Excellent observations from Anne Applebaum in, of all places, the Washington Post (thanks to Jeffrey Imm):
...we can all unite in our support for freedom of speech -- surely the pope is allowed to quote from medieval texts -- and of the press. And we can also unite, loudly, in our condemnation of violent, unprovoked attacks on churches, embassies and elderly nuns. By "we" I mean here the White House, the Vatican, the German Greens, the French Foreign Ministry, NATO, Greenpeace, Le Monde and Fox News -- Western institutions of the left, the right and everything in between. True, these principles sound pretty elementary -- "we're pro-free speech and anti-gratuitous violence" -- but in the days since the pope's sermon, I don't feel that I've heard them defended in anything like a unanimous chorus. A lot more time has been spent analyzing what the pontiff meant to say, or should have said, or might have said if he had been given better advice.All of which is simply beside the point, since nothing the pope has ever said comes even close to matching the vitriol, extremism and hatred that pour out of the mouths of radical imams and fanatical clerics every day, all across Europe and the Muslim world, almost none of which ever provokes any Western response at all. And maybe it's time that it should: When Saudi Arabia publishes textbooks commanding good Wahhabi Muslims to "hate" Christians, Jews and non-Wahhabi Muslims, for example, why shouldn't the Vatican, the Southern Baptists, Britain's chief rabbi and the Council on American-Islamic Relations all condemn them -- simultaneously?
CAIR, eh? Once again: don't hold your breath, Anne.
It's a little amusing ponder this fact....apologies are being demanded for comments made by a guy who's been dead for 700 years about another guy who's been dead for 1400 years.
Excellent piece. There has to be a defense of freedom of speech, free of threat of violence.
Come to think of it, wasn't that one of the main points the Pope was making?
Congrats to Anne Applebaum on her clear-headed defense of the Pope's talk in Regensburg; kudos to the WP for having the courage to print it. More of these sensible and politically incorrect voices are needed in the West. And it would not be a bad thing if there were a few coherent expressions like this in the East as well.
OHara
We are a people... the West... who call ourselves "liberal". The truth of the matter is that our liberality comes from our Christianity. In Christianity we are instructed not to judge outsiders (Paul, Second Corinthians). The core of Christianity teaches we are saved by faith, not by works... so we can not boast ourselves over someone not saved.
The first Christian church... the members gave up their wealth to live together in what today is called a commune.
Like most of what is good with our world, the wicked have taken it and perverted it. Marxism is not liberal, it is infamous for murdering anyone who has any manner of different beliefs. And Leftism just right of Marxism... which our countries are embroiled in, are likewise intolerant.
However, what our left has devised is a system called "multiculturalism". This is a new perversion on old Christian liberality. It attempts to give credit to the success of the West to athiesm and leftism... at the same time sorely corrupting Christian values of liberality.
Instead of understanding the good values of our Christian values... "multiculturalism" demands that these values are as valuable as any other culture. Therefore, the intolerance of Islam is just as important as the tolerance of Christianity.
The core root of the problem is based around hatred. These people hate their own nations. They hate freedom. They hate true liberality and want fascist leftism in its' place.
They want totalitarianism... tyranny... and they see in the Islamists a commonality towards these goals.
As for the Pope, I think he is left leaning. He has truly denied that Islam is "evil and inhumane". He has stated that quote was entirely far from his own opinion -- basically stating that Islam is good and very humane.
What we need are leaders who stand up and speak the truth about the threat facing the Free World.
We need to bravely confront the Islamists today... not twenty years from now when they are far better armed.
Had we met off Hitler in the 30s, when he was breaking the treaty of versailles... when he was arming up... when he had declared already he would seek to take Europe... we would not have had the Holocaust nor the some odd other 60 million victims of WWII.
SIX STEPS TO WAR.(YOU WILL NOTE HITLER MADE Demands, attacked and everybody refused to act)
Today the Muslims are making demands, attacking and no one is acting.
HMMMMMM- do I see a resemblance??? YOU BET.
1 CONSCRIPTION & RE-ARMAMENT
Hitler began to build up his armed forces. In 1935 he introduced conscription (calling up men to the army). This broke the Treaty of Versailles, but Britain and France let him get away with it.
History Learning - very clear
Rearmament: The British Reaction - documents
Axis Militarism - sets Nazi re-armament in its wider setting.
2 RHINELAND
Hitler invaded the Rhineland on 7 March 1936. This broke the Treaty of Versailles. It was a bluff – the German army had only 22,000 soldiers and had orders to retreat if they met any resistance. But once again, Britain and France did nothing.
History Learning - very clear
Wiesenthal Centre - good
Britain's reaction to the Rhineland - Learning Curve exercise
Rhineland Crisis: British Reaction
Rhineland Crisis: French Reaction - documents
3 AUSTRIA
In 1938, Hitler took over Austria. First, Hitler encouraged the Austrian Nazis to demand union with Germany. Then Hitler invaded Austria (11 March 1938). This broke the Treaty of Versailles, but Britain and France did nothing.
History Learning - very clear
Spartacus site
Anschluss: The British Reaction - documents
Anschluss: US reaction
Radio Days - detailed account
Source A
This British cartoon from 1938 shows Hitler as a poacher, stealing Austria. Mussolini is shown as a bad game-keeper. ‘I never heard a shot, Adolf’’, he is saying.
...Interpretation
Extra:
What is the cartoonist of Source A saying about Mussolini?
4 MUNICH
In 1938, Hitler tried to take over the Sudetenland. First, Hitler encouraged the Sudeten Nazis to demand union with Germany. Then, Hitler made plans to invade Czechoslovakia.
Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler. At Munich, on 29 September 1938, Britain and France gave Hitler the Sudetenland.
Page on the Sudeten Crisis
Source B
This British cartoon from October 1938 (by Low, who hated Nazi Germany) shows Hitler as Santa, popping into his sack, one-by-one, little countries – who had got into bed with the ‘French-British family’. His sack says: Deutschland Uber Alles (‘Germany over all’).
The caption read: 'Europe can look forward to a Christmas of peace' (Hitler).
...Interpretation
Extra:
What is the cartoonist of Source B saying about Hitler?
5 CZECHOSLOVAKIA
On 15 March 1939, Hitler’s troops marched into the rest of Czechoslovakia. This, for most British people, was the time when they realised that the only thing that would stop Hitler was a war.
History Learning - very clear
Page on Britain's decision to go to war
6 USSR/NAZI PACT and
POLAND
In 1939, Hitler tried to take over Poland. First, the Germans in Danzig demanded union with Germany. Then, Hitler threatened war.
Chamberlain promised the Poles that Britain would support them if Germany attacked Poland.
In August 1939, Hitler made a secret treaty with Russia. He thought this would stop Britain & France helping Poland.
On 1 September 1939, Hitler invaded Poland.
On 3 September 1939, Chamberlain declared war on Germany.
We can't have this kind of clear-headed thinking at the WP. To have an MSM journalist advocating for our First Amendment rights ... and even going beyond our right, nay, our obligation, to criticise Christians and Jews, well, that simply won't do.
One phone call from bandar and Anne's gonna be history.
Why Chamberlain Appeased Hitler –
DO you see any similiarities between then and now. I DO.
Approval
Many Conservatives liked and supported Hitler’s strong, right-wing government.
Britain was weak
Britain’s small army was too weak to go to war in 1938; needed time to re-arm.
Communism
Many Britons saw Hitler as a defence against Russian Communism.
Democracy
The critical factor? Chamberlain was not a dictator with the right to start a war if he pleased. He could not go to war without the support of the people – and until 1939 most people wanted peace, almost at any price.
Empire
Britain could not defend her empire AND fight a war in Europe.
France
Did not want war; and Britain could not fight Germany alone.
German propaganda
claimed that Germans in the Sudetenland and Poland were being mistreated.
Home
The Labour Party wanted to spend on housing and social care, not re-armament.
Ist World War
Chamberlain & many others remembered the slaughter of the First World War.
Justice
The Treaty of Versailles was unfair and Hitler’s Six Steps all seemed reasonable. Other countries were conscripting to reduce unemployment.
Kost (= Cost)
Rearmament meant high taxes, which made democratic leaders unpopular.
League of Nations
Many people believed in the League, and that quarrels could be ended by negotiation.
Morality
It was RIGHT to try everything possible to keep peace: ‘War is a terrible thing, and we must make sure that it is the great issues that are involved’.
Neville Chamberlain
misjudged Hitler - he believed that Hitler ‘was a man who could be relied on’. Recent research has suggested that, even after March 1939, Chamberlain remained substantially committed to appeasement.
Out of sight, out of mind
Hitler rearmed/ persecuted the Jews etc, in secret. Western countries didn’t know/ could not be sure.
Peace Movement
Many people, especially young people, wanted peace.
Quit
Hitler promised in 1938 that Sudetenland was the ‘last claim I have to make’.
Remote
Czechoslovakia was far away (none of our business?)/ Britain could not help.
Spanish Civil War
Guernica showed what German bombers could do to Britain if there was a war.
Hitler himself said that those who banter about peace are the most gullable and used idiots on earth.
" ...the White House, the Vatican, the German Greens, the French Foreign Ministry, NATO, Greenpeace, Le Monde and Fox News -- Western institutions of the left, the right and everything in between."
We are the in between - the bloggers, commenters at websites such as this where we can bloviate, obfuscate, vent, rant, make mistakes, correct the mistaken, be corrected, and say all kinds of stupid or intellegent things. The internet and people like Spencer et al have given common people the chance to be heard around the world without being screened by some ivory tower editor. We exchange ideas, insults, compliments, encouragement and all those things that unite us in this world wide struggle. Without the internet where else could we be heard or read?
100% agree with you Anne. We are all going down a very slippery slope with the Islamists. There appears to be no easy solution except that our leaders should start shipping back Islamic activists from the West or non-Muslim countries.
Actually we invited most of these pathetic heads from Muslim countries, in the hope they will support our way of life. You can't get more wrong than that? Experiment is over. Send them back to where they belong to their caves in Pakistan.
Very well put by the author of this article. I am not affiliated with a particular party or religion, but have to applaud her being real about it. I believe that was her point.
What is with the bloated postings above?
"What is with the bloated postings above?"
I don't know--hurts my eyes so I just scroll past. I'm sure there's some nugget of good sense in there somewhere.
Exs, how about a little word economy, eh?
Anyway, it seems clear to me that the liberals in the west are just scared to death of the Muslims, as scared as the 1930s Brits were of the Nazis. They just can't cope with that kind of ruthlessness, so they're developing a mass psychosis--denial. They'll do anything to keep from looking at the truth of Islam.
MUSHI WANTS YOU ALL MUZZLED:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060919/wl_sthasia_afp/unassemblypakistan_060919201407
How about we of the West begin demanding apologies from Islam?
I think the death threats and insults to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, head of a large Christian population, deserves respect and aplogies from the Muslim rabble, including their heads of their faith. Their turn to apologize.
We should be hearing this call for Mulsim apology from all our world leaders, including the media and academia. Why the silence?
At last! A medical solution has been found for the problem of Muslim sensitivity: the product can be seen at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tallglassofmilk/96155602/
Good one, Wally.
And left hand application, too.
Battle_of_Tours,
muslimes never apologise.Wantonly incapable of introspection.When a muslime appears to bend down,know, that he is surreptitiously sharpening his knife and hatching some fiendish strategy(ies...).
A very good article.
Defending Western freedoms is now almost the only issue. Within the Pope's lecture, is restated the great truth that Christianity is a religion of faith and reason. It is that element of reason that has given us our freedom...not least of which is the freedom not to believe. Agnostic is not the same as infidel!
The situation is serious and Benedict, a superb scholar, selected his quote about Islam well. If you do a little digging on Manuel II Palaiologos you will discover a man who made a last ditch attempt to save the eastern Christian civilisation in the face of Islamic onslaught.
The quote used by the Pope was written while Constantinople was under siege by an Islamic army from 1390 to 1402. During that time Manuel slipped out of the city and visited many western powers in the hope of getting military help…mostly to little avail. He even agreed to a unification of the Eastern and Western churches! In 1402 the Moslems were defeated at Ankara and peace of some sort was restored. That ended in 1421 when Constantinople was, once again under Islamic siege. Manuel II being forced to sign a treaty whereby the Byzantine Emperor submitted to the Sultan and agreed to pay a tribute ended the siege.
It was all to no avail as the Moslems were back in 1454 to sack, rape and ruin the city of Constantinople. They were only stopped in 1683 outside the walls of Vienna by a finally united Christian (European) army. The Moslems retreated back to the Balkans and have waited for another try.
Perhaps the Moslem world is right to be upset because the Pope, in choosing a quote from Manuel II Palaiologos, was telling the western world to unite and warning us that paying tribute, in gold or freedoms, is no answer to terrorism and attack.
If Anne Applebaum understood all that before she wrote the article I would be amazed. If she came to the same conclusion from a different direction we can have some hope that the circle is starting to close.
What Anne says:
...since nothing the pope has ever said comes even close to matching the vitriol, extremism and hatred that pour out of the mouths of radical imams and fanatical clerics every day, all across Europe and the Muslim world, almost none of which ever provokes any Western response at all. And maybe it's time that it should.
is full of wisdom and lucidity.
history shows muslims will dishonor any agreement set with them.
rule 1, no appeasement
rule 2, no jizyah
rule 3, never forget rules 1 and 2