"We are at war and those who warn of its dangers are being systematically silenced by our enemies who demand that nothing get in the way of our complacency with our own destruction"

Good article, but just a heads up - Go back to the beginning before you copy the link :)

Fifty years from now, if we survive, the leaders of today will be damned for making the world an unnecessarily worse place to live. Who, in good conscience, will be able to defend the reprehensible lack of action from these poor excuses for leaders? They will appear even more spineless than Chamberlain and Daladier look to us in the here and now.

Caroline Glick -- one of the best and always worth reading.

"If journalists, intellectuals, social critics, authors and concerned citizens throughout the world do not rise up and demand that their governments protect their right to free expression and arrest and punish those who intimidate and trounce that right, ... "

We're back to 'free expression' here. But in some countries of the West there is no complete right to free expression. Some of this has already been discussed at

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014097.php#comments

and I, for one have just ended up even more confused than before.

I think that I believe that free expression of opinion, and even the distortion of facts and history uttered publically, is better than introducing laws to silence those with whom the majority disagrees. I think that I believe this because if the majority is correct then surely the demonstration of the majority's facts will suffice to prove such a correctness and if the majority opinion is wrong then the minority opinion will have proved itself to be factually correct, in public debate, and it will become the majority by virtue of such demonstration, and vice versa.

Suppressing free speech in favour of a bland, politically correct view of society, and by society at large for that matter, does not, and cannot, move us forward in the important debates which we have to have amongst ourselves - the debates which will guide and form society over the next few decades; by which I mean to say that if we exclude from the public debating arena certain topics (or certain views about certain topics) then we are not having, indeed, rendering ourselves incapable of having, full and meaningful debates on such topics. How, therefore, could we, as a society, reach an informed conclusion on such a topic.

No, no. It must be permissible in a free society to say anything and then be allowed to justify a statement if one can. Only if one can't so justify should one be condemned.

Therefore, to my mind, it follows logically that we must rise up and demand that our governments protect our rights to free expression and arrest and punish those who intimidate and trounce those rights. This is not just, as the article says, an issue for "journalists, intellectuals, social critics, authors" but also for we "concerned citizens".

We are the 'concerned citizens'. We must, we really must, demand our rights to free speech no matter how unpalatable that which we have to say might be to some of our fellow citizens. In as much as it is up to us to prove ourselves correct it also up to them to prove us wrong - and that, my friends, they cannot do - as we well know.

Dominic.

'The first action that Yasser Arafat took in 1994 after establishing the Palestinian Authority was to attack Palestinian journalists, editors and newspaper offices. Journalists and editors were arrested and tortured and all were forced to accept PA control over their news coverage'
how little this has been reported in the western press!
And how this has spread since to include the corrupt news agencies who feed the western press who struggle to cover up the exposes of fauxtography and pallywood productions to keep their alliances with terrorists intact.
They call for Israel and America to lay down and die (without protest) but not so or Western Europe, because thay know that they will be virtually dead within a few years.
Caroline identifies shrewdly that the most terrible threats that face us actually comes from within our society. Those many many thousands who willimgly assist our own final destruction every day in our universities, media and governments by taking away our very resolve to defen ourselves.

I'm wondering ...

Everyone in authority appears to be paralyzed when it comes to taking action against this terminal cancer the West is facing. "Islam is a religion of peace." We're watching the train coming. But no-one wants to get out of the way because we're afraid we'll look like alarmists. Would they rather be hit by a train than fight for our way of life? Freedom of speech for Islamists to stand on a corner in Manhatten and say they piss on America - walk on our flag and promise a new holocaust! But if a non-Muslim stood on the corner and threatened the lives of Islamists - people who actively and feverishly work to destroy us - and promised a jihad of our own, people would freak out! How have we become so cowed and weak that we can't even publically defend ourselves without being called racists or Islamaphobes? It's insane. It's never a two way street with Muslims.

Since armies aren't the answer ...

The way to slowly eliminate agitators (you know who they are) is to quietly pluck them off the street and terminate them. Very quietly, discreetly without fanfare or announcement. Let's face it they run in numbers and a riot is only a minute or two away. But if the right, inconspicuous people happen to observe their habits and notice the times they are alone or going to sleep well... After a couple dozen go missing without a blaze of glory without a trace maybe anonymous jihad won't seem so appealing. I know this probably won't see the light of day because even though we know the reality of what's coming -- what I've just suggested will be considered "inappropriate"

Dominic, Very well said, but may I add something?

Here goes - Telling the truth takes courage, not the physical kind but the mental, intellectual kind. The kind of courage to face criticism. President Bush used the word Islamofascist a few months ago and was slammed by many people most hypocritically by the Saudis. Mr Bush has never used that word again to my knowledge. A very recent story about Danish reaction to their situation elicited the word xenophobia from Reuters. Our problem seems not to be that people are not speaking out, but that people like Reuters are twisting the truth and resorting to name calling either from incompetence or from aiding and abetting out future masters. Have Reuters and others chosen sides?

The additional problem is that the courageous opinion writers who cannot be intimidated by words, will soon be intimidated by bullets.

The threat of death is always there. That is the real difference between us and them.

Blair transforms the UK into the Umma Kingdom,
while Prince Charles waits to become "Defender
of Faiths"...

http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/opinion/viewarticle.aspx?id=431043

Published on 03/11/2006
IT has been reported that Prince Charles has indicated that he wants “Defender of Faiths” included in his coronation service, rather than “Defender of the Faith”.

I wonder which "faiths" he will "defend"?

Since armies aren't the answer ...

The way to slowly eliminate agitators (you know who they are) is to quietly pluck them off the street and terminate them. Very quietly, discreetly without fanfare or announcement. Let's face it they run in numbers and a riot is only a minute or two away. But if the right, inconspicuous people happen to observe their habits and notice the times they are alone or going to sleep well... After a couple dozen go missing without a blaze of glory without a trace maybe anonymous jihad won't seem so appealing. I know this probably won't see the light of day because even though we know the reality of what's coming -- what I've just suggested will be considered "inappropriate"

Posted by: Kemaste

What you suggest is exactly what I've been thinking. It's the logical solution to the problem. at this point we definitely owe them a few.. Loen Klinghoffer.. the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics.. Theo Van Gogh.. Pim Fortuyn.. the list goes one.

And conser they've committed all this murder and mayhem on our soil! They have stained our Earth with the blood of our brothers and there is only one way to cleanse those stains.

"Plus ca change plus c'est la meme chose"

What George Orwell wrote in 1941:

What has kept England on its feet during the past year? In part, no doubt, some vague idea about a better future, but chiefly the atavistic emotion of patriotism, the ingrained feeling of the English-speaking peoples that they are superior to foreigners. For the last twenty years the main object of English left-wing intellectuals has been to break this feeling down, and if they had succeeded, we might be watching the SS men patrolling the London streets at this moment. Similarly, why are the Russians fighting like tigers against the German invasion? In part, perhaps, for some half-remembered ideal of Utopian Socialism, but chiefly in defence of Holy Russia (the “sacred soil of the Fatherland”, etc etc), which Stalin has revived in an only slightly altered form. The energy that actually shapes the world springs from emotions—racial pride, leader-worship, religious belief, —which liberal intellectuals mechanically write off as anachronisms, and which they have usually destroyed so completely in themselves as to have lost all power of action.

George Orwell describes the energy that is needed to fight the aggressor whether in communist Russia or capitalist America.
the energy that has been sapped from society by "liberal intellectuals " over the last fifty years of easy living bestowed upon them by the cocoon of democracy.
Such sapping was never achieved between the two great wars because only one generation separated them. But he nethertheless identifies the potential dangers of eventually "losing all power of action (self defence)"
Another warning about the writings of left wing intellectuals who write from the cosseted environment of democracies:
"Trotsky, Rauschning, Rosenberg, Silone, Borkenau, Koestler and others—have none of them been Englishmen, and nearly all of them have been renegades from one or other extremist party, who have seen totalitarianism at close quarters and known the meaning of exile and persecution. Only in the English-speaking countries was it fashionable to believe, right up to the outbreak of war, that Hitler was an unimportant lunatic and the German tanks made of cardboard"

'The first action that Yasser Arafat took in 1994 after establishing the Palestinian Authority was to attack Palestinian journalists, editors and newspaper offices. Journalists and editors were arrested and tortured and all were forced to accept PA control over their news coverage'
how little this has been reported in the western press!

In case anyone wants to notice, Iran treats free speech the same way, as does Egypt,Yemen,Pakistan,Indonesia,Libya,Sudan,Saudia Arabia, as well as just about every Muslim led country. It would seem Muslims fear the the worst should the truth get out.

They have much to fear, the world is becoming well aware of the Muslim threat. The Muslims are doing the world a favor by continually creating death and destruction, and by openly creating mahem and fear in the free countries of the world.

I have noticed a recent increase in virtually all the news networks on tv showing a better coverage of the Muslim Intent. An Example, on Glen Becks recent airing showing how Muslim children view a film of their fathers suicide bombing and boasting of their pride that their father died in Jihad. The airing showed Muslims teaching their children the various ways to attack the infidel.
Other shows have shown Muslims plotting and planning for a BIG HIT. The world is seeing Muslims taking over properties piece by piece.The Muslim youths (aka Asians, foreigners,students, unemployed youths, etc)openly defy civil law and openly create violence such as rapes, arson, assaults, riots, vandalism, etc.(in fact, the fasting rising population in prisions are Muslims) . The world is taking notice. The world see Muslims openly trying to force the burka, the veil , and the Koran upon the non Muslim populations.
As noted by many here, the world sees no worthwhile contributions to a functional society being made by Muslims. The old Muslim tatic of deceit and lies are now more readily revealed thanks in part to people like Hugh and Robert, and others.

A little off topic, But I would like to share. My landlord was irate because the newly elected Muslim Mr Ellison, was asked how he could prove he was not a terror threat. I pointed out a large number of his votes came from the large Muslim population and by uninformed voters. I pointed out that at his acceptance speech, his Muslim cohorts chanted Allah Akbar (the same chant the suicide bombers use, the same chant is heard by American soldiers when being attacked, the same chant heard on the 9/11 airplanes, the same chant as heard in the frequent Muslim protest marches). I pointed out he is supported by CAIR, I then explained that CAIR is an organization that supports and is supported by many terrorist organizations. I pointed out that a large portion of his campaign fund came from the Muslim organizations. I pointed out that CAIR had (as of yesterday) contributed even more money to Mr Ellison. I pointed out that the Muslims now have an inside man who will be privy to sensitive material on our national security and could even cast a deciding vote that could ultimately affect our soldiers ability to defend our country. My landlord (a move-on . org type) really became irate and vocal. Typical of the type when they hear the truth.

The world needs to open their eyes and to seriously consider a more aggressive stance against Muslim defiance to law and order and the very constitutions of the host countries they reside in. Of course, we know, they do not want the improve anything, they just want to dominate and control.

Free speech is vital, and free speech terrifies the Muslim elite.

Student of History: "How did it come to pass that the Free World willingly enabled its own destruction?"
Imam: "It was Allah's will."
Student of History: "Allah hu Akbar!"

To all the half-empties out there:

My muse is named Mo-foe and he's not silent at all. He's helping me put the finishing touches on the polemical novel A Plague On Both Houses which has enough truth in it to get me killed. I'm going through with publishing it one way or the other. I've been rejected over 40 times by literary agents, but I'm going through another round as I apply for copyright privileges on some material. If I can't get representation by January, I'll follow DC Watson's example and self publish with the ISDN number and sell through Amazon.com I'll self-promote.

If some muses fall silent, other ones will rise loudly. Then those mute ones will speak again and protest loudly, saying "We weren't silent!"

Fear of physical harm is a real bitch, but it can't hold the muses down forever. Muses are ephemeral and of the spirit. Never will all be silent and the time they can be intimidated in the free world is short.

Never give up. Life's too short even if you're protected. You want to live forever? Good luck.
If I have to go out violently, then I'll go out with dignity, on the right side of the struggle and with some style, so help me God.

"If I have to go out violently, then I'll go out with dignity, on the right side of the struggle and with some style, so help me God."

Amen

It may seem bizarre but in some ways we are moving back to the 18th century. In Beaumarchais' famous play of the late 18th century, The Marriage of Figaro, the hero, Figaro, complains that he wrote a play which satirized life and morals in the harem. He was confident that he could freely mock Muhammad as a Spanish subject. Yet, Figaro is arrested and thrown in jail after Muslim potentates from the Barbary Coast to India complain to the Spanish king that he has insulted their religion. Ironically, the French daily newspaper named after this character in a play, Le Figaro, published an op ed piece pointing out the violence of Islam, which Muslims worldwide protested --by being violent. Carolyn Glick points out above that the author, Robert Redeker, had to go into hiding for fear for his life and that of his family. The bizarre congruence of Figaro's fictional persecution in an 18th century play and the real persecution of 21st century Robert Redeker, who had written in LeFigaro, led me to put a long passage from the play containing this story on my blog in the original French and English translation.
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/10/figaro-mocks-muhammad-were-back-in.html
Is civilization going backwards?
[by the way, I first saw this passage quoted in part in an op ed in LeFigaro back in February during the Cartoons Affair. The op ed was probably written by Ivan Riofoul.