| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
One of the most clear-sighted and brave columnists on the scene today, Diana West, hits media dhimmitude:
If there was something tragi-farcical about Steven Spielberg receiving a knighthood from French President Jacques Chirac last weekend for "Schindler's List," there was also something tragi-farcically apt. Here we be, facing not World War III (the Cold War), but World War IV, "the war on terror." We see the gymnasium massacre in the Caucasus and the bus bloodbath in Beersheba. We hear of the ongoing extermination of black Africans in Sudan, and the murders of twelve Nepalese cooks and cleaners in Iraq, where Iran and Al Qaeda support terrorist cadres in their efforts to suicide-bomb their way over nascent Iraqi society. The Western mind reels and tries to come to terms with the global bloodletting — of the week. Alas, there are no "terms" to come to. Literally. We are experiencing a civilization-wide failure, even three years after September 11, to define the terrorism born of Islam's core medieval precepts: violent jihad and dehumanizing dhimmitude. We see the same kind of terrorism in Russia that we see in Israel, Sudan and Iraq. We've seen it in Spain and we've seen it in Bali, and we've certainly seen it in the United States. We see it, but maybe we don't believe it — a failure that could ultimately be our undoing. Too many of us prefer to overlook the evils of World War IV and watch Chevalier Spielberg get a kiss on both cheeks from Jacques Chirac for dramatizing the evils of World War II."In this difficult time," Mr. Chirac told his new Hollywood knight, "it is essential that cinema" blah, blah "recalls the horror of what is unutterable." Unutterable is right. But no "cinema" — not by Spielberg, not by anyone — is recalling anything utterable about the colossal struggle of our age. There is no cultural echo chamber in which this conflict finds resonance. Indeed, Mr. Spielberg's next picture is a remake of H.G. Wells' 1898 martian-invasion story, "The War of the Worlds." This is a far cry from the scores of movies Hollywood made to depict World War II, including "Mrs. Miniver," "The Mortal Storm" and "Thirty Seconds over Tokyo." These days, Hollywood just hates President Bush and sticks a sock on its lens.
This is just one more reason why we haven't come to terms with the battle we've joined. I've written about this failure before. The war we wage, the United States and its coalition of friends, is not a war on generic "terrorism," but on Islamic jihad — the spread of Islam by violent means. We wage it not against generic "terrorists," but against Islamic jihadists who dream of death and destruction, not to mention a caliphate, in their religion's name.
In our religion's name — the postmodern "religion" of tolerance the pluralistic West publicly enforces and enshrines — we torture ourselves over whether jihadists are just a minuscule minority of "extremists." We nudge along a lagging conviction that terrorists who maim and kill in the name of Allah constitute some far-out sect that will some day be denounced, ostracized and neutralized by a robust Muslim mainstream. Meanwhile, when the New York Times' David Brooks identifies the source of global terrorism as a "death cult ... at the fringes of the Islamic world," I suppose we give two cheers for a real mouthful in a newspaper that routinely mumbles over the Muslim identity of jihadists the world over. (In reporting on the Beslan horror, the newspaper changed the surviving terrorist's widely quoted words, "By Allah, I didn't shoot," to "By God, I didn't shoot" — as noted by blogger Dawn Patrol). But we must also wonder how fringy the Islamic "death cult" can be given the doctrinal primacy of jihad and dhimmitude in the Muslim world.
Posted by Robert at September 10, 2004 6:42 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Bravo Diana.
The tide is turning, folks. I can feel it.
Recently the blogosphere celebrated the fact that the Swiftboat vets story, that the established mainstream media did its best to ignore, was forcefully brought to centrestage by the new media - talk radio, blogs etc and kept there.
This signifies:
[1] Old media is no longer the 'gatekeeper of social conscience' i.e. self-appointed censor for public morality
[2] Previously looked down upon views (like those from the politically incorrect right) are now finding wider audience understanding and support
[3] Competition from new media will finally force old media to pull up its socks as the discrepancy between old and new media reportage gets ever wider... old media shall soon be forced to report stuff that is closer to the truth, PC be damned.
Hurrah for the liberating thrust of new media!
Posted by: voletti![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 10, 2004 7:32 AM
Speaking of "Schindler's List", has anyone else here noticed what I regard as a critical omission in the movie compared to the book? Schindler spent the last of his money acquiring weapons so "his" Jews could defend themselves during the period of anarchy immediately preceding the end of WWII in Europe.
jay
Posted by: jay at September 10, 2004 8:36 AM
west mentioned a glaring lacuna i've long wondered about.
during world war II, we had hundreds of movies about americans fighting germans and japanese.
during the korean war, we had several movies about our soldiers in korea, as well as more wwII movies.
during vietnam, we had some movies about even that controversial war.
in the last stages of the cold war in the '80s, we had tons of movies about americans fighting soviets or other communists.
now the biggest group we're fighting right now just happens to be muslim terrorists, and we've had not one movie to that effect. in fact, we had a ben affleck movie based on a novel where the original bad guys are muslim terrorists, but hollywood changes them to the oh-so-topical neo-nazis.
it's a bad sign when your own propaghanda mill is too frightened to make any propaghanda.
Posted by: scissor at September 10, 2004 12:29 PM
scissor makes a good point about the propaganda mill of Hollywood. But can you blame them? In the name of "tolerance" and "multiculturalism", any offended party can sue the pants off of anybody for making them "feel uncomfortable". I've seen quite a number of news articles about people backing down from a story because of the possibility of action for sterotyping, and maligning a people group, be they ethnic or religious. I can't remember it right now, but a recent action flick based on a novel changed the antagonists from RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS to greedy corporate evil slimebucket CEO's and such. The conversion to the screen was then sanitized, since everybody knows just how corrupt and evil those guys are. This is not artistic license - it's mangling a story.
I firmly believe that Hollywood isn't just sitting out this war; rather, they are tacitly supporting the enemy by refusing to identify them.
I'm all for true tolerance of people's differences, but I can't condone what passes for tolerance today. But I'm not for the cultural relativism. All cultures are not equal - ask anybody who believes that (particularly women) if they would have no problem living under the Taliban.
Posted by: Walker Colt at September 10, 2004 1:36 PM
Yes, the message is getting out, and soon only the most recalcitrant members of the fascist left will defend the islamopsychotics. Muslims should now take the chance to renounce their 'faith' en masse, because the future for them is not bright. Their grandchildren will deny any connection with Islam.
Posted by: Doctor Phibes at September 10, 2004 1:45 PM
Scissors - it may be starting to happen - in the UK we've had two such on mainstream television.
Last week, The Hamburg Cell - a two hour play, which was actually very good. This week we've had The Grid, around 8 hours spread over three nights - rather superficial and boring. Both, however, were clear about the 'Islamic' bit.
I don't think Farenheit 911 counts somehow, but it's only a matter of time before someone makes a film about fighting Islamic terrorism.
Posted by: Interestd at September 10, 2004 2:29 PM
Hi all
We should all remember that in 1939 the first year of the war was dubbed the Phoney War it just the same now. I live in an area full of Muslims and they walk round thinking we fear them, but when you give them a steady look they cringe, closest you will ever see them to shame!
Posted by: breadwinner
at September 10, 2004 2:46 PM
This is a bit thin, but I was wondering:
Would it be possible to get Islam banned in the U.S. and its practitioners deported under the RICO statutes as a Continuing Criminal Enterprise?
at September 10, 2004 3:25 PM
The tide IS beginning to turn. People are now beginning to understand, but there are still far too many that cling to the notion that this is another version of the Vietnam War or that appeasement and negotiation will make it go away.
The multiculturalist and the trial lawyers have done a number on us for so long we've forgotton how to saw and do the right thing for it's own sake, not because we are afraid of being sued, fired, or arrested!
Posted by: epg at September 10, 2004 4:03 PM
*LOL*
Daniel Davort, That was a funny one. Yeah, its not just RICO that would be applicable though, the laws against narcotics 9for the senses), prostitution (of the soul), immoral trafficking (of muslim illegals) and god knows what else would probably apply.
(:-)
at September 10, 2004 4:32 PM
OK folks, going back to my original point about the power of new media, here's the entire issue of CBS 60 minutes faking Bush's Air National Guard record torn apart in under 12 hours by the blogosphere.
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004/09/shot-heard-round-world-echoes-of-big.html
We can all cheer the demise of the stranglehold of old media over news products. (:-)
Posted by: voletti at September 10, 2004 5:01 PM
Hollywood makes movies it thinks will put bums in seats profitably. The chances of anyone who takes issue to Michael Moore's garbage acting out violently are slim to nil, but the reverse wouldn't be true if films were produced that exposed the Jihadists for what they are.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at September 10, 2004 5:32 PM
How about a Hollywood biopic on the life of Mohammed? It has all the ingredients for a box office smash: the bleak grandeur of the desert, dramatic battle scenes, exotic costumes, and a nine year-old girl being raped by a mentally-ill criminal. Tim Robbins could star as Mohammed, and Susan Sarandon as Aisha.
Posted by: Doctor Phibes at September 10, 2004 6:06 PM
Waterdragon52:
You have a point. However, Hollywood is not everthing. There is scope for independent films or TV.
The tide is beginning to turn. Many Muslims - and I know there is no moderate Islam, but there are peaceful Muslims - are being repelled by recent actions. In fact over the last week I've been more shocked and disgusted by the Lefties than by the Muslims when it comes to excusing the inexcusable.
Things are changing, albeit slowly, in the UK. Trevor Phillips, head of the Commission for Racial Equality and at one time an arch multiculturalist, has now declared that 'Multiculturalism is dead'.
Posted by: Interestd at September 10, 2004 7:03 PM
I wonder when James Bond will fight Islamic extremists?
Posted by: Voltaire at September 10, 2004 9:54 PM
How will UKIP do, "Interested" (I am putting in the "e" for you, in defiance of the gods of cyberspace)? Their main policy, I take it, is Euroskepticism? Not a bad policy to run on, if one worries about demographic conquest by Muslms. The EU is now controlled by what might be called the Islamintern -- Solana, Patten, Prodi et al will never raise the possibility if stopping Muslim immigration and engaging in large-scale deportation of those who within Europe are not, and cannot possibly be, loyal citizens of any Infidel polity. So one has to support those who are decidedly against Britain's further integration into this Big Market that Europe is so busily trading its own national languages, literatures, identities for -- why, even chocolate isn't chocolate, even parmigiano isn't parmigiano (all changed to conform to EU-wide standards, which help to destroy local producers, or local idionsyncrasies -- the very things that, supposedly, are threatened most by mighty America, with its Starbucks and other chains)-- as Oriana Fallaci amusingly added to her litany of complaints against Europe, or rather against the Europe that she says, with justice, no longer exists.
UKIP is very much faute-de-mieux, given the failures of the other three parties. My god, in retrospect Harold Macmillan no longer seems like an upper-class twit, but a wonderful fellow, all huntin' and shootin', ably advised by his niece Ann Lambton. Harold Wilson with his pipe and dottle seems a perfect representative of modest, quiet, intelligent R. H. S. Crossmanesque Labor, nothing like today's version, as well, whatever one thought at the time. The last 35 years, downhill all the way.
Perhaps the greatest loss was the closing of Encounter, for the idiotic reason that it was supported by money that ultimately came from the C. I. A. So what? Aside from being anti-Communist, it was completely independent, immune to the stupid marketplace, and was the best magazine in the English-speaking world. Now where does one go? Without C.I.A. money, smaller quirky efforts-- Ian Robinson's wonderful, but financially fragile The Human World, comes to mind -- all folded so quickly. Everything, more or less dumb, dumb, dumb.
Can't someone spend the money to bring back Encounter? Is the only thing rich people want to do is buy basketball teams? No Lincoln Kirsteins out there waiting in the wings? Stop wasting your money; put it into a new Encounter. Pitch in.
Posted by: Hugh at September 11, 2004 12:34 AM
I agree with the theme of all the above posts that the tide IS turning but there's a long way to go. Watching BBC News last night they "commemerated" 9/11 by interviewing an American muslim woman (complete with medieval headgear) who explained to the fawning BBC interviewer that Islam was not the problem - Western ignorance of Islam was. Another bulletin featured the wife of a muslim held under the terrorism act explaining that because he'd never got so much as a parking ticket in his life he must be innocent. The third item was this morning when a so-called expert on terrorism blamed the West for the rise of Bin-Laden and didn't mention Islam or the global Jihad once . This is the astounding level of dhimmitude that still exists at the BBC. I believe that they are more of a fifth column threat to our society that most muslims living in this country. How do we counteract their blatant pro-Islamic propaganda ? How many more innocents have to blown to pieces around the world before the BBC even use the phrase "global jihad" ?
Posted by: Son Of Albion at September 11, 2004 5:11 AM
Son of Albion - I agree about the BBC - hopelessly dhimmi most of the time. There is a notable exception - Hardtalk with Tim Sebastian. He recently wiped the floor with Ramadan and gave Rantissi (now with the raisins?) a rough ride.
Hugh, thanks for correcting my misspelt name - not down to me!
I must confess, I've never heard of Encounter magazine - probably I wasn't as right wing when it was around. The Spectator is pretty good most of the time, a superb Mark Steyn this week:
www.spectator.co.uk
You ask about UKIP - it is too much of a single issue party to win, but its increased share of the vote last time round reflects a growing Euroscepticsm. There are many reasons to oppose the encroachment of the EU on British life, of which Muslim immigration is only one. Having 3% Muslims in our midst is less of a problem if they can be made to integrate and don't have to be pandered to. A lot of the so-called 'Human Rights' legislation that comes from the EU makes it difficult to clamp down on the excesses of PC.
Can't share your nostalgia for Harold Wilson - he was an evil, smarmy, plausible bastard when he was Prime Minister, and if he were Prime Minister today he'd be an evil, smarmy, plausible dhimmi bastard.
Posted by: Interestd at September 11, 2004 8:54 AM
dr. phibes,
i've often thought the same thing. believe it or not, somebody already tried to do a movie about the life of muhammad, back in the '70s. i think it starred anthony quinn? i'm not sure.
but according to what i read about it, muslims, as you'd expect, not only protested it, but some attacked a few theaters where it was showing.
but who knows. doing such a movie now would engender precisely the kind of response from muslims in the west that would wake up a lot more of us to our countries' respective fifth columns.
at September 13, 2004 3:23 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)