A Line in the Sand: Brussels 9/11

In yesterday's post on Islamic designs emanating from Albania, on Kosovo for starters, we have spoken of the line in the sand of the Kosovo Polje. While Islamization is taking the West by stealth, it would appear that the process in Kosovo, being played out since the eighties of the last century, took more overt modes of operation.

Little did the West know - or even care - what happened behind "the Iron Curtain", the place where Yugoslavia resided. That may also have been the reason the public was so easily hoodwinked by the unfolding effects of 4th Generation Warfare, viz. spinning the facts into favourable public perceptions, a trick the Socialists By The Third Way (viz. Messrs Clinton & Blair c.s.) have elevated to a form of fine art. I will come back to this shortly in another post, but right now I'd like to showcase Europe's line in the sand, because there always is sooner or later... a line in the sand.

The question is, where, when and how? Where? Well, for one in Denmark, the country that hosted the Mohammed cartoon row, causing all that Muslim rage and indignation. On the initiative of Danish political party SIAD (Stop the Islamization of Denmark) Europe's indigenous grievances are to be taken to Brussels. A Europe wide demo is to be staged on 9/11. I'm not sure what that date means: American style 11th of September, a symbolic if dramatic choice indeed, or the European way of indicating the 9th of November? I hope that will be cleared up.

The SIOE (Stop Islamization of Europe) site further clarifies that "researchers at the University of Copenhagen, after conducting population studies, have calculated that the ethnic Danes (the original population) will become a very small minority in their own country by the end of this century." This is true for a great many European countries.

While politicians, from the ill-informed to the naive, from the KGB ideologically demoralized baby-boomers now in power, to the plain evil and treacherous - urging unwilling indigenous populations to submit and integrate themselves into the Muslim culture - the character of the continent is in the process of being changed forever beyond any recognition.

The Reverend Monseigneur Georg Gänswein, Pope Benedict XVI's private secretary, in a recent interview with the Süddeutsche Zeitung Magazin warns Europe not to underestimate the dangers of the increasing Islamization. He underlines that the persecution of Christians in the Dar-al-Islam has increased dramatically. And according to repeated assertions issued by the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the count-down for the destruction of Israel has begun.

"The dangers associated with a changing identity of Europe may not be ignored out of erroneous considerations. The Pope's Regensburger speech was supposed to work against a certain naivety." Personally I don't see it any longer in that favourable, innocent light, having gone from naivety to conceit and plain treason. "Erroneous considerations" probably being Ideologically Correct Silence or possibly, the Postmodern (Neo Marxist, relativist, subjectivist) fallacy of holding one culture as good as any other.

The SIOE site posts an article - a cry for help really - by French philosopher and secondary school teacher Robert Redecker, first published in Le Figaro on 19th September 2006. It is just one of many stories of Europeans, exercising their right of free speech, only to see it answered by threats against their lives: fatwas setting them on the run in the own countries, even to the point of protective custody, as was the case with Geert Wilders and Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the Netherlands.

Dr Sanity's psychological analysis - always insightful - is particularly fruitful the last days. Those still at a loss what moves our Muslim brothers and sisters might be well informed by reading the following joint efforts by the entire Sanity Squad:

- A Deer in the Headlights;

- The Ring of Power;

- Paranoia and Projection in the Arab World: the Externalization of Blame for Arab/Islamic Dysfunction **UPDATED**.

The problem very briefly boils down to the fact that the 'superior' faith of Islam should have brought the faithful prosperity, knowledge and riches. Instead it has rendered the opposite: it led to ignorance, poverty and squalor. Faced with the intractable dilemma between that, or giving that pernicious faith up, they now project all evil that is of their own making, externally.

If only Israel didn't exist, if there was no 'Palestinian problem' the Middle East would be a prosperous place. If only they were no Christians, Islam would rule the world. This is the reason Muslims are incapable of accepting criticism. Crisis point has been reached, it now being full blown pathological paranoia. In fact, were peace to break out tomorrow, they wouldn't know what to do with themselves. This being the reason things are unsolvable.

I don't want to leave you without sharing Dr Sanity's post of today, which particularly moved me: inspirational and beautiful, if reality weren't so bloody brutal. Here's an excerpt from "The Cost of Freedom: Fighting and defeating the new barbarians will exact a great toll. The question is, are we willing to pay it?":

"Remember how quickly the West was willing to compromise our freedom of speech in the Danish cartoon matter in order to accommodate the enemy's threats? Consider how many other accommodations many of us are willing--and eager--to make to ensure the Death-Eaters of our own world won't get angry or upset with us over anything.

"And we can't even criticize their insane religion/ideology of death without having the priests of multicultural nihilism swoop down upon us. Very soon, we will have compromised away all that matters to us for the sake of "peace" (but which is really a sort of voluntary enslavement enforced via a societal suicide pact); and in the end, we will no longer have either our precious freedom, nor will we have peace.

"Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

Of Empire and Metacultural Kitch

For a number of reasons I don't really want to do this post. The first item fills me with nostalgia of a world now definitely gone (and good riddance to it, as some would surely exclaim); the second subject is too stupid to exist, but it keeps an entire continent abuzz for weeks on end.

The first subject concerns the unveiling by Baroness Thatcher of a commemorative arch for the soldiers who fought during the Falklands War, when during the 1982 crisis, Argentina invaded the islands.

Needless to say I'm an admirer of Margaret Thatcher, who is not just one of the last generation of great statesmen, but also the Prime Minister who saved Britain from the stranglehold in which the unions kept the country. I personally was too young to remember very well, but my father assured me the country was on the verge of total collapse when she took over. Baroness Thatcher has thus left us the wonderful expression which to this day governments can take to heart: "to do a Maggy".

The costly defense of the barren, windy Falklands is something we wouldn't bother with today. So much do we desire peace in our time at any price, that we wouldn't think twice of turning the entire Falklands population as an imperialist remnant over to Argentine rule - to a murderous military junta or to a benevolent democratically elected government, is immaterial.

For fun I have purposely taken out a RSS subscription to the comment section of this article, just to see how the postmoderns' predictable reaction will be. The first one is already in: "A Great display of Imperialism!" Postmodernism is all about an imbecile's sense of justice, isn't it.

As a blog to which cultural issues are are all important, we simply have to 'deal' with that lovely, miserable piece of European metacultural bling bling that is the annual Eurovision Festival of Crimes against Culture. Year after year I swear a solemn oath never, ever to watch that piece of Euro junk again; year after year I forget my dire vow and tune in to it.

Sometimes I find myself bitterly complaining that it cannot possibly sink any lower and the whole thing is destined to become dog breakfast; in other years I have the distinct impression that the quality is actually improving somewhat, until the next performance tells me that this was merely wishful thinking on my part.

This year was of the latter category. Some countries converted to metacultural kitch, as a Baltic country performed an above average song in Italian; others are still deeply entrenched in multiculturalism. Like the Danes who had the gall to choose an illuminated Disneyland mosque as background to their jury presentation! It is only to be expected that some barbarian adherent to Operation Western Auto-Destruct at some point will call for the E.U. flags that bear cross symbolism, to be abolished as offensive to Muslims!

In many respects I thought I had passed the stage of substitutional shame long ago, yet I can't help the feeling of simply being sunk by embarrassment at some performances. Another thing one is always assured of, is that the best acts remain at the bottom end of the voting scale, while the most outrageous 'camp camp' ends up in the top ten. Yesterday was no exception. As Germany, Romania and the Baltic states produced some real quality music that remained dangling somewhere around the middle to lower sections of the popular vote; the cheap, bizarre nightmares of the Farther East came up trumps.

This phenomenon has given rise to Western complaints about an unbridgeable taste gap and even signs of open warfare on the festival as a whole. Personally I switched off the set half way through the night, entirely persuaded that the age-old rumours about political vote rigging must definitely be true! How else can you account for the advance of the Far Eastern 'bad taste' advance at the expense of the 'quality' Further West? Where's Monaco, where's Switzerland, Italy? Who's policing the popular televoting system? We don't know, do we?

Noteworthy last night was also the truly undeserved high vote received by Turkey, which must be due to multicultural positive action emanating from the P.C. West, and/or the Turkish diaspora using every phone appliance available, to ensure the homeland receives as many votes as possible. How else can the vulgar piece of ostentatious gender bending that was the Turkish contribution, end up at the very top?

I can now definitely cast some light on the Greek-Cyprus mutual admiration mechanism that the Western hemisphere is almost eagerly awaiting each year with some traditional hilarity. I can presently personally attest to the fact that the Athens commentators were sincerely surprised at so much unexpected benevolence on the part of the sister island! Thanks very much for the douze points, guys - we'll return the compliment next year!

Dutch jury anchor Paul de Leeuw still doesn't get that his particular brand of cynical gay humor simply isn't understood beyond the confines of the narrow Dutch borders! His blatant meant to shock gayness doesn't even come across as such: the Athens commentators called him an equivalent Greek colloquial term for a macho! Stop shaming the country before an international audience, Paul, and for Narcissus' sake, next year make a stop-over at the powder puff's prior to going on air, dear!


I can say I'm glad Serbia's Marija Serifovic won the contest as the ballad, entitled 'prayer' was above average and the performance was within the limits of propriety. But in good Eurovision tradition I can't say I have no suspicions.

To be quite, quite, Marija is a bit too diky - which is of course an officially E.U. recognized minority that must be compensated in proportion to their inequality. Likewise the E.U. seeks to rehabilitate Serbia as a politically correct nation, with the upcoming Kosovo independence deserving of some compensation, as for example re-instatement into polite European society. One way of doing that is winning and hosting Eurovision. Or am I simply too much giving in to the conspirational tradition?

As for the countries that make up the British Isles, they simply haven't got enough neighbours to ever win another Eurovision again! Cheerio, Johnny Logan!

Glad we got that out of the way. Perhaps the whole thing will finally blow up over the East-West taste divide, enabling us to revert to the more serious E.U. conspiracies.

Quick, while it's still legal ...!

Let me write this quickly while it's still legal. A new low watermark in humanity's march backwards has passed virtually unnoticed by the mainstream media, except perhaps significantly by a brave little Calvinist newspaper in the Netherlands, Reuters and the Jerusalem Post.

On Friday 30th March the United Nations Human Rights Council - yes, the one which was silently set up last year to replace the Human Rights Commission, which was simply too much disgraced to keep on - adopted a Resolution by 24-14, calling for combating defamation of religion. It was drafted and tabled by the OIC, the Organization of Islamic Conference [1].

Superficially this may seem beneficial for humanity as a whole - except perhaps for those radical enlighteners that like to bring trumped up charges to bear on Christianity, as if a giant autocratic theocracy headed by Benedict XVI or Bartholomew I is just a matter of days, not months. This Resolution however is almost exclusively drafted in defence of Islam at the expense of basic human rights.

The Resolution was an initiative of Pakistan's President Musharaf. Since he is not a democratically elected head of state and sits at the pleasure of radical elements in the army and elsewhere, it may be assumed his initiative primarily serves a domestic purpose. As a 'friend of the West' he is in a perpetual balancing act, playing two boards at once.

The telling lack of media interest perhaps stems from the fact that such politically motivated Resolutions are passed quite regularly and have no teeth to speak of. This new U.N. body for human rights is rapidly going the same way as its predecessor, as we shall see. Still, a trend has been already set, and bit by bit inroads are made towards exchanging Western inspired universal human rights for less enlightened ones, with the help and assistance of indigenous crypto-totalitarians who have declared war on occidental ethnocentricity in the name of multiculturalism.

The Resolution also sheds light on the Danish Mohammed cartoon hysterics of last year. It has been estabished that this was a carefully choreographed piece of agit-prop in the best Marxist-Leninist tradition, the Islamist's revolutionary model of choice. It was thought at the time that the ulterior motives of the riots of hate were, well ... the riots of hate. It is now becoming clear they may have been concerted to provide a context and excuse for tabling and pushing this U.N. sponsored ban on the freedom of expression where 'the good name of Islam' is concerned. Here's another suggestion.

It should however not be confused with blasphemy, the defamation of God. Rather, it is towards a ban on insulting the religion of Islam and its Prophet, a crime for which many people are rotting away in prison cells, at best: just recently an Egyptian blogger was jailed for four years.

This text on the contrary has nothing to do with anyone's God. It astonishingly speaks of "attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations, the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001" and "urges states to provide protection and take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination ... of racist and xenophobic ideas and material".

In Eurabian style it even goes on to urge supposedly democratic states "to ensure that all public officials, including members of law enforcement bodies, the military, civil servants and educators, in the course of their official duties, respect different religions and beliefs and do not discriminate against persons on the grounds of their religion or belief, and that any necessary and appropriate education or training is provided ... on all manifestations of defamation of religions and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia on the enjoyment of all rights". I'm sure there are some Purple [2] dominated governments to be found that are more than happy to oblige.

The full text can be read here: minutes of the entire session at the UN site. As it's a bit of a stretch and a puzzle, here's the digest on this particular Resolution.

As a genetically determined Roman Catholic I heartily thank the Organization of Islamic Conference for speaking on my behalf. But still I'd rather they didn't, for the following reasons:

As multiculturalists well know - reason why they want to abolish them as ethnocentric - the universal human rights as mentioned in the Resolution, are based on Christian teaching. As long as Christians are prevented from freely practicing their faith in Islamic countries, indeed are killed and prosecuted, this reads as hypocrisy.

The liberally used designation, especially in tuition text books, of Jews and Christians as pigs and monkeys, is not consistent with peaceful coexistence and are parts of Islam that for starters might hit the religious antiquities and curiosa cellar, just as a gesture of good will.

The text of the Resolution is specifically addressing the West, the source and vessel of universal human rights. There is not a country in the West however in which the rights are Muslims are not upheld, even to the point of positive action at the expense of the indigenous populations and at the detriment of social cohesion.

This Resolution should be addressed instead to the Governments of those Islamic countries that violate human rights on a daily basis - primarily because such rights are not rooted in their religion - as some Islamic radicals do not stop to point out.

Moreover, it is an attempt to curtail the freedom of expression that is also a basic right in Western societies. In fact, this is the reason the OIC is able to draft this Resolution and bring it to bear in an international forum, in the first place.

Furthermore it has the undesired effect, of confirming radical and assertive seculars in their belief that religion as a whole is against freedom, is dictatorial, undemocratic, backward, obscurantist, and a danger to those same human rights they portent not to believe in as occidental hegemonism. It thus provides these secular ignoramuses with a stick to beat Christianity in particular and religion as a whole: they see it as a matter of "freedom of speech versus religion". Islam is spared because of its socially constructed victimhood, while religion gets a bad name.

Implementation of laws against religious defamation will either lead us up the path of semi-Soviet or French style secularism (laïcité), the banning of all religious expressions to the fringes of society and seclusion within the home, the state and public space being thus religiously neutralized; or the Anglo-Saxon variety will breed a Hobbesian, sectarian, multicultural wasteland of perpetual tribal war, of all against all. We could call that also the Balkan, or Yugoslav model. Either way, it leads to a totalitarian dictatorship.