| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
A new essay by the European writer Fjordman:
I once had the pleasure of watching the absurdist theatre play called "Waiting for Godot," by Samuel Beckett. Two men called Vladimir and Estragon sit around waiting for a man named Godot. Mr. Godot never shows up, of course. It is years ago now, but for some reason, I remembered it recently when watching the political situation in Europe.During the height of the Muhammad cartoons crisis, Fjordman was among the minority who thought this was good news for Europe and the West. Although it may sound absurd to Americans, those rather innocent cartoons may have done more to open the eyes of Europeans to the Islamic threat than the terror attacks of 9/11, the London and Madrid bombings combined. People who can burn down embassies because of something so silly quite simply don't have anything at all in common with us, and cannot function in our democratic societies. Muslims may have pushed too far, too early, and thus jolted some life back into even the near-comatose continent of Europe. I see some signs that this interpretation may have been correct, and that the tide is indeed changing. Recent opinion polls indicate that there is now a critical mass of ordinary Europeans who no longer buy the brainwashing about Islam being a peaceful religion.
In Germany, according to a study commissioned by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper, 56 percent of Germans said they believed a "clash of cultures" already existed. 71 percent said they believed Islam to be "intolerant," some 91 per cent said they associated Islam with oppression of women. Asked if there should be a ban on the building of mosques in Germany as long as the building of churches in some Islamic states is forbidden, 56 per cent agreed. There was even considerable backing for ending Germany's constitutional right of freedom of religion with regard to Islam. Asked if strict limits should be imposed on the practice of Islam in Germany to protect the country, 40 per cent said they would support such moves. In the Netherlands, 63 per cent of respondents thought Islam was incompatible with modern European life. Even in Sweden, the purgatory of Political Correctness, opinion polls have revealed that two out of three Swedes doubt whether Islam can be combined with Swedish society. Recently, I have also for the first time seen visible cracks in the wall of censorship on public debate in Sweden. Change is in the air, all over Europe.
Europeans now gradually start to awaken from the spell of Multiculturalism, Political Correctness and Muslim immigration, but they still don't know how deep the rabbit hole goes. Most of them still haven't heard of Eurabia, or the fact that the European Union, including many of their own, entrusted representatives, have actively encouraged massive Muslim immigration to the continent. Until they do this, it will be more difficult to bring down the EU, and that is absolutely necessary in my view for Europe to prevail from this. No, the EU isn't the only problem Europe has, but it is by far the worst, and we don't have even a theoretical chance of fixing our other problems as long as the EU is in charge. It needs to be removed completely. The hour is late. Is it too late? Even if it's not too late, whatever can be done needs to be done soon.
So, what to do next? What are we waiting for? For some decent leader to step forward, perhaps? Well, where is he, or she? During the appeasement of the late 1930s, Churchill was already there, ready to step in when called for. The problem is, I just can't see anyone of his stature now. Tony Blair? Apart from the Iraq war, absolutely everything he has done related to Islam, both in the UK and abroad, has been wrong. In some ways, he is a worse appeaser than Chamberlain ever was. I doubt Gordon Brown will be better. Chirac is a corrupt crook, de Villepain is a pompous, Eurabian clown with a Napoleon complex, Sarkozy isn't too bad, but not good enough, and France is in too much trouble of her own to do anything for the rest of Europe. Besides, it was France who created Eurabia in the first place. Count them out. Spain has forgotten everything of her past and has Zapatero, an appeasing Socialist weasel, as PM, brought to power by al-Qaeda. Italy recently ousted their right-wing government in favor of a Leftist, super-Eurocrat, Romano Prodi, as PM, and Communist ministers who want open doors for Muslims from North Africa to enter. Which actually leaves Germany's Angela Merkel as the least bad leader among the larger nations. But Ms. Merkel is no Thatcher, and certainly not a Churchill. Her support for the awful EU Constitution should be enough to discount her as a potential leader of a de-Eurabization of Europe. The only Western European leader in power with something resembling a spine is Anders Fogh Rasmussen in Denmark, but Denmark is too small to lead this. I hope we are waiting for a Churchill to step forward, but I sometimes fear we are waiting for Godot.
We complain about weak leaders, but maybe we keep producing weak leaders because we, as a people, are weak? And if we finally find a Churchill, will the press rip him apart for whatever flaw they can find? Could the real Churchill have been elected today, or would the media eat him alive because of his heavy drinking and replace him with a slick boy scout? And if a strong leader steps forward, will he have a democratic mindset or will he have a darker agenda? Churchill certainly understood Islam. In his book "The River War," written as long ago as 1899, he wrote this about the followers of Muhammad:"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."
Churchill's speeches were a great inspiration to the British during WW2, but also promised that "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat." Before the Battle of Britain, he delivered the immortal line, "We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender." How would today's decadent and pleasure-loving Westerners react to a similar speech? I think Winston would have to re-write it to something along these lines: "We shall defend our continent, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the ice cream trucks, we shall fight on the cable TV cars, we shall fight in the Jacuzzis and the spas, we shall fight in the nail salons; we shall never surrender."
In addition to just plain decadence, there is a widespread ideological feeling in Europe that nothing is worth fighting for, certainly not through armed struggle. There are no Great Truths, everything is equal. If we want to understand where the notion of the futility of war in any situation entered the European mind, we should read the poems of Wilfred Owen, another Briton with a way of words. Maybe Europe's faith in itself died in Auschwitz, but it was severely wounded some decades before, in the trenches of the First World War. It was WW1 that radicalized Europe, triggered the Russian Revolution and the rise of Soviet Communism, and it was WW1 that filled Germany, including a young corporal named Adolf Hitler, with a desire for vengeance and much of the ammunition they needed for their rise to power in the 1930s.
Wilfred Owen was a second lieutenant that participated in the Battle of the Somme and was later sent to treatment for shell shock. His horrific poems about gas warfare and life in the trenches have earned him the status as the leading poet of WW1. Wilfred Owen was killed in action on 4th November 1918, only a week before the end of the war. On of his most famous poems is "Anthem for Doomed Youth:"
What passing-bells for these who die as cattle?
-Only the monstrous anger of the guns.
Only the stuttering rifles' rapid rattle
Can patter out their hasty orisons.
No mockeries now for them; no prayers nor bells;
Nor any voice of mourning save the choirs,-
The shrill, demented choirs of wailing shells;
And bugles calling for them from sad shires.
What candles may be held to speed them all?
Not in the hands of boys but in their eyes
Shall shine the holy glimmers of good-byes.
The pallor of girls' brows shall be their pall;
Their flowers the tenderness of patient minds,
And each slow dusk a drawing-down of blinds.Another one is "Dulce Et Decorum Est:"
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of disappointed shells that dropped behind.GAS! Gas! Quick, boys!-- An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And floundering like a man in fire or lime.--
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,--
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.I can understand why Wilfred Owen felt that war was futile, rotting away in the trenches for some cause he didn't even understand. But it isn't true that war is worse than everything. Sharia is worse than war. I have hard claims that European civilization will not survive the century. A century is a very long time, remember that. Would anybody (except Churchill) in 1906, when Europe really was strong and powerful, have predicted that Europe would now be in the process of being overpowered by Algerians and Pakistanis? Things change. They can change for the worse, but they can also change for the better. If we do get another world war, which appears increasingly likely, this could finish off what remains of European civilization for good. But it could also, theoretically, have the opposite effect, where the shock waves could create a different kind of Europe from the decadent, nihilistic Europe we see now. A Christian revitalization, for instance. Yes, this could happen. Stranger things have happened before. Our ancestors, better men and women than us, held the line against Islam for more than one thousand years, sacrificing their blood for the continent. By doing so, they not only preserved the European heartland and thus Western civilization itself, but quite possibly the world in general from unchallenged Islamic dominance. The stakes involved now are not less than they were then, probably greater.
Some people claim that Europe isn't worth fighting for, and that too many people here deserve what's coming. Yes, a significant number of them do. Yes, people such as EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, with their Swiss bank accounts and their good relationship with Saudi Arabia and the Arab League, not to mention Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and his awful EU Constitution that will destroy democracy for half a billion people, deserve everything we can heap upon them. The problem is that the people who deserve most to be punished for this are the ones least likely to pay the price. The creators of Eurabia will be the first to flee the continent when the going gets tough, leaving those who have hardly heard of Eurabia and never approved of its creation to fight.
Edmund Burke thought that if a society can be seen as a contract, we must recognize that most parties to the contract are either dead or not yet born. I like that idea, which means that when you fight for a country, you don't just fight for the ones that are there now, but for those who lived there before and for those who will live there in the future. If we don't want to fight for what Europe is today then let us fight for what it once was, and maybe, just maybe, for what it may become once more. There was real greatness in this continent once. It seems a long time ago now, but maybe we can get there again. European Parliament member Hannu Takkula of Finland has said that never before had the fate of Israel and Europe been so inter-connected. "The same forces that hate Israel, also hate Europe," he said, adding that Europe must remain true to its Judeo-Christian roots by supporting Israel. The heritage of the Europe "was founded on three cities - Athens, Rome and Jerusalem" - said Takkula. Muslims are openly bragging about how they will soon conquer Rome, just as the did with Constantinople, the Eastern Rome, they are putting Jerusalem under siege and they are hijacking the cultural heritage of Athens by claiming that they "preserved it" and "passed it on" to the West. It's time for us to reclaim our past and thus reclaim our future.
Fjordman has been accused of being a pessimist. I'm not sure whether I am more pessimistic than others. There are many people who think Europe is already lost. I happen to be among the ones who have stated that this is only one of several possible outcomes. Europe is now at one of those famous crossroads where the course of history could go either way. Given the weakness of Europe and the rapid expansion of Islam, it would be foolish to discount the possibility that Muslims could win this. However, I happen to think that another possibility is that Islam not only will lose the battle for Europe, but could become destroyed as a global force during this century. Maybe in some strange way, Europe needs to go through a period of colonization and de-colonization herself, to get rid of her post-colonial guilt complex?
This war by Islam against Europe, the West and indeed mankind has been going on for more than 1300 years. This is the third major Jihad, the third Islamic attempt to subdue the heartland of the West. Although I cannot prove this, I have a very strong feeling that this will also be the last attempt. There will be no fourth Jihad. Either Muslims will win this time, or Islam itself will be handed a defeat and a blow so powerful that it may never recover from it. This is perhaps the longest, continuous war in human history. And it's about to be decided within the coming decades. I'm not sure how all of this will play out. What I do know is that it could all be decided on my watch, and I don't want to be the weak link in something my ancestors kept intact for 1300 years.
To quote Churchill: "This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." Let us hope someone of his stature will soon appear. He will be needed.
Posted by Robert at June 12, 2006 1:48 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Yet another great article by Fjordman. As long as Europe has people like him, daring to keep speaking out, there is hope.
Europe is very much worth fighting for. The craddle of Western Culture, we simply can not afford to lose that continent. The United States would be left in a much weaker position, and the Jihad would gain access to resources that would make it even more dangerous to us. And like Fjordman said, the people least responsible for Europe's demise would pay the most as the Eurocrat elites who are most responsible would bug out.
We must stand withn Europe, even if Europe doesn't know enough to stand up for itself. I hope the awakening Fjordman sees in Europe continues, and that it happens soon enough to matter.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 12, 2006 2:28 PM
Amen.
Posted by: Shy Guy at June 12, 2006 2:28 PM
Regarding Churchill's famous "we will fight them on the beaches" speech: at the end, as a whispered aside to a colleague he also added:
"...and we'll fight them with the butt ends of broken beer bottles, because that's bloody well all we've got."
Britain had pretty much disarmed its civilian population before WW2. The thought of arms in the hands of the common people worried the elites, due to the various revolutions that swept Russia and Europe in the aftermath of WW1. While making the elites feel safer, it also ensured that the people would not be able to effectively resist any invasion.
Europe is in a similar condition now. In most places, if a bunch of rioters choose to raise hell, and the police choose to not oppose them, the only thing most common families can do is cower behind their doors. Movements whose power depends on their ability to muster rioters, work tirelessly to ensure that rioting is a safe endeavor
Posted by: PapaBear at June 12, 2006 2:29 PM
I don't think we'll be seeing a Churchill. It's more likely that a new Hitler will step forward and propose a very final solution to the problem of Islam. Maybe people will be more receptive to that kind of thinking after a few European countries collapse in the hands of Muslims.
Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop at June 12, 2006 2:29 PM
Another Churchill? They were freaking lucky there was even one, otherwise the Brits would have gone with the Lord Halifax camp and Europe would most probably have become fascist (albeit, perhaps, not Islamo-fascist) during Hitler's day.
Posted by: scaramouoche at June 12, 2006 2:43 PM
We must remember that Churchill was not in the government when he raised the warning flags about Hitler. He had been ostracized by the political establishment until war finally broke out.
So.... we should look for our Churchill out side the governments right now. I nominate Fjordman.
at June 12, 2006 2:53 PM
Hannu Takkula is a marginalized politician (he wouldn't be MEP if he wasn't) that ironically belongs to the same party as Finnish Prime Minister Matti "Dhimmi" Vanhanen who is notorious for his apology concerning the Mohammad cartoons.
Takkula represents the conservative religious wing of Finnish Center Party that has no real chance of getting any real power.
However, in defending Israel he acts out of conviction and is essentially right, of course, but he is more like a lone voice in the dark than a representative of majority opinion.
I also agree with Fjordman concerning the shift in public opinion, in which the Danish cartoon played a very important part. And I even think that the French riots also had a role, even though the mainstream media largely ignored the jihad element of the riots in their coverage.
Posted by: Saatanan Islam at June 12, 2006 2:55 PM
Ha! Just wait until the petrol starts to dry up, and a great new British leader shall once again emerge.
Jeremy Clarkson wasn't put on this earth just for amusement value, you know...
Posted by: Bert Preast at June 12, 2006 2:59 PM
I think the problem that will be faced by national governments will come from controlling the growing anger against Islam and its arrogant assertions of superiority. A "superiority" that has and has always run counter to the evidence. The Muslim representatives twist the meaning of language, they lie, but luckily seem only to convince themselves whilst incensing and alerting those who are listening to the fact that action against them will be ultimately be necessary.
It is essential that freedom of speech is used to expose the Islamic deceit. In the polls, illustrated by Fjordman, that realisation is starting to take hold.
Back to the point. How will this alien minority be dealt with once the majority starts to openly act aggresively, which unfortunately I think they will. What will goverments do? Turn on their own? I don't think so.
Posted by: Turbinehead at June 12, 2006 3:12 PM
"No terms but fight or death were offered. No reparation or apology could be made. . . The red light of retribution played on the bayonets and the lances, and civilization—elsewhere sympathetic, merciful, tolerant, ready to discuss or to argue, eager to avoid violence, to submit to law, to effect a compromise—here advanced with an expression of inexorable sternness, and rejecting all other courses, offered only the arbitration of the sword." W. Churchill
That is where we must get to, fellow friends. Can we?
Somewhere, at some moment, or more probably during an entire series of moments that went unnoticed, we already lost the luxury to be "sympathetic, merciful, tolerant, ready to discuss or to argue, eager to avoid violence, to submit to law, to effect a compromise". For me, it happened between the planes hitting, and the building's falling.
Posted by: jsla at June 12, 2006 3:14 PM
"Britain had pretty much disarmed its civilian population by WWII"
Churchill meant that we had nothing with which to fight the Germans because the British army had left the bulk of its artillery and tanks behind, at Dunkirk. The idea that the civilian population could have defeated a German invasion using small arms is Quixotic. It might have made an occupation more inconvenient (although lots of explosives are more useful for that) and the Germans were not squeamish about taking savage reprisals.
All the locals had AK47's in Iraq and Afghanistan and it didn't make them any freer. Concentrated artillery bombardments and air-strikes at places like Hama, Grozny and Vukovar, to supress popular reistance, make all this stuff about an armed populace being the strongest safeguard of liberty look a bit silly.
Posted by: wallyUK at June 12, 2006 3:24 PM
make all this stuff about an armed populace being the strongest safeguard of liberty look a bit silly.
Yup,thats why 230 years ago,a bunch of farmers took down the largest millitary in the world.
at June 12, 2006 3:33 PM
Never forget that, in the end, Islam is but a disease of the mind that will eventually wither away in it's ultimate confrontation with greatness of Western European Civilization. A civilization founded upon Jesus Christ, Plato, Dante, Goethe, Martin Luther and magnificent soaring, edifices of the mind and spirit such as Chartres Cathedral! The Light always overcomes the darkness and perthaps our Mr. Goddat is waiting just round the corner. Brilliant essay, Fjordman!
Posted by: descendantofacrusader at June 12, 2006 3:34 PM
The faithful discharge of our duty is not only a cause, but a symbol. It is the touchstone of our fortunes in the present difficult time. If we cannot do our duty, be sure we shall have shown ourselves unworthy to preserve the vast Empire which centres upon this small island. The same unimaginative incompetence and weak compromise and supine drift will paralyse trade and business and prevent either financial reorganisation or economic resurgence. What we require to do now is to stand erect and look the world in the face, and do our duty without fear or favour... Winston Churchill 1931
l nominate Robert spencer.
at June 12, 2006 3:50 PM
Robert Spencer, nah, let us do what Lewis Black suggested, dig up Ronald Reagan and make him President. We can even dig up Reinquist to swear him in. That might scare the bejesus out of Islam...
We don't need a Churchill. We need a Charles Martel...
Posted by: skald at June 12, 2006 4:00 PM
wallyUK -- You make some clever but false arguments in an attempt to defend a bad UK/Euro policy regarding arms.
First, former Yogoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq are extremely bad examples of societies engaged in the "safeguard of liberty". They were each failed states. So there's a huge difference between an armed populace in a totalitarian cesspool and and armed populace in a free democratic republic.
Second, an armed populace in a functioning democracy doesn't have to be "the strongest safeguard", but I would suggest it's one of many safeguards.
Third, the threat of trimphalist Muslims on our soil is mitigated by their knowledge that US Citizens are armed, and may just run out of patience with their shenanigans. Do you think Muslim triumphalism and arrogance on British and European soil has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you've handed your protection completely over to your police, and rely too heavily on weak policies, not backed up with threats of violence? Charm yourselves right into your graves if you wish. I'll take a loaded .45 in my dresser drawer over relying solely on the Police and a bunch of corrupt bureaucratic functionaries to protect myself ANY day.
You might come back and suggest that Muslims too have access to arms because of the 2nd amendment. That's true, but the reason guns in the hands of the populace also is important is our genetic mistrust for our Government. The framers of the Constitution recognized that an armed populace in a Democracy was less likely to fall prey to Governmental abuse or the rise of a new oppressive aristocracy.
Think about names like "Valéry Marie René Giscard d'Estaings" and "Dominique Marie François René Galouzeau de Villepin" and "King Abdul Aziz Ibn Abdul Rahman Ibn Faisal Al Saud" and "Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha really)" then think about old style, er, new style European Aristocrats.
In America we'd shoot parent who name their kids stuff like that. If the parents got away, we'd shoot their kids. We're wild cowboys here. We like to shoot 'em up, and not just for play.
Posted by: jsla at June 12, 2006 4:02 PM
Robert Spencer, nah, let us do what Lewis Black suggested, dig up Ronald Reagan and make him President. We can even dig up Reinquist to swear him in. That might scare the bejesus out of Islam...
We don't need a Churchill. France needs a Charles Martel, England needs a Richard the Lionheart and Germany needs a Fredrick Barbarossa.
Posted by: skald at June 12, 2006 4:05 PM
"Apart from the Iraq war, absolutely everything he [Tony Blair] has done related to Islam, both in the UK and abroad, has been wrong."
-- from a posting above
Why "apart from the Iraq War"? It was Blair who helped encourage and promote the idea of Iraq the Model, Iraq the Light Unto the Muslim Nations. It would not do simply to remove the regime. It would not do, for Blair (or for the Americans such as Bush) to create a situation that, through the removal of the one force (Saddam Hussein) capable of containing it (some think Saddam Hussein alone was the cause of the persecution of the non-Muslim Kurds by the Arabs -- he wasn't; some think Saddam Hussein alone was responsible for the Sunni persecution and murder of the Shi'a -- he wasn't), made inevitable, sooner or later, the sectarian and ethnic divisions that we know see, and that some in the Administration never quite fathomed, and still, every time they open their mouths to talk about "the Iraqi people" (as in: "the Iraqi people want freedom" or "we want to help the Iraqi people fight those forces that would divide them" or "our training of the forces of the Iraqi people is going smoothly" or "as the Iraqi people stand up, we will stand down" or...fill in yourself, if you can stand it.
Blair was one of the moving forces, one suspects, for the embarrassed substitution of this Iraq the Model business, which gained support as the WMD could not be found, so as to provide another, more acceptable justification for the war.
Posted by: Hugh at June 12, 2006 4:22 PM
There is no need for Winston Churchill. There is a need, in each country, for sensible people to behave sensibly. Some of them may take time to comprehend a belief-system about which a few years ago they knew nothing. Some will take time to overcome the platitudes of the present, to remove the layers of indoctrination and self-indoctrination, the sheer crappiness of the age.
Not Churchill, but a hundred Jacques Barzuns are called for. They exist. Some of them exist outside the regular channels, the conventional institutions, the validation that those institutions offer and that so many, incapable of making judgments without that validation by others, fail to recognize. Many are lone wolves by nature. But they exist. Find them, support them, promote them, and if they happen to be candidates for office (that too can be achieved, in this suddenly topsy-turvy and most unsettled world) vote for them.
Posted by: Hugh at June 12, 2006 4:26 PM
Even in Sweden, the purgatory of Political Correctness, opinion polls have revealed that two out of three Swedes doubt whether Islam can be combined with Swedish society. Recently, I have also for the first time seen visible cracks in the wall of censorship on public debate in Sweden.
That's good to hear. I hope it is not too late for them.
I don't want to over-analyse manifestations of popular culture, but take a look at this Swedish television advert available at Google video:
As an example of what a company thinks will make people laugh, and perhaps, therefore, encourage them to buy products, it's quite interesting. What it points to is a background of expectations and attitudes set up by a political/media class in which Americans are believed to be stupid, arrogant, and brutal.
Yes, it is mildly amusing as a situational gag, and I exepct most Americans would laugh, too. But it's a bit like jeering at the domestic cat when there's a tiger around - or rather jeering at the big game hunter even after you've invited a tiger into the house under the mistaken apprehension that it is a pussy cat.
Mock away, but please pay attention to the real danger, or the smile is likely to be on the face of the tiger.
at June 12, 2006 4:39 PM
Great find, Yojimbo.
Posted by: jsla at June 12, 2006 4:57 PM
Blair was one of the moving forces, one suspects, for the embarrassed substitution of this Iraq the Model business, which gained support as the WMD could not be found, so as to provide another, more acceptable justification for the war.
I think that quite likely. The grandiosity of the conception is very much in his line. The odd journalist in the UK, stung by the allegation that Blair is "Bush's poodle", has argued that to the contrary he has been something of a moving spirit at times.
As I say, very much in his line: it has to be said that Blair has involved in the UK in astounding number of "foreign adventures" throughout his terms in office - while at the same time seriously weakening the armed forces in several ways. Asking a lot of the services but giving little. Con Coughlin recently penned a stinging rebuke to him in the Telegraph:
It's time Blair supported our Forces.
I shouldn't leave this subject without also pointing out that Blair's most influential foreign secretary, Robin Cook, was a great advocate for what he called an "ethical foreign policy" - a concept which seemed to involve ignoring the national interest and intervening around the globe on moral crusades:
That is why the fourth goal of our foreign policy is to secure the respect of other nations for Britain's contribution to keeping the peace of the world and promoting democracy around the world.
Here is the full text of Robin Cook's speech:
The Government's ethical foreign policy.
Blair undoubtedly shares those views. I wonder what he'd say if someone suggested to him that "ethical" policies of this sort only make the world a more dangerous place.
at June 12, 2006 4:59 PM
Hugh: I was being polite regarding the Iraq war. Maybe it made sense to overthrow Saddam, but this "exporting democracy" business is nonsense and cannot work in an Islamic country. I agree with you totally on that, and have been saying so for some time at Liitle Green Footballs and elsewhere.
Posted by: Fjordman at June 12, 2006 5:40 PM
JSLA wrote "Think about names like "Valéry Marie René Giscard d'Estaings" and "Dominique Marie François René Galouzeau de Villepin" and "King Abdul Aziz Ibn Abdul Rahman Ibn Faisal Al Saud" and "Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha really)" then think about old style, er, new style European Aristocrats.
In America we'd shoot parent who name their kids stuff like that. If the parents got away, we'd shoot their kids. We're wild cowboys here. We like to shoot 'em up, and not just for play."
NO idea what your point is. You like guns so you can shoot people with funny names?
at June 12, 2006 5:42 PM
It should be remembered that this next war is going to be a civil war sparked off in one country and springing over to the next we need someone who can handle civil wars people like Cromwell Grant and Lincoln. Wait wasn't Churchill a composite of all these three he definately suffered from manic depression like Cromwell he like a good drink like Grant and he certainly could string his words together like Lincoln.
Posted by: Holger Dansker at June 12, 2006 5:45 PM
Yes, exporting democracy to the Middle East probably wouldn't work. That is why I propose that the only way to pacify the Muslims and do so without killing roughly 750 million muslims, is to flood the Middle East with proselytizing christians. At birth, muslim children are sent to Europe and America for raising. We breed, educate and convert Islam out. That is the only option that I see to establish lasting peace...
Posted by: skald at June 12, 2006 5:52 PM
Fjordman essay sums up the situation perfectly. To reverse the damage done we need some super human leadership. Unfortunately no one has showed up. Hopefully someone will surprise us and step up to the plate. And its not just Europe there isn't much hope in America either.
Posted by: pissedoffcanadian at June 12, 2006 6:03 PM
"NO idea what your point is. You like guns so you can shoot people with funny names?"
Yeah. That was the point.
Posted by: jsla at June 12, 2006 6:25 PM
Thus spake Sir Winston:
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."I love Sir Winston using the term "Mohammedanism" to describe Islam - sums it up beautifully. Of course, their "improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce" are the least of their problems, as far as we Infidels (wonder what he called Infidels) are concerned, although their "insecurity of property" (implying insecurity of Infidel property in Mohammedan lands) is a much more significant threat. I belive he'd be doing somersaults in his grave if he saw Britain entertaining their "sluggish methods of commerce" i.e. Shariah banking. What did he mean by improvident habits - was it a reference to their use of their left hands? And "slovenly systems of agriculture"? What agriculture - which Arab country has any agricultural economy worth talking about? Does even Egypt have one?
Also, their "fearful fatalistic apathy" or, as Hugh calls it, their "Inshallah fatalism" is a less fearful quality than their fanatical frenzy. Churchill had it right; it's just that the order in which he seems to rank the Islamic threats seem to be out of sync with what would rank as threats to Infidels.
The other reason I adore Winston Churchill, despite his being a champion of a continued colonization of the British Empire, is his one time description of Gandhi as a "Naked Fakir". Truer words were rarely spoken.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 12, 2006 6:29 PM
The Silva ad is based on a story I thought was true but seems not to be.
http://www.snopes.com/military/lighthse.htm
Posted by: StillBreathing at June 12, 2006 6:51 PM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2220267_1,00.html
ONE of Britain’s most senior military strategists has warned that western civilisation faces a threat on a par with the barbarian invasions that destroyed the Roman empire. In an apocalyptic vision of security dangers, Rear Admiral Chris Parry said future migrations would be comparable to the Goths and Vandals while north African "barbary" pirates could be attacking yachts and beaches in the Mediterranean within 10 years. Europe, including Britain, could be undermined by large immigrant groups with little allegiance to their host countries — a "reverse colonisation" as Parry described it.
The result for Britain and Europe, Parry warned, could be "like the 5th century Roman empire facing the Goths and the Vandals". Parry pointed to the mass migration which disaster in the Third World could unleash. "The diaspora issue is one of my biggest current concerns," he said. "Globalisation makes assimilation seem redundant and old-fashioned . . . [the process] acts as a sort of reverse colonisation, where groups of people are self-contained, going back and forth between their countries, exploiting sophisticated networks and using instant communication on phones and the internet." Third World instability would lick at the edges of the West as pirates attacked holidaymakers from fast boats. "At some time in the next 10 years it may not be safe to sail a yacht between Gibraltar and Malta," said the admiral. He pinpoints 2012 to 2018 as the time when the current global power structure is likely to crumble. Rising nations such as China, India, Brazil and Iran will challenge America’s sole superpower status. This will come as "irregular activity" such as terrorism, organised crime and "white companies" of mercenaries burgeon in lawless areas. The effects will be magnified as borders become more porous and some areas sink beyond effective government control.
It's interesting, although not exactly encouraging, that leading Western military strategists agree with Fjordman:
http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/11/second-fall-of-rome.html
The Second Fall of Rome
The Jihad-riots in France look more like the fall of the Roman Empire several centuries later, when the barbarians immigrated in huge numbers and caused the now weakened civilization to collapse in large parts of Western Europe. The population movements we are witnessing now are the largest and fastest in human history. In Europe, they can only be compared to the period often referred to as the Great Migrations, following the disintegration of the Roman Empire. However, during the 4th and 5th centuries, the total human population of the world was in the order of 200 million. Today, it is 30 times larger than that, and still growing fast. We also have communications that can transport people anywhere on earth within hours, and media that show ordinary people how much better life is in other countries. On top of that, the Romans didn't have human rights lawyers advocating that millions of barbarians be let into their lands. Is it a coincidence that the last time we had migrations like this was when large parts of the European continent suffered a complete civilizational breakdown? Is that what we are witnessing now? The second fall of Rome?
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/989
If Muslim immigration continues, the impending fall of France could mark the starting point of the Balkanization of much of Europe, perhaps later even North America. I fear this is a world war. Maybe future historians will dub it the Multicultural World War. Just as WW1 was caused by Imperialism, WW2 by Fascism and the Cold War by Communism, this one will be caused by Multiculturalism. The term “the Multicultural World War” has been coined by Fjordman. I find this to be more accurate than “The Islamic World War” because what will cause this world war is Western cultural weakness, through Multiculturalism and Muslim immigration, rather than Islamic strength. As poster DP111 says, this world war may very well be in the form of a global civil war, where you get a succession of civil wars instead of countries invading other countries. Multiculturalism and uncontrolled mass-immigration destroy the internal cohesion of the decadent West, which will slowly fall apart as it has lost the will to defend itself and the belief in its own culture. The wars in the Balkans in the 1990s will in hindsight be seen as a prelude to the Multicultural World War. Rather than a Westernization of the Balkans, we get a Balkanization of the West.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1101
Given the tensions we are now seeing caused by Multiculturalism and massive immigration, the next major war in Europe could well be triggered in part due to aggressive anti-nationalism, not aggressive nationalism. The downfall of the nation state, if it happens, will not bring us into a brave new world of global peace and brotherhood or the Age of Aquarius. It will be chaotic, painful and quite possibly bloody. More a throwback to the Middle Ages, the period before the rise of the nation states, complete with feudalism and tribalism, Muslim raids and people retreating into their own little fortresses while a few islands of sanity, similar to the monasteries a thousand years ago, will try to keep something of our cultural heritage alive.
at June 12, 2006 7:06 PM
North-Africa's coffee-houses are full. Full with people from all over Africa who are waiting for their chance to make it to Europe in leaky boats, ready to risk their life's, but well informed over which country pays the best welfare 'entitlements' and provides the most generous 'integration' packages.
Not a day goes by without large numbers of north-African 'refugees' landing on the coast of Italy, Spain, Malta and most of all the Canary Islands, where they arrive in the thousands. Little reported, ignored by the media, kept away from the irritated public by multi-culti-devoted polit-props who can hardly believe themselves what is happening, MC-devotees who are paralyzed like the rabbit in front of a snake fearing words like "racist, Islamophobe, bigot or hypocrite"....
Both, massive African immigration as well as Mohammedan infiltration is a disaster for Europe: Europe is not Africa, whites have retreated, (Christians, Jews, atheists) 'les blancs" have been kicked out of nearly all places they once inhabited, yet areas of Paris and London start to look like Africa and the ME.
Europe cannot absorb the "poor and huddled" masses of Africa, and shouldn't.
"Racist?" Hardly. But go ahead and call me what you will: Is it not worth defending what our forefathers died defending for 1400 years? This is only the beginning, but one doesn't need a crystal ball to see which way things will be going when nothing is done about it. I also vehemently oppose the calls of the misguided lunatics who call for massive increases in Jiziya in the form of "economic aid" to certain -predominantly- Islamic countries to "improve the conditions there', so that these 'poor and desperate people do no longer have to risk their life's making perilous journeys in leaky boats....
at June 12, 2006 7:10 PM
This on BBC today "Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said procedures at Guantanamo Bay violated the rule of law and undermined the fight against terrorism. "
Good call guys a real churchill! So I know I seem like a pessimist but I have said it time and again. Someone better than the current politicians is not enought we need someone radical who has a real understanding of the problem. Someone with good morals and determination.
Posted by: pissedoffcanadian at June 12, 2006 7:24 PM
Speaking of armed citizens, for a good action movie see "Red Dawn."
Posted by: Pelayo at June 12, 2006 8:18 PM
Red Dawn is the bomb.
Posted by: patriot4 at June 12, 2006 8:19 PM
Hugh writes: "There is no need for Winston Churchill. There is a need, in each country, for sensible people to behave sensibly....Not Churchill, but a hundred Jacques Barzuns are called for."
I strongly disagree. In America's system of government especially. A strong, visionary Executive was needed to cope with all the famous major crises: the Civil War (Abraham Lincoln); the Great Depression (Franklin Roosevelt); the rising tide of Fascism (Roosevelt again); the Cold War (Ronald Reagan). In this war against Islamism, we can only have one Commander-in-Chief, not 535 separate little ones running through the halls of Congress. A leader can inspire and unify, two qualities that don't emerge spontaneously out of millions of individualistic citizens interacting in a democracy.
Shortly after 9-11, Victor Davis Hanson did a great essay on what makes a good wartime leader for a democracy, which I summarize thus:
1. Unquestioned faith in victory, without which no great captain can marshal his troops;2. Transcendence--the constant reminder to a free and affluent citizenry that their killing and dying is for a higher purpose;
3. Successful command is an outgrowth not merely of confidence, but at times of understated arrogance as well. Great leaders can sometimes be a little frightening;
4. Great leaders must mingle with the common folk, but they are not entirely one with the people they lead;
5. A real personality, even bordering on eccentricity, that gives a nation its soul and elan for victory;
6. Audacity is much more valuable than consensus-building. [Or, as former Senator Bill Bradley once put it, "Leadership means telling the people what they do not want to hear."]
http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson092401.html
And no. I do not think anyone like that can emerge from continental Europe. No such leader emerged during World War II either. I hate to say it, but once again, it looks like continental Europe will get overrun again, just like in World War II, and have to be saved by outside forces.
One major force that has been conspicuously absent from the discussion thus far is: RUSSIA. The West Europeans may be soft baby-boomers, but the Eastern Europeans are not, and the Russians certainly are not. Putin has shown he won't back down in the face of terrorism. A great leader may yet emerge from Russia.
In America, there probably are potentially great leaders among our lesser-known Senators, Congresspersons and state Governors. It wouldn't surprise me to see another FDR or another Reagan emerge from there eventually. After all, in 1966, Reagan was just a freshman Governor of California, and who knew what his political future would be in another 20 years.
at June 12, 2006 8:45 PM
Stephen great post. One problem with russia they are inconsistent. Of course that stupid speech by Cheney last week did nothing but push Russia the other way. The west has to share the blame with the direction Russia went. Instead of reaching out to them we have circled them with a stupid outdated alliance NATO.
Posted by: pissedoffcanadian at June 12, 2006 8:59 PM
wallyUK writes: "All the locals had AK47's in Iraq and Afghanistan and it didn't make them any freer."
No, but Stinger shoulder-fired missiles sure helped against the Soviets in Afghanistan. And RPGs and IEDs are gradually pushing the U.S. army out of Iraq.
The point you seem to be missing, is that a populace that is already armed with small arms, and knows how to use them, is a populace that is accustomed to weaponry and shooting. And more than a few of them have already brandished their weapons, and even used them, in their own self-defense. They are already comfortable with the basic concept of armed self-defense. They have the weapon mindset.
It was into the hands of such Afghan warriors, already ready, willing and able to fight, that the U.S. CIA supplied Stinger missiles, RPGs too (I think), and other gear to take their resistance to the Soviet invasion to the next level.
The same could happen again with Europe today. A native European populace that is already accustomed to guns and isn't squeamish about using them, can easily learn how to use U.S. supplied Stinger missiles, RPGs and other things. Their mindset is already receptive.
Posted by: Steven L. at June 12, 2006 9:27 PM
"Would anybody (except Churchill) . . . have predicted that Europe would now be in the process of being overpowered . . . ?"
The English Catholic historian Hilaire Belloc predicted (probably not much later than in 1906) that Islam could once again pose a threat to the West. Unlike most of his contemporaries, Belloc understood the continuing importance of religion in history, and the weakness of a secularized Europe.
Posted by: Mr. Spog at June 12, 2006 9:34 PM
pissedoffcanadian writes: "The west has to share the blame with the direction Russia went. Instead of reaching out to them we have circled them with a stupid outdated alliance NATO."
What did you expect? Cheney and many neo-cons are retread Cold Warriors who still expect the Russian Army to invade Europe any day now. Plus, our European "allies" like France and Germany don't want Russia around--too many bad memories. (Of course, when it comes to Germany, Russia has a few bad memories of their own.)
Another mistake too many Westerners made was to blame the Beslan massacre on Putin's past policies toward Chechnya. Just like Europeans said that 9-11 was just payback for American policies, we stooped to that level and said that Beslan was payback for Russian policies. As if shooting an 8 year old boy at point blank range in the throat can possibly be rationalized by any past policies anywhere.
Posted by: Steven L. at June 12, 2006 9:45 PM
"As if shooting an 8 year old boy at point blank range in the throat can possibly be rationalized by any past policies anywhere."
Eerily similar 'logic' to blaming a mild speech by a US Vice President taking note of Russia's intransigence for pushing "Russia the other way" long after they've displayed their intransigence.
Absurd, unintelligent magical thinking.
Here's an interesting article at American Thinker discussing the Iran/Russia nexus of evil:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5575
It begins:
Putin, Iran and the Caucasus
June 12th, 2006
The antique media and the punditry continue to dismiss or ignore the overall geo-strategic picture concerning our stand-off with Iran over the development of nuclear weapons technology. Largely unnoticed is the US and Coalition’s successful maneuvers to establish an outer cordon around Persia and the other radical Islamist states in the region. A critical ally in establishing this blockade is the Republic of Georgia.
Posted by: jsla at June 12, 2006 10:03 PM
The link JSLA posted above shows the erro in both US and Russian foreign policy. Countries like Georgia and Armenia are treated as pawns along with Iran. This is the great game all over again. Instead of seeing the threat of militant Islam they only see each others influence in the region and keep on making alliances to curb that influence. Both the west and Russia are to blame. But I disagree with the article when it states the US has built an alliance with Georgia to surround Iran. I still honestly believe they have only Russia in their sites.
Posted by: pissedoffcanadian at June 12, 2006 10:45 PM
Bravo Bravo to Fjordman, an amazing and powerful peace!
We must all stand together, but especially with Europe.
The next decade will test us, to our very core, and out of that challenge will come our cultural rebirth.
What doesn't kill you only will make you just that much stronger.
I choose to fight and resist not for my self as I have only a few more years, but for my grandchildren.
Fight and resist for our future in in our hands.
Posted by: El Cid at June 12, 2006 11:18 PM
"But it isn't true that war is worse than everything."
“War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.” John Stuart Mill
Posted by: Greg at June 12, 2006 11:46 PM
From the BBC
"Brown to support Islamic finance
Islamic mortgages, loans and savings are now widely available
Chancellor Gordon Brown is to pledge support for the growth of Islamic finance, saying the UK can act as "a gateway" for the growing industry.
He will tell the Islamic Finance and Trade Conference he wants to the make the UK a centre for Islamic investment.
He will call for stronger trading links between the UK and Muslim countries as well as global trade reform.
Under Sharia Islamic law, making money from money, such as by charging interest, is not permitted.
'Alternative approach'
In a speech to the conference in London, which was organised by the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), Mr Brown will say that the UK is "well placed" to become a gateway for Islamic trade and finance.
Freer trade will boost economies in the Middle East in particular, he will say.
He will emphasise recent regulatory reforms which have ensured that financial frameworks are compliant with Sharia law"
Well, I guess he's no Churchill then.
Kate
at June 13, 2006 12:39 AM
Yes, we need a Winston, but nobody paid him much heed until it was almost too late, and he was vilified after the war--lost the post-war election in England; Hewasn't sufficiently socialist, too 'old school,' too colonialist.
France had plenty of eager beavers, helping the Germains at every turn of the SS, as did much of Europe.
Winston and FDR were exceptions in a sea of the blind. So, W is blind as is Condi; others merely fake it. Nothing has changed. Hugh is right. Understanding Islam, countering Jihad does not--and perhaps should not--be a top-down movement.
A brave cartoonist, a renegade Hirsi speaking the truth, a Tancredo refusing to spout the pc dogma, and building understanding in Eurabia and America. It's a start.
Posted by: biorabbi at June 13, 2006 1:17 AM
The Moslem Pathans of the Hindu Kush and Afghanistan, like the Hindu Gurkhas at the other end of the Himalayas were what the British characterised, in the days of the Raj, as a warrior race. The truth is that societies like that only really make sense in mountainous or desert environments - they need to have geography on their side: the Swiss are the most heavily armed civilian population in Europe, because small arms plus mountains can prove a viable defence policy at least as a moderately strong deterrent. When the chips are down such societies can be comletely crushed: the British did it with the Scottish Highlands in the mid-eighteenth century and decided not to do it to NW territories in what is now Pakistan because it was estimated that casualties would run into a couple of tens of thousands.
If the disconnect betwen governors and governed is so great that it is likely to come to blows, these things can be seen coming well in advance and arms shipped in as necesssary: the Irish were always doing it. An estimated 10% of the poulation have mental health problems at some point in their lives and young men are frequently hotheads: why make it easy for them to shoot people for having silly names.
Also, personally, I think the American rebellion would have failed without the help of the French.
at June 13, 2006 1:53 AM
I can tell you who would step up like WC.
Tom Tancredo- (R)Colorado
at June 13, 2006 2:14 AM
Fjordman, the Rear Admiral did indeed speak well.
Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at June 13, 2006 2:54 AM
The result for Britain and Europe, Parry warned, could be "like the 5th century Roman empire facing the Goths and the Vandals".
I think some of you are not seeing the forest for the trees. Even with the various problems it has, the modern West now is light years ahead of the 5th-century Roman Empire, on many important levels: economic stability, infrastructure, political sophistication, military and police powers, social cohesion. Some of you resemble the anti-Westerners in this one respect: you obliviously underappreciate the astonishing sophistication, solidity and strength of the modern West -- mainly because for some reason, perhaps, you are anxiously studying certain trees and have forgotten the stolid forest around you (or perhaps some of you share with the Hesperophobes their morbid misgivings about the West and its "decadence").
Muslims will not be able to take over the modern West without several dozen major WMD terrorist commando attacks in several dozen different major nerve centers; followed by a concrete military invasion using troops, tanks, air-power and missiles. While the former is unlikely in toto, the latter is incredible.
Posted by: Television at June 13, 2006 3:01 AM
Well said Television!
Posted by: Turbinehead at June 13, 2006 3:33 AM
Television, you are a most complacent individual, do you understand change. People who have studied the collapse of the Roman Empire realised that the Roman armies of the 5th Centuary were mainly for defending fortifications and not for battle. The Goths and Visigoths broke through those lines and all those defenceless cities, towns and villages were there for the taking, no walls, no militia, no weapons, no armour.
Your first part of the scenario is likely, to remove the head so to speak. Then the violent under-class who are getting a lot of training in violence will then have plenty of fertile ground to practice and refine their skills at killing and there will be such chaos that whole populations of towns and villages will be killed. In France they routinely find caches of weapons in Muslim areas. Also Mosques are designed to be fortresses. The non-Muslims who rely on the police, the army and security services to protect them will be like lambs to the slaughter.
I suggest that you read up on Lebanon and the Balkans to get a clearer idea of how.
Yes the second part of your scenario is stupid, because that is not how it would be done, you don't need troops, tanks, air-power and missiles... you just need lots or killers with no moral restrictions on their savagery.
Fjordman, totally spot on.
Posted by: Daffersd at June 13, 2006 6:44 AM
Rear Admiral Parry: "When one thinks of 20,000 so-called jihadists currently fly-papered in Iraq, one shudders to think where they might go next."
Oh, how I love Admiral Parry's term 'fly-papered' in reference to these hungry locusts currently located in the fields of Iraq. How very, very apt!
at June 13, 2006 8:45 AM
It isn't about silly names, WallyUK. It's about the rise of new feudalism in Europe and the UK. Prince Charles was misplaced in my list because he is simply a figure head. The others all have royalist aspirations -- the EU is a completely anti-Democratic institution. Supra-sovereign institutions such as the UN and the EU and the World Court have morphed into Frankenstein beaurocracies bent on grabbing power and holding themselves above accountability.
Sorry for the conceit. (And they say irony is lost on the British and Canadians.)
Posted by: jsla at June 13, 2006 1:33 PM
"Also, personally, I think the American rebellion would have failed without the help of the French."
Probably. But the common man is pursuaded that the France of 1786 is the same France of 2006. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's like saying Italians are actually Romans in the classic sense, and that the trial of Oriana Fallaci is "Roman" persecution... The "France" which helped the US gain her independence died a couple years later in their conflagration, and has no relationship with the "France" of today, or even the "France" of 1940 (the year Germany invaded and France capitulated).
You still seem to be wrestling with our ascendancy, and you seem to be studiously searching to find ways to shoot holes in our American systems -- I suggest your time would be better spent shooting holes in your own system, for it seems to be perched on the abyss. America isn't anywhere near that point.
Posted by: jsla at June 13, 2006 1:42 PM
Oops -- 1781 -- not 1786 -- my bad.
Posted by: jsla at June 13, 2006 1:44 PM
It's all very well to call for a Churchill or some other leader to fix the troubles that face the West. I don't think this is the solution.
"Leaders" are as much mirrors of the people they lead as they are movers and shakers of their times. Thus Churchill's eloquence spoke to the values of the people he came to lead. That he did so with great flair and vision did not change the fact that it was a vision that the British population and the population of the West in general shared.
What is needed above all is for the population of the West to remember itself, to reeducate itself and be rightfully proud of its history, its achievements. The tin god of cultural relativism must be cast down. The political rascals who have fomented this state of affairs must be held to account by the electorate.
Islam as a humane philosophy has nothing to offer the West, nor indeed its own adherents. Islam must be treated as the mental/emotional aberration it is. Firmly, with no confusion and no compromise, from a position of awareness that, failing to do so, we will live in darkness.
Posted by: Chatillon at June 13, 2006 2:40 PM
I view the EU from my own Israeli and Jewish perspective of course. I see the "palestinian authority" as epitomizing the moral corruption of the EU. Here, in the PA, they give away a half billion euros per year [approx] while people go hungry and homeless in European capitals rich in the glory of the past.
The $$$ that they give to the PA goes to murder Jews and prepare the way for murdering Jews [PA TV] and for feathering the nests of the PLO big shots. And all this is called "peace" or whatever platitude that they choose to call it.
I do see how the EU is harmful to Europe and Europeans. This unelected tyranny usually talks in the name of democracy or some other platitude. I also believe that the euro currency has impoverished many of the poorer people and working people there, because it seems to me that Europeans [in the euro zone] have been getting poorer since it was introduced. This is based on my observations of France and Italy over the past few years. You Europeans really do need to get rid of this tyranny that claims to be democracy. For your own good. Because the dishonesty is often the root of other evils. It's noteworthy that Sweden, for all of its dhimmi inclinations, turned down the euro in 2003.
Posted by: Eliyahu at June 13, 2006 5:26 PM
Regarding the robustness of the West from a post above. While it's true we are light years ahead of our enemy in many regards -- the stability of our systems that support that sophistication, and more importantly, the financial institutions which keep them all running are critical, and horrifically vulnerable. Do you think that investment in real estate, commerce, and jobs would remain stable, if/when dirty bombs begin denying the West her financial districts in this major city or that? The tax base would erode, confidence would be utterly shattered in the aftermath of the collapses, and eventually the fraying and degradation of the entire system would become very hard to reverse. The primitive eating machine flourishes in such an environment.
Also, take note of the extremely light touch required to make Spain crawl back into her shell as if someone poured salt on her moist soft skin. There are many in the West completely inclined to sit back and, dare I say, ENJOY the collapse as it happens, or at best, do nothing to forestall it. For many of these decadent Western nutballs and cowards (traitors), the purpose for the renaissance, the enlightenment, the industrial revolution, and the technology age are all things that must be destroyed if the world is to survive. In their minds, 7th Century Arab culture is aparently preferable to deforestation and destruction of the atmosphere. Nevermind the fact that all totalitarian panaceas leave heinous destruction and wastelands behind in their race to impose utopia.
The entirety of the Islamic world is a splendid case in point. A veritable gutter of sewage and filth, despite the largest transfer of wealth from the first world to the third world in human history. After the infusion of staggering wealth, the place is worse than ever. And what have they done with their new-found wealth? Trillion dollar developments for the few -- and abject slavery for the masses.
The Soviets and the Chinese are exactly the same. Their nations are the most deplorable wastelands of toxic dumps and human degradation...
9/11 was lesson time for us all. On that day I learned, among other things, that those who come among us willing to think and act completely outside of our 'box' are capable of harming us in ways we never imagined possible. That day it became clear that we would face unimaginable trials before resolution, whatever that will be.
Posted by: jsla at June 13, 2006 6:34 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)