The European Union is making soothing clucking sounds to try and calm the outraged Muslim masses with plans of a ‘media code of conduct’ designed to prevent a repeat of the Jyllands-Posten incident with the ‘Satanic Cartoons’.
EU Justice and Security Commissioner Franco Frattini said the charter would encourage the media to show “prudence” when covering religion.
“The press will give the Muslim world the message: We are aware of the consequences of exercising the right of free expression,” he told the newspaper. “We can and we are ready to self-regulate that right.”
Who is this “we”? Does Frattini think he is speaking for the British and European on-line community? If so then perhaps I can spell out the “consequences of exercising the right of free expression” that “we” are aware of… it makes us free, that is the consequence of free expression. Are “we” clear now? These non-enforcible guidelines are just a worthless sop to people who need to be confronted, not treated as though they have a legitimate argument.
And yet later he seems to take a strangely different stance…
The chairman of World Islamic Call Society, Mohamed Ahmed Sherif told a press conference in Brussels on Thursday (9 February) that the cartoons of Mohammed published first in Danish daily Jyllands-Posten, fuelled extremism.
“Nobody should blame the muslims if they are unhappy about the images of the prophet Mohammed,” Sherif said coming out from a meeting with EU justice commissioner Franco Frattini in Brussels. “It’s forbidden to create a hate programme to show that the prophet is a terrorist while he’s not,” he stated, “Don’t ask us to try to make people understand that this is not a campaign of hate.”
EU justice commissioner Franco Frattini repeatedly nodded and mumbled “yes” in front of cameras and microphones during Mr Sherif’s statement.
Mr Frattini also denied wanting to create a code of conduct for journalists reporting on religious matters, as indicated by earlier media reports.
“There have never been, nor will there be any plans by the European Commission to have some sort of EU regulation, nor is there any legal basis for doing so,” the commissioner stated.
So in the space of two days, Frattini seems to have done a U-turn and stated his commitment to freedom of expression whilst simultaneously looking like an appeaser. That takes some doing!
Let’s hear it for ‘nuanced’ European diplomacy! 
From the linked article:
“Nobody should blame the muslims if they are unhappy about the images of the prophet Mohammed,”
Let’s rephrase this in different terms:
‘Noone should blame a man for rape if he is aroused by images of a woman in a short skirt and tube top.’
This quote is (perhaps unintentionally) revealing, both in what it says about the Muslim masses and what it says about how the civic, social and religious leaders of those masses see them.
It says that the average Muslim on the street is completely incapable of the slightest self-control when faced with an offence. If a Muslim riots, burns and bombs things, it’s not his fault, he can’t help it – it’s a Pavlovian reflex, which he is powerless to resist. Ring the bell, and he will salivate, no matter what the circumstances.
And it says that the average leader of Muslims sees his followers as no more than automatons, whose reactions are as predictable as a dog’s, incapable of independent thought and analysis.
Does that seem to you like a social structure and civilization that is a force for good and progress? I can’t think of anything which more clearly illustrates how large parts of the Muslim community is still mired in a medieval, feudal social structure – an absolutist, unthinking mob.
It doesn’t bode well.
llater,
llamas
Slightly unfair (but not entirely). I for one have NO problem with Muslims being unhappy about the images of the prophet Mohammed. No one has the right to expect Muslims to accept or like things they think are offensive to their religion. All they have to do is tolerate them.
If they want to march and organise boycotts, hey, it (should be) a free country. Just so long as they do not try to use force (either via the state or via direct intimidation by threatening violence).
The EU politicians definitely want to surrender, they just haven’t yet worked out the best way to do it. One solution would be a total ban on all cartoons/artwork with religious content, covering Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. The main priority is to get Islam out of the headlines so that everyone can go back to sleep again. The last thing they want is for the plebs to start noticing that their continent is turning into the Middle East.
The ridiculous thing is that he has almost certainly got the intention of those that drew the cartoon wrong anyway. I don’t suppose for one minute that they intended to imply that the prophet was a terrorist or would support terrorists.
Surely their intention was to point out the hijacking of the religion by those that espouse terrorism for their own reasons. The image was surely intended to illustrate the absurdity of their position.
This may be more serious than you think. Apparently a fascist site in Sweden has already been censored for posting the cartoons, partly on the grounds that Europe was likely to pass the kind of code Frattini is talking about.
I’m unsure of this source and don’t speak Swedish, so someone will want to check up on this story to make sure it’s true. Anyone who does read Swedish, the Dagens Nyhetter article reporting the story is apparently here.
HJHJ
Wrong. It was to highlight the issue of self censorship through fear of islamic violence in Denmark. The aftermath has rather vindicated their view.
The Tyrants’ Chum, Kofi Annan, can always be relied on to pick the wrong side in any argument, and yet again he doesn’t let us down:
Got that? And:
Perhaps the Commissioner should consult his colleagues at the European Court of Human Rights.
In Handyside v United Kindom in 1976 they said of Freedom of Expression:
.. it is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas”
that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matterof indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no “democratic society”.
ie Freedom of Expression is worthless unless youhave the right to say things other people do not want to hear.
Why is that worthless little bag of crap, Kofi Annan, opening his cakehole on something that is NOT HIS BUSINESS and that he DOESN’T UNDERSTAND?
HJHJ – I cannot believe that you are among those who hasn’t a clue what this is all about. It is about self-censorship in the press. No one had the intention of lampooning Mohammed, although it wouldn’t have mattered if they had.
llamas – I partly agree with you, but I would go further. What the special treatment accorded the Islamics is in itself an insult. The general view among Tony Blair’s government, the MSM on both sides fo the Atlantic and even some people posting on Samizdata, implies is, the Islamics are childlike and cannot be expected to control themselves like thinking adults. Therefore when they fly into one of their childish tantrums, for heaven’s sake, hand the silly little things a sop just to shut them up. This is dangerous because they have learned, childlike again, that if they throw themselves on the floor and start screaming, they’ll get what they want.
Re the EU, Unruly Infidel’s post hits the nail on the head, IMHO.
From the first part of Perry’s post, when he addresses the ‘fact’ later disproven that the EU’s going to legislate what the press is allowed to print, the money quote is: “sop to people who need to be confronted, not treated as though they have a legitimate argument.” This is a strong point. These people are being treated, as Perry says, as though they have a point, when they have absolutely no point at all in a democracy.
“We can and we are ready to self-regulate that right.”
If a paper chooses to not print the cartoons then that newspaper is self-regulating.
But if it does choose to print the cartoons it is still self-regulating. It has considered what it is doing in light of those principles or morals that it wishes to observe and found that said principles are not contravened.
Self-regulation has already taken place. All that’s left now is EU regulation and I would not be surprised if that’s what Franco Frattini meant.
Gary Monro
I have just read Melanie Phillips diary this morning (my time), and I highlighted a couple of quotes that I was going to reproduce here. Then another quote. And then … she quotes Amir Taheri from the WSJ and John O’Sullivan from The National Review and those are well-articulated, too. Look – it’s a very interesting piece with some excellent points. Read, as they say, the whole thing. (Link) It’s called The Cartoon Jihad and right now, it’s at the top of her Diary page.
Zowie! – More non-dhimmitude from the brave prime minister of Denmark! Over on Dhimmiwatch (Link) Anders Rasmussen nobbles eurodhimmies as “Disgraceful”. It seems as though the minute the Muzzies declared their boycott of Danish products, who should come slinking and cringing in to profit, like coyotes slinking around the lion’s kill, but euro-coyotes Nestlé and the ever honourable French Carrefour.
“Looking tired after what he acknowledged had been a difficult week, Mr. Rasmussen said in an interview that attempts to gain commercial advantage at Denmark’s expense had struck at the hearts of all Danes.”
Denmark has lost $55m in ME sales since the boycott began a week ago. Go out and buy Danish! And never set foot in a Carrefours again, or buy another Nestlé product. Sleazy profiteers.
“Mr. Rasmussen reiterated that there would be no Danish apology for the cartoons.” He is such a righteous dude.
Frattini is just making the usual noises that European Commissioners make when they are in a spot of trouble. There is no legal base for an EU press code of conduct. And the International Federation of Journalists issues a press release reminding him that they already have their own codes.
Interestingly, the loudest noises about freedom of expression at the moment are coming from the Danish, Dutch, French and German media and – apart from the blogosphere – not from the Anglo sphere.
I think that the impact of these attempted incursions into freedom of expression by Islamists are having a more profound effect on public consciousness and the press in these countries because they feel much closer – culturally and in terms of socio-economic conditions – to the recent events in The Netherlands re Pim Fortuyn, then Theo van Gogh and Ayaan Hirsi Ali etc.
The UK may be ahead in terms of its socio-economic system but is still in denial – compared to parts of continental Europe – about the real threats to our freedoms posed by Islamists and an appropriate political reaction.
How do the neo-Muslims (to coin a phrase) know that the Danish cartoons show in some way an image of Big Mo? By their own admission, they don’t have any such image with which to compare.
“He again condemned violence as unacceptable and said, . “They should not attack innocent civilians. They should not attack those who are not responsible for the publication of the cartoons.”
Does this mean that by implication it is peremissable to attack those who were responsible for the cartoons?
Ron: No, but that is just the kind of logic employed by Islamofascists! They do imply it, and hide behind such statements themselves to allow for the get out.
When are Muslims going to realise their anger should be directed at the creatures who brainwash them into becoming automatically humiliated when their religion is mocked?
I have used the Pavlovian parallel, and I have noted that others have spotted it. It is a serious point and may well be, SHOULD be the spark to trigger an Islamic Reformation!
TimC – They are brainwashed from birth. It is drilled into their tiny brains over and over and over again every day. This is the main thing they study in school. Their brains are nailed tightly shut by the time they’re 10. Then their father going for prayers five times a day (but not their mother). It is a completely brainwashing set-up. In fact, the level of indoctrination probably isn’t even legal in the West.
TimC
There can be no Islamic Reformation. By definition it is not possible. Unlike the Bible which, with the rare exception of tiny number of literalist Christians, we know to be the message of God as interpreted by men over time, the Koran is the absolute unalterable words of God delivered though Big Mo. And Allah only spoke Arabic by the way so no so-called translations if you please. For those of you who do not speak or read Arabic, the Imam will fill in the spaces for you.
And the difference between “the message” on one hand and “the words” on the other is like night and day. “The message” can be interpreted, it can be expressed any number of ways, it can be adjusted to fit the world, it can be, and is, seen by different men in different ways. “The words” on the other hand are, by definition, not subject to interpretation, to different views, to modification to fit the time and temperment of the reader.
“The words” are immutable for all time; from the beginning to the end they remain the same. Any Muslim who does not understand and obey “the words” is apostate and subject to the same treatment as any person “of the book”; they may repent and return to the correct path of Islam; like “the people of the book” they may remain outside Islam and pay the tax, but subject to Sharia in any event; or they may die. Clear, simple, straightforward; what more can you ask.
There can be no Islamic Reformation because Islam, in the fullness of its practice, is not a religion. Islam is a social order encompassing man’s relationship with God, and man’s relationship with other men through his social relations, economics, law, war, etc.; it is all things to all people at all times. We make a serious mistake by viewing Islam as if it were just another monotheisitic religion; a Christianity with a different name for God; a Judaism with a different holy book.
But Irshad Manji thinks it can reform and she is highly intelligent – and she’s a Muslim, the two not being mutually exclusive in her case.
Verity
I wish her luck, she’s holding a pretty bad hand.
– She’s a woman;
– She’s not a sheik or imam;
– She wants to change a system that is set up not to change.
Tough cards 🙂
I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for the Islamic Reformation.
The lesibian thing is probably not helping her out much either. (And she’s a tiny thing — I went to hear her speak last year and was seriously afraid for her life, although there was no incident at the time.)
John Steele – They would haved to say that perhaps Mohammad got some of the words wrong. I read somewhere that he was epilectic.
Also, I read somewhere else that he was illiterate, so had to get a scribe to write it all down for him. Meaning, he could have got several points wrong. Maybe they could base their Reformation on that.
Verity
Maybe, but in order to do that you’d have to discard Mohammed’s infallibilty in relating the words of Allah. From my readings there is no room for any kind of intepretation that ‘maybe he was dyslectic’ or ‘maybe it got garbled between Mohammed and the scribe’. As far as I know there isn’t that kind of wiggle room.
The Protestant Reformation was based on objection to principles and actions, not on ‘maybe someone misunderstood God.’ Luther flat thought the Roman Church was wrong, corrupt and Christianity needed a fresh start — under new management if you like.
I’ve always been amused by the idea that God would chose an illiterate man to carry his words to mankind. Sort of like my fascination with the idea of alien abductions. The aliens have the power to abduct anyone at any time and who do they choose? Billy Bob Smith, semi-literate small time hog farmer from East Overshoe Arkansas. They could abduct the head of Lawrence Livermore Labs, the Prime Minister of Australia, anyone they want but they go for Billy Bob 🙂
The Reformation was mostly about the earthly errors of the Roman Catholic church. I don’t see any reason why the leaders of the worldwide Muslim community, who already have several variations of Islam starting with the Sunni-Shiite division, couldn’t produce a theologian who would call for significant reform of the human element.
Sistani in Iraq is approaching that level of leadership now. He has rejected the violence of the fascist wing, and seems to be committed to representative government. We might not care to live in the society he would approve of, but if it is non-threatening, then it’s the Iraqis’ business.
VDH has an essay on this topic at NRO.
veryretired
Thanks for the VDH reference, I try to read anything he puts out … in my book he’s one of the smartest guys out there right now.
The Muslims may have variations, but one thing those variants seem to have in common is killing people who don’t agree with them, including other Muslims. I think its going to take a whole lot more than an army of Sistanis to bring about rational change and in the meantime a lot of people are going to be sacrificed on the alter of the Koran.
John, Verity,
An Islamic Reformation would have to do the unthinkable and break the cyclic, self-referential wiring (I almost said “logic”) of the Koran and prove it was not divine. The Koran is said to be ‘proven’ as the Word of Allah as it is infallable, perfect, not repeating etc.
Now, it can be shown to be parochial (e.g. sura 111 is nonsensical without parochal knowledge so it is either parochial or it is incomplete), it is in error (e.g. the development stages of the foetus), it does repeat itself (I believe 3 references to the little boys on offer in paradise). The Koran is so open to interpretation, manipulation and for division that if you want a supernatural author, the Devil is more likely!
The issue about convenient timings of revelations (the ability for Mo to marry the wife of his son-in-law?) should also be made clear and why the Shahada is not even in the Koran!
A good bit of reasoning, logic and analysis should be used to clearly prove that the Koran is not a divine text.
An Islamic Reformation would be,doubtless as bloody as the European Reformation.It also has to be borne in mind that Islam does not want a Reformation,this is simply pie in the sky
TimC
Yes, but you said it yourself, the ‘wiring’ is such that there is no rational way to question it. Because it is the delivered word of God questioning it is therefore apostate by definition no matter how inconsistent, illogical, repetitious, whatever the writing may be.
Even the organization appears to make no sense; I heard one person characterize it as being organized by length, the longer suras first and getting progressively shorter. I had an English prof who supposedly graded that way; stand at the top of the stairs and throw the essays down — the ones with the most writing went furthest and got the better grades 🙂
I don’t buy any of this “Islam is beyond reform because of philosophical commitment x” line. There was a time when Christianity was equally single-minded and brutal, and it got over it. Lots of people play fast and loose with large parts of the Bible these days in order to be able to call themselves “Christian” and yet still lead the kind of lifestyle they want. I have no doubt that the same sort of thing will start happening in Islam in time.
The problem now is that a lot of muslim countries are still underdeveloped in certain cultural senses. For those muslims who live in the west and preach all this, I think it’s no different from LA street gang membership. Islam, like “white racism,” provides a convenient excuse to engage in criminal behavior for restless young men. I don’t pretend to understand or be able to explain this phenomenon – but we’ve all seen countless non-muslim examples in our own daily lives: people who would rather collect welfare checks and complain than go out and find a job, pay for an education, and get ahead. Whatever makes those people tick is so alien to most people on Samizdata that we resort to easy explanations like “it’s Islam.” But I think Islam is largely just a cover. LA street gangs are every bit as much into rape and subjugation of women as the muslims we complain about. They didn’t need Islam to come up with these ideas.
I don’t want to go on record as denying that Islam as stated is misogynist and primitive – because it clearly is. I’m just saying that literal words have not stopped other religions from reforming, and no doubt that will eventually be the case with Islam too.
It’s a culture we’re fighting – not a religion, properly speaking. Sure, the two are inseparable to a large degree. But both the culture and the religion it spawned can and will change.
This is why it’s especially important to hold the line on issues like self-censorship. Like with any other kind of adaptation, Islam is not going to “adapt” to anything unless it has a good reason to. If we keep indulging them and signaling that our culture is up for compromise, the primitive elements in their culture will keep asserting themselves. It’s very much a case of “spare the rod and spoil the child.” It’s all about power with them – and compromise only signals weakness.
But as for whether Islam can be reformed – I’m sure it can be. And it will be – if we just stick to our guns.
Yes, John Steele – They always go for Billy-Bob and Lurleen. That is interesting.
Maybe Islam will never change. Who cares? Let’s just get it out of our hair. They’re a bloody nuisance. They can’t get along anywhere. And wherever they are in the world, there’s trouble. And in return for tolerating all these murders and primitive behaviour in our societies, what do they bring in return? Absolutely nothing. Nada.
The Reformation began in earnest October 31, 1517,near enough to five hundred years ago,Europe was fighting religious wars centurties later,Iran will have nuclear weapons within five years.
When we extrapolate past a present events into the future,do we have the time for a reformation?
The British press doesn’t need an EU commissioner to make censorship “guidelines” for them. They are eager to do it themselves. The Speccie has pulled a photo of one of the cartoons on the order of Andrew Neil and The Liberal has also pulled its cartoon.(Link)
So the rowdy, fearless, robust defenders of British free speech was just talk for all these years. Maybe this is what they mean by the yellow press.
How shameful.
To follow up Verity’s post,
The reason that the Liberal pulled the cartoon was because Scotland Yard could not assure their safety.
So it is ok for Muslims to call for violence in the streets of London, but the State will not protect YOU for using your freedom of speech, nor will they let YOU defend yourself is Muslims, yobs, or other ne’er-do-wells decide to attack you.
That is sad state of affairs. Not as bad as Iran sentencing a girl to death for killing a man who trying to rape her, but not a safe environment for freedom loving people, or their rights.
The British government is better than Iran’s, but that is not much of a compliment is it?
More deaths in Russia.
It would seem that grovelling to Hamas grants no immunity.
Verity
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi. It just seems a shame for all these years of Western civilization to be undone by a bunch of wack-jobs living in the 7th Century and leeching off of the technology of the west to boot.
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi
After posting this it just occured to me that the seed on an answer might lie within “…leeching off of the technology of the west to boot.”
What is going to happen to the places where all this unrest is going on when the cell phones don’t work and the airplanes can’t fly and the TV and radio don’t work and … because there are no spare parts and the western technological know how isn’t available to fix things. These people didn’t invent the technology they use, for the most they leech it off the west. Even in places like Maylasia and Indonesia where western companies have things like disk drives and computer components manufactured all they do is assemble things to western designs.
Hell’s bells. History is following Asimov’s Foundation Trilogy. Read the section about the collapse of the Empire due to inability to maintain the tech they bought, when the Empire tried to bully the sellers. There’s even a religious angle.
Fred
Plus ce change, plus c’est la meme chose.
John Steele – actually I have thought about your point before. If we hold out, we will develop alternate energy sources soon. When that happens, we will leave the Middle East. Result, collapse of stout party. They won’t have money to buy Western expertise any more. Their glittering desert citadels will gradually collapse back into the sands because they won’t have any Third World workers to keep them up nor the money to buy Western technology. The Sahara will reclaim the land and they will lie there beneath the dunes, awaiting future archeologists …
Will the West have died, too, in the meantime? I don’t know. I think America will survive because it is still vigorous and still has a strong sense of itself. So will India and China (which are not the West, I realise) but they’re on the way up.
But Europe is the big question. Of course, it will implode economically when no one wants its products any more because China and India are making them cheaper, but will it be taken over by Islamics as it sinks?
My guess, yes. The Islamics do tend to cluster in loser countries. What they’ll survive on, god only knows as the Muslims will drive everything into the ground. Talented/educated/ambitious indigenes will have immigrated by then anyway, with only the elderly indigenes left. And the welfare class. What will become of them?
Doomsday scenario – overly dramatic? – certainly. But Europe will be overtaken in the manufacturing game by India and China, no question. I would say that Britain should apply to become a state of the United States, but given the craven “free” press and the cowed police we have in our country, why would anyone want us?
Modern global culture is an enormous threat to the kind of “village” mentality that a great many people, not just Muslims, have as their perceptual filter.
The current conflict has been called a clash of civilizations. If that is so, it is important to remember that part of the problem confronting Islam is that it is not a 21st, or even 20th, century culture.
Just as the Western cultures of earlier periods saw nothing wrong with imposing their cultural models on others, so many Muslims are still in that mindset that demands everyone who is different change and conform to their standards.
Perhaps because the US is such a polyglot amalgam of every nationality and culture on earth, who are expected to “become” Americans after moving here, it does not strike me as odd that a culture as homogenous and insular as Islam would have an enormous amount of difficulty accepting the idea that its habits and rules are not, and cannot be, universal.
Islam is a culture out of its time. Christianity went through this when it confronted both scientific inquiry and political secularism, and was told in very blunt terms that the church could no longer dictate the content and boundaries of civic and intellectual life.
If I recall, their were a few drops of blood shed during that confrontation also.
I would hope that no one who has any familiarity with my approach to things has any illusion that I am recomending appeasement in the face of these relentless and never ending demands.
I am saying, however, that there are modern elements in the Muslim community who can accept the idea that religion is a personal matter to be shared with one’s community of believers, and not imposed upon all members of society.
These voices at the present time may be weak and fearful, but so were the voices who eventually joined into the trumpet of Solidarity, and when that trumpet finally sounded in all its resonance, the walls of Jericho came tumbling down once again, and millions were freed from tyranny.
Certainly we must be vigilant, and respond forcefully to attack if need be. But that does not mean we should abandon any hope that Islam can find a leader(s) whose call to peace and tolerance might prevent a gruesome episode in human affairs.
If we were living in an earlier time, we might not be able to imagine a skinny little Indian lawyer freeing the Indian subcontinent, or his disciple facing down the dogs and firehoses of malignant racism in the US.
Yet such people arose, and continue to come forward in all parts of the world, as the example of a Polish electrician, or a Burmese authoress, attests to in the modern day.
Those of us in the West who believe in freedom of conscience and expression must stand fast in support of the basic ideas which have shaped a world culture, a culture which is preparing to walk among the stars.
And we must not give up hope that the same love of personal liberty and intellectual development that drove our founders to pledge their lives and sacred honor will also draw out the best that other cultures, Islam included, can offer.
“Islam is a culture out of its time.” Good quote, veryretired. I don’t agree with everything you said after that, although I do agree with some of it. But not your closing sentence:
“And we must not give up hope that the same love of personal liberty and intellectual development that drove our founders to pledge their lives and sacred honor will also draw out the best that other cultures, Islam included, can offer.”
The Islamics have no love of personal liberty. Islam, in case you’ve forgotten, means “submission”. Islamics have never shown the faintest interest in personal liberty – witness the four wives deal and shariah law. And I sincerely cant’ define what “the best that other cultures [fine], Islam included, can offer”. What is the best that Islam can offer, veryretired?
This is a genuine question.
I don’t know of any religion that doesn’t require its adherents to follow certain rules and accept certain elements on faith. In some sense, submission is a characteristic demand of all religions.
My point was not that Muslims can just snap their fingers and all will be well. I suspect there will be a long and uneasy process, often punctuated by violence and intense emotions, as Islam deals with a global culture in which it is only a part, instead of insular cultures within which it is all there is.
If, however, you had predicted to some 18th or 19th century Englishmen that India would one day be a reasonably functioning representative state with a burgeoning sector of high tech science and medicine, they would have thought you were insane.
If I had told some 19th century Americans that the same Chinese they scorned as imbeciles and undesirables would become the most highly educated and remunerated group in the US, they would have laughed me out of the room.
I don’t know what will happen. But I do know that if the current trends of animosity and violence continue, and lunatics like the regime in Iran obtain nuclear weapons while still inhabiting the dream world they now live in, there will be some truly horrendous consequences.
I am not one of these people who thinks the West, or the US, are somehow intrinsically angelic in nature, and are beyong savagery. If Islam attacks with a nuclear weapon, the result will be a ferocity of response that even our worst critics could not imagine.
I spent my life with a bunch of hard working, blue/white collar guys who were Americans first and everything else second. If the goad was sufficient, they wouldn’t stop until there was no one and nothing left of any threat to this country.
And I would be right there with them to the bitter, bitter end.
I do not say what I say out of some deluded concern for Islam. I do not wish my country to go through what will happen if worse comes to worse. It’s not just a matter of physical destruction. The nightmares would play out for generations.
veryretired – what is your theory on strong, healthy economies tiptoeing around stupid and weak people? Gramscian is my take.
Verity
Your point about alternative energy sources is one reason I am so upset about the “plans” we pretend we have. They all stike me as basically half-hearted.
Frankly gasahol, and biodiesel and switchgrass etc I think are all just so much nonsense. Ethanol for example generally considered to be net energy negatives — more energy goes into their production than they yield as fuel. That’s why I think we ought to make an all out effort, a Manhattan Project if you will on fusion and oil sands and shales. (For example the estimate of “oil” contained in the Colorado oil shales is greater then all of the known oil reserves of the world combined.)
Oil sands and shales as a source of direct petroleum alternatives and lets face it, petroleum based fuels are going to be with us for a long time to come. To make effective use of any other fuel we need to build a parallel production and distribution system. To ‘convert to something like hydrogen means we have to create new production and distribution alongside the current petroleum system. and even if every car on the road went hydrogen tomorrow there are vast fleets of aircraft, trains and ships that will need petroleum fuels. Gas (petrol) stations are everywhere, pipelines and distribution terminals already exist for petroleum.
Fusion because it is the key to almost unlimited amounts of inexpensive electricity. And once you have vast amounts of inexpensive electricty everything else such as ethanol production, hydrogen, oil shales etc., become that much less expensive. Electricity is the key element in the economy.Once we have that solved we can tell the oil states to bathe in the stuff because we don’t need it. And then yes, the oil empires will crumble into the sand and the Muslim world can lose the veneer of progress and revert to the magic kindoms that they really are.
I for one hope that Europe can pull out of this slide. But frankly I would be pleased to see a true English-speaking union of US, UK, Oz, NZ and Canada — but only if everyone deals with their Islamist problem (and based on current performance I’d welcome Denmark to the fold — if they’s get rid of those ‘funny’ letters in their alphabet 🙂
/soapbox
Verity,
I’m not sure I follow the segue in your question from where we were.
Free market, free trade economies succeed because they reflect the natural state of human activity.
Men and women work, produce something, keep what they need, and trade what they can spare with their neighbors for something else they need or want, but can’t produce themselves.
That is a description of how humans operated 10,000 years ago, and how they function very well today.
Even in the most controlled command economies, it was well known that there was an entirely hidden economy off the books that operated just as I described. Often it was the only way anything actually got done.
Who are the weak and stupid? Those who haven’t been drawn into participation in the only value producing, knowledge based, moral system ever known—the complex ballet of ordinary people doing an honest days’ work, getting paid, and going about their real business of raising a family and living a normal, decent life.
Spend the next ten years travelling to every country on the globe. Everywhere you go, ask ordinary people, “Would you like a job, a regular paycheck, a chance to educate yourself and your children, a house, a peaceful environment, medical care when needed, some possibility of a secure old age?”
Even the weak and stupid will overwhelmingly anwer “Yes, I would really like that.”
We are the ones who know how to bring it about. Not the midevalists, the fanatics, the fascists, the bombers, the killers. They only know, and can only bring, death and misery.
Should we tiptoe? No. We need to reread the inscription on the lady in the harbor. We need to live the example that will draw men and women of goodwill to our side because they can see the future there.
We are free in our minds and our hearts. For thousands of years, no one could say that. We must be the lighthouse in the dark and stormy night, but we can’t hold up the torch unless we stand up nice and straight. No grovelling.
Re an Islamic Reformation – methinks they’ve already had that conversation about 900 years ago. They know what many western theologians refuse to admit: science and religion cannot peacefully co-exist, and IMHO a fair chunk of history in both the west and the middle-east revolves around which side is taking pre-eminence over which. The middle-east chose religion while the west chose science with its theologians fighting rearguard actions ever since so as to avoid embarassment (see the backdrop to the film Brotherhood of The Wolf, namely Monica Belluci’s role). True enough, neither choice has of course been 100% in implementation, but simply ask yourself who would choose which if the choice were to become explicitly stark and unavoidable.
I believe that the majority of Moslem theologians, unlike their Christian counterparts, are not deluding themselves about the ultimate mutual exclusitivity, and know very well that the instant it becomes acceptable for ordinary people to question religion directly under the expectation of not being in fear of their lives for it then religion is doomed unless the choice is reversed, just as happened and is continuing to happen in the West. They cannot allow any questioning to go unpunished for any such allowance will be the thin end of the wedge – they will not make the slightest concession in the same way that we cannot make the slightest concession to socialism: there can be no compromise in matters of principle. There will be no Reformation, there may be only victory or destruction, and should there be victory for Islam as a whole there will only be a continuation of the existing schisms without quarter until, again, victory or death. A moderate is just someone in denial about the question.
JJM
I think McVey’s right. Islam isn’t a competing civilization to that of the West. It’s the denial of civilization, the death urge. Like Fascism and Nazism, it looks back, not forward. They made this decision long ago. So the only “reform” possible is its destruction.
John McVey and Robert Speirs-
You’re right, but only because you’re talking in general terms. The truth is that when “a civilization” or “a religion” decides something that decision is a complex process involving lots of individuals. There was also a point in the history of Christianity when it denied science completely and punished severely anyone who questioned this – and look where we are today.
It’s true that Islam is currently living in the Dark Ages and fighting a battle against rationality – but I don’t think it’s a battle they can ultimately win. They can’t win for exactly the reason veryretired gives: people everywhere are fundamentally the same and want the same things. Rationality doesn’t vanish from the human brain any more than the free market vanishes from human interaction simply because one lives in Kuwait or Soviet Russia or anywhere else. As you say, it has to be deliberately and violently repressed – driven underground. But as veryretired says about the market, so with rationality. It remains alive and healthy there in the underground.
Islam can and will reform. But only, as veryretired says, if we stand tall and don’t flinch. I don’t believe that muslims are exceptional in their irrationality. They’re doing things that other religions have done in the past. Like those members of those other religions, they can change and improve. There’s no need to “destroy” Islam. Like all other irrational doctrines (e.g. socialism), it will collapse under its own weight. All that is required is to stand up to it. No detente, no appeasement, just simple quiet insistence that we are right and they are wrong. No one actually wants to live in Bin Laden’s idea of what the world should be, you see, least of all the people who claim to be his supporters.
Agree with veryretired and Joshua. But reform may never come because these people have never been taught to think. They learn the Koran, by rote, in Arabic – consider how many school hours and how much homework is involved in memorising an entire book (and in the case of non-Arabs, in a foreign language) and spend the rest of the time reciting prayers five times a day. Frankly, this is child abuse.
So what happens is, you have adults who all think identically and are absolutely incapable of seeing any other point of view. Their minds don’t stretch to it. If you ask them a question the only thought they can put into the answer is how they can twist the question so they can give you the answer they intended to give you before you asked the question. (Taqqiya.) Or how they can answer the question, but leave the essential bit out. For example, “Of course we unreservedly regret the loss of innocent lives!” What they don’t add is, “but without Islam, there is no innocence. Therefore, as they were infidels, it doesn’t really matter that they died on London Transport.” This is kitman. They are trained in these two strategies.
Once the British have these down pat, they won’t give any further credence to Iqbal Sacranie’s or Bunglawungla’s dribbling. They’ll be able to write the script themselves and save them the trouble of going to the studio.
And now the dhimmi Dutch prime minister Balkende has dissed Hirsi Ali … Now there’s something worth marching about!
See Big Pharoah—there are some who get it.
The option of standing tall and no flinching is no longer available,in the most trivial of trumped up offences the West has blinked first.All that is open to the West now,is damage limitation,or the option of instilling fear.
We have lost face before a culture where face is everything,it is time to stop speculating on a possible Islamic Reformation and consider what we are going to do NOW.
We need, as a matter of urgency, to replace the efete bunch of big girls blouses who pass for leaders in most Western democracies.
The long cultural cringe has begun,time is of the essence.
Seems to me that Mohamed Ahmed Sherif was able to persuade the EU Justice and Security Minister that his Mulsim Code of Conduct would attract more volunteers to silence than whatever Frattini’s committee of elites might put to paper.
My favorite line from the article Ron Brick linked:
So…..what, exactly, does Mr. Farish A. Noor think that muslims have been doing to fight these stereotypes? Because whatever it is I haven’t seen any of it.
Ron Brick – point taken. We’ve been talking a lot recently about how islamists “took the bait” in their reaction to the Danish cartoons – but I suppose it’s just as fair to say that the West failed a crucial test in the way it dealt with their reaction. And it’s been failing this test for some time now, sure.
The leaders in the West are the symptom, though, and not the cause. The cause is the politically correct culture of apology, which I believe is incubated, nurtured and raised on university campuses. What we need are more pro-western voices in university.
Unfortunately, I have no helpful suggestions for how to accomplish this.
Moi non plus, Joshua. It’s a pan-Western urgent problem.
Hello,
I’m writing something honest here and I don’t care how you guys gonna take it.:
I was writing in Danish discussion board and I had to attack the way the Danish queen had to import a man from France for herself. I spoke also about the books that she and her king translated who were anti_danish men. the discussion board banned my ID and my IP. is this what any Danish proud to call freedom of speech? or the danes have freedom of speech who looklike the freedom of saudia at the maximum?
After what happened, I know the Danes won one thing. they have the name of their country on the news for the first time in the 21 century. the problem they still didn’t ask how much did this cost!!!?
I believe more than 99% of the moslems who rioted, never heard of Denmark before. the Danes should wake up to themselves. the time of kingdoms is gone and if you ask your king “whould he like see kingdom back to France?” he will definitly say “HECK NO”
after I read what some premitive Danish people write online, I found new name for the Danish people. I’m not trying to offend anybody, it is close to describe your reality… SNOWNIGGERS
Well, Bruce. Moronic, disgusting, inarticulate and pathetic. All in one easy to disgard package.
Would you like an emesis basin to help you collect your ‘thoughts’?
No surprise I am with Joshua and veryretired.
The ‘wiring’ might be bypassed – sidestep the argument that Mohammed was /was not sincere in his belief that he was instructed by God via Gabriel, in fact that is a separate question. Once that is established, the circulatory wiring might be unpicked, because you are then looking at the Koran based upon not the absolute that it is Gods Word, but that the conveyor THINKS it is. You take out the need to accuse Mohammed of fabrication or not at all, then you are free to approach the text as any other text. Of course there will be people who deny it and fight it.
John Steele: Re alternatives. Things are moving fast. There are now processes being developed to break down all woody material, which is in reality just very stable sugar polymers. The predictions are for near self-perpetuating systems (i.e. enough hydrogen gas by-product is liberated to fuel the energy input) and it does not create spent catalysts that can pollute, nor does it require vast amounts of water that itself needs cleaning, as with the case of other methods.
Bruce, the forum you were posting on is private property, so you post your views there at the sufferance of the owners of the forum… you may have a right to free speech in Denmark (i.e. you can set up a blog/forum/newspaper or stand on a box on a street corner and shout your views) but you have no right whatsoever to make other people in Denmark (or anywhere else) facilitate you expressing your views at their expense and using their property. I am a great believer in free speech and I also ban people at my entirely arbitrary discretion from Samizdata if I think they are abusing my hospitality or sometimes just because I don’t like the way they tie their shoelaces.
So maybe they banned you not because they do not believe in free speech but because you acted like a jerk and you wore out your welcome. Sound plausible to you?
Like others here I hate this “we” concept.
There is nothing wrong with saying “we” if one is clear about who one is talking about – and they really do agree.
However, the “we” used by the E.U. official is a collective enity – we (individuals) do not have any choice about belonging to this “we” (the collective entity) and each of us must exercise self censorship – or we are not being “responsible”.
Of course there is a thinly veiled threat about what should be done to people who are not “responsible”.
For example, if someone where to say that the Muslim “Prophet” did many evil things that would not be “responsible” so we should be prevented from saying it.
However, it happens to be true. The Muslim Prophet did many evil things – he attacked many communities in Arabia, he enslaved people and so on.
Of course he was not the only religious man to commit terrible crimes, nor is it only Islam that has such wicked people in its ranks (no doubt all major religions have had wicked people in their ranks – as have athiests and agnostics as well).
However, Islam is (as far as I know) on its own among religions in treating a wicked man as the best and most noble man in history.
If the truth in the preceeding paragraph can not be expressed (because it is not “responsible”) then freedom is finished in this land.
Off-topic rant deleted by Admin. You see Bruce? Act like a jackass and people will not be able to resist the urge to throw you the hell off their property. There is a lesson here if you choose to listen. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.