the vehemence of Muslim reaction is simple: America's global "war on terror" is perceived by many Muslims as a modern crusade against Islam. But he says the culture of 24-hour news, whereby comments can be taken out of context, disseminated and recycled, has also played a part."

While we are on the subject of taking comments out of context it's interesting that despite providing links to numerous Outraged Muslims, the BBC fails to take the time to publish or link to His Holiness's speech.

For those of you that might want to do so here it is.

Now let's take a wild stab at guessing how many Outraged Muslims have read it?

AI criticises Hezbollah War Crimes. Yeah you did read that right...

2006-09-16T13:51:00.000-07:00

Hat tip to Rantings of a Sandmonkey for pointing out how stunningly Amnesty International has actually managed to bring itself to accept that Hezbollah firing 4000 rockets containing ball bearings into Northern Israel was actually not all fair play!

He also seems to think that that the sky is falling... Can't say I blame him.

We need to go to MUSCON 5!

2006-09-16T12:55:00.000-07:00

During the Danish Cartoon furore, an excellent, but sadly retired, Saudi Blogger The Religious Policeman defined a process for monitoring the current level at which Muslims are offended.

He cleverly utilised the US DEFCON system which categorises defence readiness and renamed it MUSCON or the Muslim Offence Level.

It seems that following the reportiing of an academic religious discussion involving the Pope we need to go to MUSCON 5 (Severely Offended) again, sigh…

An excellent article in the Telegraph by Melanie McDonagh points out that the Pontiffs remarks were taken out of context (what a surprise) and finishes with the crystal clear observation that “It looks, from this miserable episode, as if you can only have a conversation that deals – however remotely – with Islam on Muslim terms. Not much of a dialogue, then.”

Indeed, could it be that a religion that has evangelised through conquest requires no dialogue?

Ever get the feeling that the word irony has no Arabic translation?

2006-09-15T15:02:00.000-07:00

Muslims burn an effigy of the Pope for suggesting their religion is violent.

Five to Eight years for Iran to build an Atomic Bomb is optimistic.

2006-09-07T17:57:00.000-07:00

Could an SNM device be an option for the next Al Qaeda attack?

"“According to a newspaper report, the US military considers it possible that Iran will have the technical capability to build an atomic bomb in five to eight years,” and this, “allows the US government a corresponding period of time in which to decide whether to attack the Iranian atomic facilities.” I rather suspect the reality of the situation is not quite so rosy."

70% of Gaza’s population lacks food.

2006-09-07T17:13:00.000-07:00

According to the Gulf Times of Qatar “In a recent statement, the World Food Program indicated that, "In contrast to Lebanon, where humanitarian food aid needs have been essentially met, the growing number of poor in Gaza are living on the bare minimum and face a daily struggle to cover their daily food needs." As a result of the present crisis 70% of Gaza’s population lacks food. This has forced the World Food Program to increase the number of Gazans receiving monthly aid to 220,000 persons, from the previous 160,000 - including poor farmers and fishermen.”

Will the deluded Arab Street manage to blame Israel for this as well? Of course they will. After all, courtesy of Gates of Vienna...

"How many Palestinians does it take to change a light bulb?

None! They sit in the dark forever and blame the Jews for it!"

How will Hamas fund its habit?

2006-09-07T16:55:00.000-07:00

As I have blogged in the past, it all comes down to money in the end.

From the horses mouth Efraim Halevy, ex Director of Mossad.

Do you think Hamas will be able to raise the money required to keep the Palestinian Authority afloat?
I think there's no chance. They went to Iran, and the Iranians offered them a paltry $50 million. That's less than what they need for one month. And the money has not yet come through, anyway. Hamas will have to learn the hard way.

It appears that the kettle is black…

2006-09-07T15:53:00.000-07:00

It is almost beyond belief but from the people that brought you the occupation of Tibet, Tienanmen Square, the persecution of Falung Gong and a vast litany of human rights abuses of all kinds.
In a feat of breathtaking hypocrisy the Chinese have actually criticised United States policy on interrogating terrorists.

However industrious they are in making illegal copies of western luxury goods they have much to learn about the art of Public Relations.

It is difficult to conceive how a Foreign ministry Spokesman could possibly make such a statement which will simply turn the spotlight on China’s multitude of enduring human rights abuses, bearing in mind that as in any totalitarian regime the majority of abuses go uncovered for years.
If any evidence was ever necessary that the Chinese Government is totally out of touch with reality then this bizarre statement provides such a crystal clear example of Doublethink that it is beyond doubt.

Surely that is the thing about the nature of censorship that Orwell describes so well. Even the thought processes of those in power are circumscribed leading to irrationality that is then either censored further of relies on the threat of exposure and eventually violence against the individuals prepared to state that the Emperor really has no clothes.

Tolerance, Multiculturalism and Logic.

2006-09-07T14:24:00.000-07:00

One of the most maligned initiatives of the much maligned Tony Blair was his attempt to encourage the identification of those cultural traits that define Britishness. Typically, this was attacked in the media by the usual suspects in the usual way. This response unsurprisingly resulted in the inevitable dilution of any policies for which it would have been useful to rely on this definition, such as deciding adequate criteria for admission and citizenship.

Despite the failure of this process, it might be useful to consider whether tolerance is an attribute of the British and what we should conclude from this if it were so.

The real world obeys immutable laws one of which is the law of relativity. Without its elegant mathematical proof it would still be self-evident that in order to measure tolerance we must compare it with tolerance among other cultures rather than with the unattainable vision of perfection cherished by the Liberati. Rather than becoming sidetracked in an unnecessary historical discourse and a pointless denunciation of intolerance globally, let us accept the fact that we are merely "relatively tolerant" in comparison to the global norm. Anyone incapable of accepting this fact needs to try a bit of independent travel out of Europe, preferably with their eyes open to the condition of people around them.

In any case, should you take a straw poll of Brits, you will soon discover that they certainly perceive themselves as tolerant. "Too bloody tolerant" is a not an uncommon response. It would also be fair to say that the proportion of Brits that think we are not tolerant is miniscule to the point of irrelevance.

In the 1940s a philosopher called Carl Hempel showed that applying Boolean logic to the statement "All Ravens are black" proves the statement that all "non-black objects are non-ravens". He points out that despite the logic of the "All Ravens are Black" statement is intuitive, the inductive statement; "non-black objects are non-ravens" is counter-intuitive and evidence of non-black non-Ravens fails to bolster our belief in the truth of the original statement.

If we apply this same logic to the statement "All British are tolerant". We are left with the inevitable conclusion that "'All those people that are intolerant are un-British".

And there's the rub. In the absence of an application of logic, expedience has led us to denial. It is easier to apply acceptable social assumptions than think through the potential uncomfortable permutations of what we know is true. We are incapable of accepting the incontrovertible evidence of a simple logical deduction lest we stray from the path of Political Correctness.

In my humble opinion, if we cannot accept this and fail to act on it, when certain parties have had their way, we will get an opportunity first-hand to see how relatively tolerant current Britishness really is.

Pakistan forgets the forgotten war

2006-09-04T13:13:00.000-07:00

The battle of talibanstan that I have blogged about previously has been abandoned by Pakistan. The Fourth Rail which has been following developments there has uncovered how it seems the Pakistani authorities have now shrugged their shoulders and left the Taliban in control of Waziristan.

Obviously the way will become open for Al-Qaeda to re-establish training camps and military facilities from which to attack the West.

It is difficult to see now as the Taliban has successfully defended Waziristan how the Pakistan Government will be able to establish control over the area. It will also be interesting to see how the US responds should Waziristan become a more effective base from where the Taliban can prosecute it's war of control in Afghanistan.

What really went on in South Lebanon?

2006-09-04T13:05:00.000-07:00

Powerline posts a link to a video produced by an implanted reporter with the IDF.

The inescapable logic of Multiculturalism

2006-08-27T11:53:00.000-07:00

This quote from Steyn Online caught my eye.

Our tolerant multicultural society is so tolerant and multicultural we’ll tolerate your intolerant uniculturalism. Your antipathy to diversity is just another form of diversity for us to celebrate.

Britain's Cultural Cowardice

2006-08-21T01:56:00.000-07:00

An honest informed appraisal of where we are going wrong.

The only workable solution for Iraq

2006-08-20T09:50:00.000-07:00

The only workable solution for Iraq is the same as in all life. When people can't live together they must live apart.

It is the job of responsible authorities to empower them to do so and limit any subsequent conflict.

Throughout the world societies are fragmenting. The great land empires have crumbled and the autonomous region and mini-state have become ubiquitous.

Although I, along with many others, hoped that common sense would prevail it is not difficult to see how populations locked in a prehistoric dance of religion, violence and xenophobia cannot stop long enough to analyse where their best interests lie.

I have to be honest and admit that if I were an Iraqi Shia who had endured 25 years of brutal oppression I would absolutely refuse to allow that to develop into a further period when I and my people continue to be preyed upon by the very same people responsible for the holocaust that so recently seemed to be over. The Americans and the new Government are clearly unable to protect them so they must protect themselves and ensure it goes no further.

Enough is enough. Begin to implement devolution. Let the Shia and Kurds have their freedom and protect them from the meddling and greed of Iran and Turkey. Let the Iraqi Sunni wallow in a mire of their own making.

It is time to partition Iraq before the monsters commited to destroy others freedom as a life goal get the opportunity to see their dreams come to fruition.

The First Victim of War

2006-08-19T14:47:00.000-07:00

The fallout from the clear falure of standards in photojournalism and the obvious bias prompting it has caused some head scratching in the journalistic "profession".

Editor and Publisher's Shoptalk column hat tip USS Neverdock, desperately tries to come to terms with the reality of the collective bias that allowed the publishing of a series of photos and films that clearly implicate the whole industry from hacks to Editors and brings forth the usual mealy-mouthed hypocrisy. Hence this classic piece of cognitive dissonance from the author "A few photo-illusions are probably due to the lust for the most sensational or striking-looking image—that is, more aesthetic bias than political prejudice. "

What utter Bollocks. Would the same rubbish be likely if this blatant propaganda and photo-retouching was done on behalf of Israel?

Fauxtography a study of how the camera never lies…

2006-08-15T15:35:00.000-07:00

A new word for a phenomenon that has reached epidemic proportions in recent events in Israel.

A quick scan of the blogosphere following the inevitable discovery of amateurish photo-manipulation in Lebanon by a Reuters photographer brings to our attention a whole raft of similar recent activities all designed to discredit Israel.

Some of this propaganda has been collected together on ZombieTime under the heading a Taxonomy of Fraud.

Going back to September 2000 we find an absolutely classic piece of media manipulation.

The photo in question shows an Israeli policeman brandishing a truncheon while standing over a bloodstained youth reported to have been a Palestinian victim of police brutality.
In actual fact the policeman was defending an Israeli youth who had been beaten and stabbed by a group of Palestinians.
The New York Times had to be prompted into printing two apologies before it finally admitted the actual origin of the photograph.

Since then and it seems especially recently numerous similar examples of photo-manipulation have been unearthed by the eagle-eyed blogosphere.

Little Green Footballs has amassed a collection of these in what it refers to as it’s Fauxtography scandal collection.

There is the misrepresentation of auto accidents as Israeli airstrikes, the choreography of rescue scenes by directing the rescuers to provide more grisly images.

A building destroyed in the Israeli air strikes is identified by Reuters as being bombed on three separate dates.

Slublog has noticed the recurring theme of children’s toys lying in the rubble of buildings. The work of the artists in question has an unmistakable hallmark.

Face up to your problems? Us? Problems? Never!

2006-08-15T00:59:00.000-07:00

The ability of the moderate Muslim community, if such a thing can exist in a religion that espouses evengelisation through war, to continually wallow in self-denial about the terrorism that it invariably seems to incubate has become tedious to the point of frustration.

Finally some political figures are beginning to admit that there may be ateeny bit of a problem with that view.

Conspiracy theories anyone?

2006-07-17T06:08:00.000-07:00

The propensity of the Arab Street and various vacuous lefties to latch on to any conspiracy theory they can in order to justify their otherwise unsupportable world view is hard to ignore. Since 9-11 however, there has been a seemingly endless stream of these. From the CIA blowing up the WTC to flight UA77 that crashed into the Pentagon actually being a missile.

The irrepressible No Parasan has brought to light a serious debunking of the latter.

The Perversity of Diversity

2006-07-17T06:04:00.000-07:00

http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/07/13/perversity-of-diversity/
LaShawn Barber laments understandably about how as a black woman she will always be judged in that order; as black, then as a woman and not as an individual.

She explains succinctly how this is the fault of the Diversity concept.

Quote of the Week

2006-04-08T04:42:00.000-07:00

For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert - unattributed

If No News is Good News...

2006-04-08T00:14:00.000-07:00

then Good News is also No News.

One of the most compelling issues associated with media manipulation is the technique of failing to report any advances made by the target of negative media campaign.

This was highlighted recently in this ABC News report.

Via Davids Medienkritic.

A moment of lucidity has occurred

2006-04-07T23:59:00.000-07:00

in the stumbling, incompetent, bureaucratic machinations of the European Union whereby the powers that be have retrospectively realised exactly what funding the Palestinian Authority actually means.

In an earlier post I queried that “I Don't quite recall the part of the European Constitution that deals with redistributing our tax Euros to support terrorist organisations”

What is Hamas?

The Wayback Machine is an index of all of the pages crawled by their quite comprehensive spider and archived. What this means is that if someone adds a site, then later deletes it, if that site has been crawled by the Wayback Machine, it usually has especially if it has received a lot of hits, then you can access the snapshot of the site. The Wayback Machine’s spider then returns on a schedule and updates any changes.
This is particularly useful for uncovering pages that are subsequently deleted for expedience.

Here is a link to the old Hamas website listing their “Glorious Operations” from 1988 to 1994. Click on the link that says “The Glory Record”

A more recent but non-exhaustive record of recent operations can be found here.

in March 2005, after the repeated assassination of it’s leaders, Hamas declared an unofficial ceasefire or Tadiyah.
This has never been ratified as a full cessation of violence and the Hamas charter calls for the destruction of Israel.

Yet more from the Defenders of Free Speech

2006-04-07T01:33:00.000-07:00

Who would have thought it?

Cartoonists are the only people brave enough to stand up against the tyranny of Political Correctness.

The Jesus and Mo Cartoons.

Ken Livingstone has gone from being a harmless fool with some redeeming virtues to become a total bloody liability.

2006-04-07T01:11:00.000-07:00

It really seems as if his judgement has completely failed, assuming he ever had any.

He seems to forget that he is the Mayor of London. You know London, that city with appalling crime, bad transport, astronomical prices, excessive taxation and an ever poorer quality of life as a result. I’ve just returned from New York where crime has dropped significantly. The comparison between that city with the inherent politeness of its citizens and drivers with London’s gangs of sullen youth trying to push passers-by off of the pavement is notable.

In New York Crime has fallen, including murder, by 70% over the last 13 years.

Why can’t we do that?

Instead of concentrating on these issues, he takes any and every opportunity to parade on the world stage continually flaunting his opinions of the United States, Iraq and all that.

If he spent less time welcoming people like Qaradawi who supports the execution of homosexuals among other Muslim atrocities and more time attending to London’s real issues then we might see some improvement.

Quite frankly, I will even vote for a Tory if I think they can put a stop to the seemingly endless decline of London's quality of life and it actually seems as if they are doing what is necessary to field a better candidate.

When the going gets tough and freedom is at stake the tough get going, and the tough are…

2006-04-07T00:08:00.000-07:00

Cartoonists of course!

Last night a South Park episode shown in the States confronted the way in which the Satanic Cartoons issue has not been well... confronted.

Political PitBull has made a clip available here;
http://www.thepoliticalpitbull.com/videos/SouthParkMohammad.wmv

Via Michelle Malkin.

These are cases the like of which have never come before the British courts before

2006-04-05T19:55:00.000-07:00

"These are cases the like of which have never come before the British courts before. The international dimension, the sources of evidence, the types of evidence ... will not have been tested before in our courts."

So says Peter Clarke the British National Co-ordinator of terrorism investigations at a conference in Germany.

Indeed, These *are* cases the like of which we have never seen. In the past these would have been treason trials pure and simple.

All of these cases however, are being tried as closely to criminal cases as possible. The reasoning no doubt is to mitigate the effects of the inevitable feelings of solidarity from similarly discontented Muslims that treason trials would generate and to somehow categorise the terrorists as common criminals rather than as what they are; which is committed, fanatical terrorists engaged in a global jihad that are prepared to massacre as many of their fellow citizens as necessary in order to provoke it.

These are the reasons that Mr Clarke feels the need to distinguish these cases. He then goes on to say that "It will be a real test to see whether our system, and the rules of evidence, are capable of dealing with these issues."

It is plain to see that Mr Clarke doesn’t have complete faith that justice will be done with our present system. Why would this be?

British criminal justice is widely accepted as one of the fairer systems due to the burden of proof that is required for a case to succeed. Beyond reasonable doubt is second only to beyond *any* doubt in the categories of proof required in order to convict. AFAIK there is no justice system in the world that requires proof beyond any doubt and most systems place less burden of proof on the prosecution, often the accused has to prove themselves innocent.

This system has developed to deal with common criminals. Common criminals commit common crimes; theft, crimes against the person, fraud, murder and so on. The British legal system weighs the consequences of freeing a guilty party against the consequences of convicting an innocent one and comes down on the side of protecting the innocent from imprisonment. This is because with the exception of freeing a murderer, which until recently was a pretty rare crime in itself, the consequences of freeing a criminal were not that great should they reoffend. Systematic mass murder simply doesn't fit into that equation. If the consequences of freeing a guilty party to have them reoffend were so great, no doubt a different set of criteria would have evolved. After all, how many mass murderers can you allow to walk free and reoffend before society demands it never happens again? We may soon be in a position to find out.

Our system also largely ignores the concept of collective responsibility. There is no crime of association so the accused has to be proven to have committed the offence. Being a clearly active member of the gang is insuficient except in the case of a conspiracy which then needs to be proven.

The reason this system has worked in the past is mainly because British society is largely honest. The British people are generally an honest and sensible people, both with regard to being realistic about the chances of anyone believing a concocted story and by being prepared to do their civic duty and stand up to recount what they have witnessed. If you have ever needed to be an arbiter of disputes with people of different cultures you will soon discover that British people rarely continue lying once they have been comprehensively found out. That sadly is not the case with people of certain other cultures where deceit can be seen as a virtue. “It’s a fair cop Guv.” is the likely response from the Brit caught red-handed whereas I have known Johnny foreigner to fight his absurdly illogical corner to the end having slandered half the world in the process and totally lost all and any personal credibility in the process.

If you want an illustration of this, read some of the transcripts of Saddam Hussein’s trial. He is undoubtedly bad and not mad yet he clings to the absurdities of his defence with such a sense of wounded resentment that he is almost believable.

On the matters of honesty and civic responsibility Mr Clarke also takes the time to point out that "Most of the cases that we have in the United Kingdom are as a result of intelligence that has come from overseas, or from technical means. There is not the wealth of intelligence that I would like coming from within the communities."

What he is saying in not so many words is that others, perhaps many others, will have been aware of the activities of these people or at the very least been suspicious of them and yet not come forward to inform the authorities.

The convergence of these issues may well find our system inadequate. These are the dangers;

These people will *never* admit their guilt no matter how culpable they are.

Their *communities* will shield them and a total lack of intelligence result in more atrocities.

Insufficient evidence, a lack of witnesses and obfuscation of responsibility through consistent deceit, will not prove the cases against individuals beyond reasonable doubt.

The chance of these trials ending in a farce where some minor technicality or a sheer lack of adequate evidence forces a judge to let butchering suicidal killers and their accomplices back into the community as free men is very, very real.

2006-04-05T17:53:00.000-07:00

It's Civil War: Time to Withdraw!

Useful Idiot of the Week

2006-04-05T09:51:00.000-07:00

This week Professor Ron Geaves, allegedly an expert on “transmigration or adaptation of religions of the Indian subcontinent to their respective communities in Britain” which I am sure is really useful stuff, concludes that London’s suicide bombings were not the acts of terrorists but just an extreme Muslim demonstration!
"I have included, rather controversially, the events in London as primarily an extreme form of demonstration and assess what these events actually mean in terms of their significance in the Muslim community.”

Useful Idiots in Perspective

2006-04-04T14:14:00.000-07:00

I have recently been reading the Mitrokhin Archive by Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin. It is an analysis of the Papers that Vasili Mitrokhin, a KGB Archivist smuggled out of Russia and sheds light on many KGB operations over a number of years.

In a passage describing the history of the KGB, I encountered this little gem. It seems that some things never change, sigh...

In the mid 1930s, many westerners felt compelled to visit the USSR to observe at first-hand the wonders of Socialism, where the myth-image of the world's first peasant-worker state was so powerful that, for true believers, it even survived the contrary evidence of their own eyes.

Malcolm Muggeridge a British journalist in Moscow, later wrote of the British pilgrims he encountered.

"Their delight in all they saw and were told, and the expression they gave to that delight, constitute unquestionably one of the wonders of our age. There were earnest advocates of the humane killing of cattle who looked up at the massive headquarters of the OGPU [later the KGB] with tears of gratitude in their eyes, earnest advocates of proportional representation who eagerly assented when the necessity for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was explained to them, earnest clergymen who reverently turned the pages of atheistic literature, earnest pacifists who watched delightedly as tanks rattle across red square and bombers darkened the sky, earnest town-planning specialists who stood outside ramshackle tenements and muttered; "If only we had something like this in England!"
The almost unbelievable credulity of these mostly university educated tourists astounded even Soviet officials used to handling foreign visitors...".

The Religion of Peace Tolerance, Kindness and Integrity

2006-03-24T07:50:00.000-08:00

"The Prophet Muhammad has said several times that those who convert from Islam should be killed if they refuse to come back," says Ansarullah Mawlafizada, the trial judge.

"Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, kindness and integrity. That is why we have told him if he regrets what he did, than we will forgive him," he told the BBC News website.

But if he doesn't they'll execute him. How tolerant, kind and honest of them.

Heartwarming isn't it? I wonder what the useful idiots at Christian Peacemaker teams would have to say about that?

Useful Idiots of the Week

2006-03-24T02:48:00.000-08:00

During the rise of the Soviet Union. As Lenin and Stalin prepared to spread Communism by any means necessary and instituted an era of persecution against various groups within their society that led to the death and slavery of millions, Moscow saw a steady stream of starry-eyed visitors from the west who had made a pilgrimage to observe the wonders of the new Communist Nirvana at work.

Oblivious to the grim reality of Soviet Communism these well-meaning fools provided, and still provide, a convenient source of propaganda that assisted in whitewashing the GULAG and numerous other atrocities from west’s the collective consciousness.

These people have commonly been referred to using a phrase ascribed to Lenin; "Useful Idiots".

This week Christian peacemaker Teams easily take the useful idiots of the week award by responding to the release of members of their community by Coalition forces with this comment;

“They knew that their only protection was in the power of the love of God and of their Iraqi and international co-workers. We believe that the illegal occupation of Iraq by Multinational Forces is the root cause of the insecurity which led to this kidnapping and so much pain and suffering in Iraq. The occupation must end.”

Just the sort of people you want on your side in conflicts with murdering Terrorists and Dictators aren’t they?

Public Opinion

2006-03-21T02:24:00.000-08:00

It is disconcertingly common when speaking to people about global current affairs and recent history to be confronted with the implicit assumption that you have also swallowed the MSM line on global politics, hook line and sinker.

The difference between the way that matters such as the Iraq war and domestic politics are approached in conversation is utterly revealing. With a party-political subject there is a subtle gauging of your opinions before the speaker openly commits to theirs for fear of prompting a political argument, but when the subject is a choice from the predictable menu of PC statements on how its all Bush/Blair/Israel’s fault that absolutely everything, especially Iraq, is such a total mess, the speaker bizarrely displays absolute confidence that you will concur with their every word.

This reminds me of the sort of conversations described in Orwell’s book 1984 where people, well schooled through constant practice in the subtleties of Doublethink converse about sensitive political matters by mechanically regurgitating the party line. I find this similarity rather uncomfortable as the lack of factual support apparent in the absence of detailed knowledge is identical.

In 1984, these conversations had no import. Dissidents held their peace. The process merely served to confirm in the minds of those present the global implicit acceptance among the community of the unassailable logic of Ingsoc.

In these situations I generally allow the speaker to continue, their opinions invariably devoid of the details and sources indicative of any unbiased research, nodding sagely and commenting noncommittally.

Amusingly, these speeches often peter out as the speaker realises I am either disinterested or have tangential views on the matter that I choose not to disclose.

As most people with these opinions have formed them with little information it is obviously an example of Groupthink. Groupthink is where each member of a group attempts to conform their opinions to what they believe to be the consensus of the group.

I have learned through grim experience to keep my opinions to myself. At an early stage in the 9/11 round of middle eastern conflict I took it on myself to learn as much about the history and circumstances around these events as possible. Subsequently I found myself in a situation of relatively unique knowledge by comparison to my colleagues and acquaintances. By following links from blogs, of which I am an avid reader, I was able to uncover reputable news articles on subjects that were largely uncovered and often hidden by the deluge of biased reporting.

A perfect example of this whole process was last week when a colleague loudly pronounced how typically unfair it was that the British and American monitors had sneaked away from their posts guarding Ahmed Saadat the leader of the PFLP without telling the Palestinians and how terribly uncivil of the Israelis to burst in there and arrest these people and how this was all clearly collusion, especially as the Israelis were in within ten minutes. I wonder if he was aware he was quoting Mahmoud Abbas virtually word for word?

I felt unusually compelled to comment and pointed out that the British and Americans had informed the Palestinian Authority they were going to pull out well in advance because as was common knowledge the prisoners conditions violated the Ramallah agreement.
I explained how this was done in writing with a public circular to all the signatories of the Ramallah agreement which obviously included Israel, that Abbas did not deny this but merely complained that they had never been informed of the date. That the monitors had pulled out at an undisclosed time due to fear of kidnapping which was quite reasonable as Hamas were the Palestinian government (wouldn't you?) and the Israelis were ready because they had read their mail and moved in as soon as the monitors passed their checkpoint. They had taken action due to Abbas saying that the detainees would be freed. There was probably no collusion as there was no need for any. I then mentioned this was all in the public domain should they choose to look past the front pages.

As the gears churned and the pennies dropped around the room I realised yet again that the MSM had done their job thoroughly well. With the usual combination of selective reporting and sensationalising the events they chose to highlight they had succeeded in hoodwinking a group of intelligent folks.

This sort of calculated deception, I am no longer naïve enough to believe it otherwise, is what news consists of in the 21st century. A constant drip-feed of carefully constructed misinformation designed to leave the viewer/reader with little or no alternative to accepting it or spending an inordinate amount of time uncovering the facts.

Despite my occasional moments of public information however, I usually try to avoid pointless confrontations with rabid lefties as there is no upside. Should I win the argument they resent it in perpetuity as their well supported carefully constructed world view will have been violated. (I will never forget the stunned response of one colleague when I explained that the ultimate contribution of the west had been the global suppression of slavery and there was plenty of historical information if he wished to research it, he hated me from that point on)
If they come up with some conspiracy theory I have yet to encounter, and I have yet to meet a leftie incapable of resisting the desire to recount one, then the pointlessness of the exercise becomes all too apparent.

The way in which the MSM has controlled and directed the agenda around these events, subliminally influencing and controlling public opinion is one of the great propaganda victories of all time.

What have the Arabs ever done for us?

2006-03-19T13:57:00.000-08:00

It looks increasingly more like nothing.

Thousands of years of Muslim culture have to date brought us "The Windmill".
How about that for a pivotal moment in the history of mankind when man first discovered that the wind can be used to drive mechanical devices. Aren't we all grateful?

To try to obfuscate this obvious imbalance The Indepedent "What a surprise!" has tried to redress our ignorance in its usual manner, that is with a pile of pseudo-historical bogus claptrap scraped together to make its case.

I had actually intended to get together a list to debunk this nonsense but who has the time? Well Viking Observer has the time, and so do a number of other seekers after historical accuracy not least Gates of Vienna.

So go here to read about how the Arabs have actually never done anything of note that hasn't been stolen or extracted from their enslaved victims.

Morality and the Left

2006-03-19T10:02:00.000-08:00

The theory of Moral relativism goes like this; Acceptable behaviour differs with circumstances. Behaviour that would be totally unacceptable in a western democracy is bread and butter in the third world. Therefore, for a citizen of a less-developed nation to indulge in that behaviour no matter how destructive it is, does not make them a bad person and so they cannot be held responsible for it.

This philosophy is a deeply held conviction for many in the west and underpins their total implicit acceptance of many appalling acts.

The dogma of the left suggests that so long as you treat people humanely they behave humanely. No doubt this is what Margaret Hassan, Tom Fox and a myriad of other unfortunates thought.

As a theoretical exercise in humanism, Moral Relativism seems harmless but its negative effects in society are cumulative and inexorable. Progressively more negative behaviour is accepted or overlooked until the lowest common denominators of humanity are becoming the norm in what were previously the world's bastions of civility.

This process has been engineered by an intellectual elite that is rarely confronted with the consequences of the social strategies that they have been instrumental in encouraging.

Unconstrained immigration from uncivil parts of the world has led to an influx of individuals to whom deceitful, fraudulent or criminal behaviour is endemic. These people bring a raft of issues as, often from anarchic hellholes, they fill the prisons and destroy any chance of acceptance and integration for their countrymen with wave after wave of ever more indiscriminate crime and violence.

In parallel with these changes, neighbourhoods have been abandoned by the very people most influential in initiating this process it in the well documented trends of white flight and gentrification.

The intelligentsia have retreated to middle class ghettos and gated complexes. They negotiate the newly unsafe streets in robust, highly secure utility vehicles as they transport their children to private or selective schools effectively segregating them from the anarchic progeny of members of the dysfunctional communities created by their favoured policies.

Any failure to adequately protect the Liberati leads to clarion calls in the media.

As with John Monckton and Thomas ap Rhys Pryce.

Meanwhile the trials and tribulations of the lower classes that bear the brunt of this sort of savagery on a daily basis goes is largely ignored.

Does anyone remember Balbir Matharu?

Whatever the theoretical rights and wrongs of Moral Relativism, the actual effect has been to erode the quality of life in previously civil societies and tolerate a multitude of evil acts by validating the actions of the criminals.

The fundamental flaw in Moral Relativism is that as soon as you accept that someone cannot be identified as evil due to their circumstances, you lose the ability to identify truly evil people and leave yourself, or more often those less fortunate than you, open to the consequences of having to deal with them.

Quote of the Week

2006-03-19T08:07:00.000-08:00

Who said this?

"I don't regret printing those cartoons. I was defending the Prophet, I was defending Islam against those who wish to use the religion to create conflicts and maintain their grip on power,"

Mohammed al-Asadi a Yemeni news editor who may be condemned to death for publishing the Mohammed Cartoons.

Tucked away in the inner pages of a tiny number of newspapers, reported verbatim and largely ignored we have yet another example of selective news reporting. What would the response be if this happened in say Israel?

When the blatant hypocrisy of the MSM becomes unbearable

2006-03-15T14:11:00.000-08:00

Just read an article by Theodore Dalrymple to put it all in perspective.

Some more on Institutionalised leftism.

2006-03-15T01:25:00.000-08:00

From TCS Daily (Torturing the truth).

The Mainstream Media becomes more desperate by the day

2006-03-14T14:15:00.000-08:00

to concoct any fallacious, tendencious story it possibly can in order to validate its deeply held convictions that all of the worlds evils can be laid at the feet of the US, British and Israeli governments in every single case without exception.

Historical revisionism is at the heart of this and the misleading, deceptive misrepresentations that masquerade as investigative journalism have merely succeeded in causing a skeptical public to view this pitiful excuse for journalism as the deceitful pack of odious lies it has become.

The latest garbage, unsurprisingly from the BBC, is highlighted by Melanie Phillips.

The fact is that anyone capable of independent thought takes this nonsense with a pinch of salt and the vacuous multitude takes absolutely no notice whatsoever. That just leaves those of us that are offended at the hijacking of our media by intellectual charlatans and of course the real intended audience of moonbats, sitting in front of their tellies lapping up every word without a second thought.

Fortunately there are some devoted souls out there in the blogosphere typing their figertips to the bone on a daily basis in order to chronicle this deceit for the rest of us so it's hats off to Biased BBC and USS Neverdock.

Why it really doesn’t matter what the leaders of France and Germany think.

2006-03-12T09:42:00.000-08:00

There is a fundamental dichotomy in the opinions of the national leaders of Britain and America on the one hand and France, Germany et al on the other.

Britain and America insist on taking an active role in foreign policy whereas old Europe seem to believe that more can be achieved through diplomacy and trade.

Who is correct? Who should we trust?

Just for one moment try to put aside whatever you might think about the rights and wrongs of their respective arguments and take a look at their source.

What is the real difference? What *are* America and Britain and what *are* France and Germany?

Simply but honestly put, France and Germany are failed states. They have both failed in the fundamental test of nationhood to secure their own borders and guarantee the security and freedom of their citizens. All of their differences with Britain and America stem from this.

At no point in the last fifty years has either nation been able to say, hand on heart, that they are a free and independent nation that can rely on themselves to confront any aggressor and survive intact. Their security has been guaranteed with no contribution from them by the United States.

That has created the military equivalent of welfare dependence.

Oblivious of how others make difficult decisions and work hard and long to provide for them, they idle away their time and ignore the need for prudential provision against the future by not providing for themselves, refusing to contribute to collective efforts and to cap it all take any opportunity to complain about the methods and morality of the system that does.

Musharraf gets read the riot act.

2006-03-12T08:34:00.000-08:00

President Bush recently visited Pakistan on a little excursion that included India. The majority of the press concentrated on his time in India during which closer economic ties and assistance with India's nuclear power program was highlighted.

Timing, however, is everything in politics and the true purpose of this trip only becomes apparent when viewing it from a Pakistani perspective.

As this article in Newsweek makes apparent, and taking into account recent events and the Pakistani response to Bush's visit there is little doubt that President Bush has laid down the law to Pakistan about its acceptance of the Taliban and Al-Quaedas presence in Waziristan.

Currently there is a war going on in Waziristan as the Taliban try to resist the Pakistani security forces. The Fourth Rail has identified this as The Battle of Talibanstan.

The recent missile attack on a village in Waziristan aimed at killing Ayman al-Zawahiri may not have been authorised by the Pakistani military and underlines American frustration with Pakistans inability to confront the militants that have effectively controlled Waziristan for a number of years.

It would be fair to say that Waziristan has never effectively come under government authority at any point in its past but it now seems as though the independence of its tribal society may have to come to an end as a result of their support for the Taliban/Al-Qaeda militants.

The Danes finally apologise to Muslims for the Satanic Cartoons

2006-03-12T08:23:00.000-08:00

http://www.danishmuhammedcartoons.com/Apology.html

Obsessed with Constitution as Europe Sinks

2006-03-11T15:51:00.000-08:00

"After the Titanic hit the iceberg it took a while before the captain, officers, crew and passengers realized that they were doomed. The first to realize that the vessel was going down were the passengers below deck. The same is true for Europe today."

Says Paul Belien in the Brussels Journal. Well worth a read.

The Gutless British Media capitulates to a threat of Islamic violence yet again.

2006-03-11T15:12:00.000-08:00

An article posted on the Telegraph website was removed "for legal reasons" quickly followed by it's cache on Google.

So what was this potentially unlawful article?

The day is coming when British Muslims form a state within a state.

The article outlines the quite reasonable opinions of Patrick Sookhdeo a respected Islamicist. You can read the article here on YARGB.

If you listen to the Liberati...

2006-03-08T13:59:00.000-08:00

you'd think that wars and strife are growing, death rates are exploding and the "Evil that is Capitalism" is extracting an appalling toll from its victims all to get its greedy paws on that last drop of oil.

Indeed, it seems from reading the Guardian and the NYT that the apocalypse is nigh so what would happen if we took the time to measure conflicts globally?

"the deadliest conflicts - those with 1,000 or more battle deaths a year - are down 80 percent since 1992"

"The number of conflicts rose steadily from the early 1950s until about 1992, then dropped sharply. Today, 20 to 30 armed conflicts are under way worldwide, depending on the definition. That's down from 50 to 60 in 1992."

So what was it that happened in 1991 to radically alter the 40 year growth trend of global warfare? Wasn't that the year of the liberation of Kuwait? But of course, those figures surely cannot possibly reflect any reluctance of tinpot Dictators to start wars because there might be intervention as there was in Kuwait. It really must be just a total coincidence. Musn't it?

Figures available from Knight Ridder and based on a collection of institutionally researched data.

What are we to do about Islam?

2006-03-08T12:33:00.000-08:00

A speech to the Pim Fortuyn Memorial Conference on Europe and Islam by Douglas Murray.

How the BBC reports the arrest of a suspected Pakistani Muslim terrorist cell in Bradford on Friday

2006-03-08T11:55:00.000-08:00

It doesn't.

Instead it makes a minimalist statement "Four men are being questioned on suspicion of committing terror offences after a police raid in West Yorkshire."

Full details are available from Yorkshire Today.

"The students, thought to be British-born of Pakistani origin, were said by fellow students to be deeply religious, and police are focusing their investigation on whether the group held radical extremist views.
Terrorist Branch officers and West Yorkshire Police arrested the three men, two aged 18 and one aged 19, on Thursday night at a shared house in Grove Terrace in Bradford city centre, before driving them to central London for questioning.
One of the men was part-way through a forensics course at the university while another one of the suspects studied pharmaceuticals."

This whitewashing of any Muslim involvement in terrorist activities has become endemic.

A state of denial neatly outlined by Tony Blankley.

Michelle Malkin describes how a Muslim that drove his 4x4 into a crowd at the University of North Carolina has his Jihadi credentials hidden in a New York Times article.

A Clash of Civilizations

2006-03-07T15:58:00.000-08:00

From a clip featuring an interview with Arab-American psychologist Wafa Sultan on Al-Jazeera TV.

"The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete."

And the response to this comment from Dr.Ibrahim Al-Khouli?

"If you are a heretic, there is no point in rebuking you, since you have blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran..."

Now this is a sad day for Free Speech

2006-03-04T16:59:00.000-08:00

When a valued citizen has to lay down his pen.

For anyone that thinksHamas simply hates Israel

2006-03-04T16:45:00.000-08:00

Its leader, Khaled Mash'al explains last year how "The Nation of Islam Will Sit at the Throne of the World and the West Will Be Full of Remorse When It Is Too Late".

"I say to the [European countries]: Hurry up and apologize to our nation, because if you do not, you will regret it."

Would these be the same European countries that as was recently reported have bankrolled the Hamas led Palestinian Authority?

While the world is occupied with Irans nuclear ambitions

2006-03-04T16:39:00.000-08:00

Ahmadinejad takes care of the opposition.

What would Churchill say about all this?

2006-03-03T12:36:00.000-08:00

Via Powerline and Lucianne a Churchillian Perspective on 9/11 by Steven Hayward.

Probably the most incisive comment on the Satanic Cartoons so far.

2006-03-03T12:33:00.000-08:00

"Its like the Jews rioting because someone else eats pork."
An interesting article on Free Speech in the USA by Joel Engel.

The End of Tolerance?

2006-03-03T12:27:00.000-08:00

MSNBC considers a new European approach to immigration and integration.

Quote of the day - an early interpretation of Political Correctness?

2006-03-03T11:25:00.000-08:00

"The first and simplest stage in the discipline, which can be taught even to young children, is called, in Newspeak, crimestop. Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

George Orwell - 1984

Multiculturalism, Political Correctness and Global Free Trade

2006-03-03T11:10:00.000-08:00

The ambition of the Globalisers is to spread free trade globally.

Although this seems obvious it is worth restating. In order to achieve this all encompassing state of laissez faire the Globalisers need to ensure that the global labour market is as pervasive as the free trade in goods and services. Growth of the free trade process in tariff reduction has stalled after Cancun and the poor countries are now facing off the rich nations as they have nothing left to lose from hard bargaining.

The only way to realise the Capitalist paradise of planet earth as one big free marketplace is to keep the pressure on reforming the labour market.

More than anything else labour market reform has left the visible mark of globalisation by forcing agricultural workers to move to the cities in search of work and causing the vast international migrations we have seen begin in the latter part of the 20th century that are continuing now. In poor countries there is rarely a regulated labour market. Professionals like Doctors need qualifications but most jobs are done by whoever will do them most cheaply. Protection of local markets has been abandoned by the rulers of poor countries in return for their thirty pieces of silver from the World Bank.
It would be fair to say that with a few exceptions the labour market in the poor countries is as open as it will get.

The problem for the Globalisers’ need to develop unrestricted labour markets comes from the rich nations, especially in the west. Most western countries have at some point concluded a social contract that provides a consensus on the distribution of value added.

Money raised from taxes is used to support a national health scheme and other benefits including a welfare system that supports citizens that would otherwise fall into poverty.

There is also a widespread belief in the west that a degree of job protection is a right not a privilege. As globalisation has progressed and the labour markets have opened up in the rich nations an influx of economic migrants has followed. In order to protect this process a number of supplementary systems have evolved, supported and encouraged by the Globalisers and the media, to counter the influence of conservative and protectionist elements that would otherwise limit this process.

In the 1970s, from nowhere, came the concept of Multiculturalism.

"Multiculturalism is a policy that emphasizes the unique characteristics of different cultures, especially as they relate to one another in receiving nations." - Wikipedia

For a policy that has become internationally pervasive it’s origins are shrouded in mystery. It is interesting to note that Multiculturalism only seems to exist in those countries where there is a conservative approach to labour relations. Japan for example, along with many S.E. Asian countries which have a relatively unrestricted internal labour market have no concept of multiculturalism as there is no need for them to accept immigrants in order to reduce labour costs.

In tandem with Multiculturalism, Political Correctness has emerged and become accepted as an overriding social principle. Political Correctness has an origin in the work of the members of the Institute for Social Research also known as the Frankfurt School. They extended their interpretation of Marxism and theorised what he would have thought had he still been alive. It has since been adopted as an indisputable moral code by the media.

These two social policies have conspired to prise open the labour markets of the west. The implied benefits of Multiculturalism have been used to counter the threat of racial and cultural rejection of the immigrants who are the reality of the global labour market. Any detractors are instantly denounced as racists. Political Correctness has worked to support this process by undermining the inescapable logic of how the standard of living and quality of life of workers in the host nations must deteriorate due to a supply of cheap labour.

Implicit in all of this is the fact that traditional benefits for workers are being diluted. The common assertion that due to “demographics” workers will no longer have an adequate pension is the latest of these betrayals. This phrase is repeated as if “demographics” is unpredictable. What has happened is that the social contracts that citizens in the west rely on for their security have been cancelled without consultation. This is because the party that they were bargaining with, the Government, no longer has the power to maintain the bargain. Blindly, westerners berate their governments for their problems when the villain has fled the scene. It is Trans-national Corporations that now manage the global economy and they are simply not listening to the arguments. To Trans-national Corporations there is no such thing as citizens, there are just consumers and staff. To the Corporations, laws and regulations are minimally complied with in order to facilitate trade within a jurisdiction.

Multiculturalism and Political Correctness have been no more debated and consulted with western workforces than has globalisation. Workers in the west are expected to, and show every sign of, acquiescing to their manufactured fate as sources of consumption and production.

The incessant party political arguments have become meaningless to the point of irrelevancy. It really has become an argument about where to place the deckchairs. There is not one iota of difference whether any government is socialist or conservative and indeed the comparison is ever more pointless as the distinguishing factors between parties become the perceived media generated personalities of the leaders as their parties policies have become virtually indistinguishable. The need to maintain electability by satisfying the requirements of the media has become the prime factor in policy making. Hence no serious political party will confront the twin shibboleths of Multiculturalism and Political Correctness. They are necessary for the development of the global economy and the revenue from the Corporations is essential to the media. Indeed the Corporations are the media and without positive media coverage any political party is doomed.

Government decisions are meaningless in comparison to the aggregation of corporate policies.

“In practice, it is impossible for the modern state to maintain an independent control over the decisions of big business. When the state extends its control over big business, big business moves in to control the state. The political decisions of the state become so important a part of the business transactions of the corporations that it is a law of their survival that most decisions should suit the needs of profit-making.” -- Nye Bevan

I Don't quite recall the part of the European Constitution

2006-02-27T15:24:00.000-08:00

that deals with redistributing our tax Euros to support terrorist organisations.

Quite apart from the immorality of supporting organisations dedicated to the murder of anyone necessary in order to achiever their political goals this money simply serves to continue to allow the Palestinian people to disassociate themselves from economic reality just the same way they have disassociated themselves from the political reality by voting in Hamas in the first place.

It's like giving a handout to a self-deluding druggie in the naive belief that it will contribute to their
welfare.

Is it News or is it Art?

2006-02-27T02:07:00.000-08:00

Or how it's presented on the web in any case.

There have been a number of brilliant visualisations of news content on the web.

The very latest from Jeroen Wijering in the Netherlands provides an absolutely fascinating Geographical view of news.

Some other takes are 10 x 10 and News is Free.

Enjoy.

Google China

2006-02-25T15:54:00.000-08:00

Google v. Google China

The Dark forces of Moral relativism

2006-02-25T08:27:00.000-08:00

Absolutely the most compelling analysis I have encountered of the fallacies produced by accepting the naive world view of modern liberal thought.

The Adversary Culture
The perverse anti-Westernism of the cultural elite .

by Keith Windschuttle

Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

2006-02-23T14:03:00.000-08:00

From time to time it is good to do some historical research in order to uncover a different context which can offer a view on how events unfold in the modern world.

Probably the greatest strength of modern conservatism is a reliance on a fundamental understanding of historical events. This is in sharp contrast to the liberals perspective which consists of mining history for events taken out of context in order to provide any kind of support for their value system. This is so misleading as modern values are simply not historical values. People really did think differently in those days. Not just about morality and responsibility but also its foundations which were often faith in God.

It would be difficult to assert with any confidence that historically absolutely everyone had total faith and belief in God, but we can begin to understand what society may have been like by considering the application of our clear faith in the scientific laws of the universe to a faith in the religious laws of the universe that would have been as common in the middle ages as belief in the force of gravity or magnetism is now. After all it’s self evident isn’t it? No doubt a universe created by God was as evident then.

Bearing the current clash of civilizations in mind, it would be appropriate to consider the events of the middle ages when Europe and Christianity was struggling for it’s existence in the face of incessant Muslim invasions over the course of several hundred years.

In the battle of Tours in 732 the Franks under Charles Martel defeated the Muslim invaders stopping their progress across Europe.

In 756 the Caliphate of Cordoba was set up in southern Spain ruling it until 1492.

The battle of Lepanto in 1571 saw the Holy League defeat the Ottoman empire putting a stop to its expanding control of the Mediterranean.

In 1589 and again in 1683 the Ottoman Turks were held at Vienna.

At the heart of the determination to defend Europe against Islam was literally the fear of God. Numerous Popes have been instrumental in rallying the fractious, squabbling kingdoms of Europe to present a united front and deny the infidels from their stated aim of subjugating Europeans and imposing Islam.

As a result the Papacy has a direct, and with the recent murderous attacks on Christians in Muslim countries such as Turkey and Nigeria, urgent interest in dealing with the consequences of Islamic religious oppression.

A recent article by Walter Brandmuller, the president of the Pontifical Committee for Historic Sciences on Christianity and Islam in History was extremely revealing. I was prompted to take a second look at this fascinating historical perspective when I noticed that the Vatican seems to actually be coming off the fence over the savage, unprovoked murders of innocent Christians.

Quote of the Day

2006-02-22T15:03:00.000-08:00

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction."

- Blaise Pascal French mathematician, physicist
(1623 - 1662)

Surely the Iranians have no credibility at all?

2006-02-22T13:22:00.000-08:00

Please don't tell me anyone really takes stuff like this seriously.

Iran claims the British planted the al-Askari shrine bomb.

What is an Insurgency?

2006-02-22T13:01:00.000-08:00

Wikipedia which has thankfully taken the mantle of the “global keeper of semantic meaning” for the English language from Microsoft who had previously created the abomination of “Microsoft English”.

According to Wikipedia the definition of insurgency, which would be hard to dispute is;
“An organized rebellion that engages in deliberate actions to cause the downfall of a governmental authority, through destruction and armed actions. This can include a range of behavior, but primarily focuses on armed activities of irregular forces that rise up against an established authority, a government, an administration, or a belligerent military occupation. Those carrying out an insurgency are "insurgents". Insurgents engage in regular or guerrilla combat against the armed forces of the established regime, such as conducting sabotage and harassment. Insurgents are in opposition to a civil authority or government primarily in order to overthrow or obtain a share in government, to further a separatist or revolutionary agenda, or improve their condition.”

Other than the misspelling of behaviour which I will forgive in return for such detail, this just about sums up the concept.

The actions of the multifarious groups killing and crippling people and destroying property are commonly referred to as insurgents. As you can see from the definition an insurgency must be organised. It is not spontaneous at all. It has all of the trappings of an embryonic state or political organisation and carries an element of legitimacy as its organisation and cohesiveness imply popular support.

With respect to Iraq, which is obviously what I am leading up to, we need to analyse the use of what has by default, and no doubt with encouragement from the apologists, become the definitive phrase used to describe the post-invasion violence.

Well… halfway through writing this little missive my concerns have been highlighted in the worst possible way.

Iraqi blast damages Shia shrine.

How can we in the west possibly go on describing this sort of atrocity as an act of insurgents?

This is no more an insurgency than the Admiral Duncan pub bombing or the Oklahoma City bombing.

This attack at the al-Askari shrine (See yesterdays posting for its relevance to the Shia) is an escalation of provocation on behalf of people that are no different to Timothy McVeigh and the perpetrator of the spate of bombings that included the Admiral Duncan.

They are spiteful, obsessed and filled with loathing and resentment for their victims other fellow citizens of Iraq, to the point that they have absolutely no care for the lives that they destroy. They are quite simply butchers.

For insurgents read butchers.

Have you ever wondered what the difference is between the Sunni and Shia?

2006-02-21T14:48:00.000-08:00

The Story of Imam Hussein by Hammorabi.

What does free speech really mean?

2006-02-21T14:26:00.000-08:00

David Irving the historical revisionist has recently been sentenced to three years imprisonment in Austria for denying the holocaust.

Whatever you may think of his views, and I take an extremely dim view of them, imprisoning him is as self-defeating an action as can be imagined.

The thing about free speech is that it works both ways and in the same way that Irving should be free to disseminate the garbage he writes so long as it doesn’t incite crime, he can be criticised openly. This is what is called debate, and the almost complete lack of it has caused the intellectual paralysis that has become evident in the west where rational discussion has become so predictable and passionless.

We *need* debate about subjects like holocaust denial so that the perpetrators can be challenged, evidence brought to light in support of historical reality to educate and remind us of what our parents went through to provide us with thosefreedoms we treat so casually.

Yes even for David Irving.

Bingo!

2006-02-19T12:27:00.000-08:00

The penny has finally dropped. I have been wondering since the publication of the British Army Iraqi riot control video why a newspaper like the Screws of the World would publish a two year old video at this particular time. No doubt they have had numerous opportunities and yet held out until the Cartoon Wars were in full swing.

If I understand the demographic of this particularly worthless yet profitable rag, it is not exactly the sophisticated or informed in society that buy it.
Now you would have thought that Mr and Mrs average would actually support giving a bit of a slapping to stone throwing youths. Has the NOTW risked alienating its readers to publish this story? Of course they have. So why did they do it and why at this time?

Only when I picked up the Sunday Times today and read a headline worthy of the Guardian at its worst or the *not so* Independent that I realised why. The "Police vile photo race row!" front page screamer describes how some racist images distributed among Merseyside Police *only* resulted in fines after going through the disciplinary process. Newsworthy indeed but never front page news unless...
News International are defending Political Correctness tooth and nail in the only way they can, through controlling the agenda with a version of "Muslim Outrage".

This new phrase "Muslim Outrage" refers to an exaggerated response to targeted issues in order to further a political agenda while ignoring far greater excesses for the same purpose.

Here we can finally see a significant divergence of interests between the media kingmaker, News International and Tony Blair. The issue at hand is Political Correctness and his stand against it has made his position untenable. (Could this be what is prompting him to move on?) With the rest of the British Media firmly in the *not in my name* camp, without support from N.I. Labour would be left with absolutely no media support and inevitably doomed at the next election.

This seemingly contradictory combination of Political Correctness and right-wing policies adopted by N.I. only makes sense in the context of an organization dedicated to the cause of globalisation.
Yet again our pawn-like status is exposed as the Globalisers brush aside issues essential to our freedom and liberty in favour of the great game of the acquisition of wealth.

On the upside, they are doing this because they are feeling threatened. The hypocritical edifice of Political Correctness is cracking under the strain of the abject failures of Multiculturalism.

All it needs one more push to finally bring PC toppling from its contradictory foundations and unless I am much mistaken our Muslim Extremist friends are busy conspiring to produce it at this very instant. Let us just hope that not too many of us die in the process.

Selective Outrage

2006-02-18T12:05:00.000-08:00

http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/041123/lester.gif

The Politics of Confusion

2006-02-18T12:04:00.001-08:00

What do animal rights activists think about the halal killing of animals?

What do feminists think of enforced marriage?

What do any supporters of religious freedom think about the Islamic sentence of death for apostasy?

How can anyone accept death by stoning for adultery?

Why can't Nigerians get bank accounts?

Why are Hindus more successful than Muslims?

Why don't liberals want to see a successful democratic Iraq?

What do gay rights activists think about the stoning of homosexuals?

What do greens think about the levels of pollution from developing contries?

What do people that despise creationists and anti-abortionists think of Islam?

There's no substitute for reasoned analysis

2006-02-18T12:04:00.000-08:00

Here is some objective consideration of the events around the Satanic Cartoons from The Claremont Institute.

First they came for the Cartoonists...

2006-02-18T12:03:00.000-08:00

Why are the moderate muslim silent majority in the UK that we hear somuch about so notably silent? Why are they quiescent, seemingly paralysed and incapable of articulating any response to the extremists bringing their religion into disrepute?

For an answer to that we simply need to look at the response from our courageous media to the cartoon controversy. In other words nothing. No stand in the name of freedom of speech. No collective publishing so that people can see how inoffensive they really are. They say that it's because the cartoons are offensive and they are simply displaying sensitivity. Do you think they would publish if it was Christians being offended? Of course they would and we all know it. Its because they are frightened of reprisals.

It's the same with the moderate Muslims. They're scared. Scared and intimidated. They know that if they speak out they and their families will be in danger if there is an escalation of this confrontation. They also know what the fundamentalists are capable of.

Shades of Nazi Germany in the 1930s?

It's time to stand up and be counted.

2006-02-18T12:02:00.001-08:00

Sign the petition in support of Jyllands Posten here.

Our courageous free press, ever enthusiastic to divulge any discrepancies they see in the morality or integrity of our leaders "in the public interest", expose themselves as hypocritical cowards when the real world intrudes.

"Politics magazine the Liberal has followed the Spectator in publishing then hastily withdrawing from its website one of the controversial Danish cartoons featuring the prophet Muhammad."

Has it really come to this? No wonder the Islamic fundamentalists are convinced we are decadent and weak. Is it because we are? Or is it just our media?

But when it's "allegations of abuse by British Soldiers" It's front page news.

Too cowardly to show a handful of cartoons but when it's time to criticise an easy establishment target or show kidnap victims, people plunging from burning skyscrapers or someones throat being cut by a terrorist, the BBC leads the charge.

In the words of Ayaan Hirsi Ali; Shame on them.
"Shame on those papers and TV channels who lacked the courage to show their readers the caricatures in The Cartoon Affair. These intellectuals live off free speech but they accept censorship. They hide their mediocrity of mind behind noble-sounding terms such as ‘responsibility’ and ‘sensitivity’."

How legitimate anger is provoked by the murder and oppression of Muslim Brothers.

2006-02-18T12:02:00.000-08:00

It isn't .

Blasts target Iraq's Shia Muslims.

Darfur Genocide.

Real rage is reserved for cartoons.

The Cuban poverty and oppression of Fidel Castro does have a legacy after all...

2006-02-18T12:01:00.000-08:00

And his name is Hugo Chavez.

Sr. Chavez exposes his total ignorance of history along with the puerile naivety that passes for popular politics in South America.

"Return Las Malvinas to Argentina Mr Blair." The words of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez during a speech to his supporters.

Return? What does he mean by return?

The Falkland islands were claimed for Britain in 1690 by John Strong, captain of the Welfare, and named after Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland (1659-1694). Argentina didn't exist until 1816.

Is he suggesting that Britain should legitimise the unprovoked armed invasion of the Falklands, the imprisonment of it's population and theft of their property by the fascist military junta of General Galtieri, reponsible for the death of many Argentine citizens, "Los desaparecidos"?

What will the future hold for Venezuela's citizens? With someone like Chavez in control yet another South American dictatorship seems more likely than another election.

The Arab Parallel Universe

2006-02-18T11:57:00.000-08:00

Going a long way to explaining the Arab tendency to always prefer a good unsupported conspiracy theory over news of any kind, Rantings of a Sandmonkey explains about the Arab Parallel Universe.