Saturday, June 24, 2006

The PC Dike is Breached

Public opinion in the Netherlands has joined that of Germany in a refusal to accept the multicultural party line. Despite the state-sanctioned politically correct ideology about Islam, despite the notorious dhimmitude of their leaders, despite the message saturating the media that Islamophobia, and not Islam, is the big worry — despite all that, the Dutch aren’t buying.

According to The Jerusalem Post, a public opinion poll has revealed the Dutch public to be positively paleolithic in its ideas regarding Islam:

The poll conducted by Dutch research firm Motivaction for the GPD newspaper chain on June 2 found that 63 percent of those surveyed believed Islam was incompatible with modern European life.

More than a quarter of respondents said Muslim immigrants were rude, lazy, intolerant and prone to criminal behavior. They said the increase in Muslim immigration has had a negative effect on civic and social life, with almost 80 percent saying relations between Muslims and non-Muslims had become strained.

If the Dutch poll was anything like those on this side of the Atlantic, the questions were undoubtedly phrased in a way designed to elicit the “correct” answers. Even so, the opinion makers were not able to cook up the desired results.

And now some members of the government are deviating from orthodoxy:

According to the justice and interior ministers, the threat of terrorism from radical Islam is “substantial.”

The ministers told parliament that a “rapid spread of the Jihadistic ideology” was underway, with a number of moderate mosques passing under the control of Islamist ideologues.

“Radical movements, like Salafism, are currently gaining influence rapidly, both on the Internet and in more and more mosques. They prefer to use the Dutch language so that more and more young Muslims are reached, with all possible radicalization risks as a result,” the ministers said.

The next event to watch out for is the release of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s new movie, Submission 2, which highlights the intolerance and repression of homosexuals under Islam. Don’t expect the event to pass unnoticed by the radical imams, who will view it as another opportunity like the Danish Mohammed cartoon crisis. Expect the “Muslim street” to be offended. Expect the honor of Islam to be impugned. Expect demands for an apology from the Dutch government, and for more “outreach programs”.

The Islamists tasted blood in the water after Europe went into full dhimmi mode over the Motoons. Watch for the jihad sharks to start circling again for this one.

Somewhere in Europe right now, warehouses are being stocked with large quantities of Dutch flags and butane lighters, with instructions for their use printed in Urdu, Arabic, and Turkish…


Hat tip: Reader JCM.

14 comments:

Always On Watch said...

Good morning, Baron!

a public opinion poll has revealed the Dutch public to be positively paleolithic in its ideas regarding Islam

Paleolithic is an attitudinal change caused by infiltation (aka immigration) and Motoon jihad.

It's pretty hard not to react in a paleolithic way when masked Muslims are carrying signs reading "Behead those who insult Islam."

Francis W. Porretto said...

The Dutch appear to have noticed -- granted, it was brought to their attention pretty damned hard -- that Islam and savagery are very closely linked.

Let's hope this insight comes to the rest of Europe -- and to America, come to think of it -- before these seventh-century barbarians swarm us under.

Zerosumgame said...

Too bad this won't translate into increased support for Israel.

If you remember that infamous 2003 EU poll where 59% of Euros thought Israel was the greatest threat to world peace, the figure for Holland was over 70%. This from a country that was once Israel's strongest supporter in Europe.

Amazing what 30+ years of left-wing, Jew-baiting, Israel-bashing propaganda can to brainwash a nation...

whit said...

The situation Europe finds itself in would never have happened in a Christian Culture. When a people turn away on their moral foundations, they turn to humanism, political correctness, and hedonism. When people no longer agree on what sin is, society loses its ability to discriminate good behaviour from bad leading to "tolerance and multi-culti diversity." Eventually the whole thing collapes under the weight of the inane stupidity.

Zerosumgame said...

whit,

Actually, Europe's brand of Christian culture may have allowed something like this to happen.

The one consistent feature of European Christianity, from Paul's advocacy of a new covenant to the murderous Jew-hatred and support of today's Anglicans, is its Jew-hatred.

This Jew-hatred served as a means of oppressing Europeans for much of that history -- by blaming Jews for everything from poverty to the Black Death to (today) Islamofascist terrorism.

Jew-hatred was an integral part of the Catholic church, and even a perfunctory reading about Luther and Calvin, both fiercely anti-Catholic, revealed them to be truly insane haters of Jews.

Even nations that were devoutly "Christian" countries in the 20th century (i.e. - Poland, Russia, Rumania) -- ESPECIALLY devoutly Christian countries -- were bastions of murderous Jew-hatred.

So what does this have to do with Islamism? Simple -- even a 1970s Europe that was still "Christian" in the European sense would have been so immersed in Jew-hatred that they would have tolerated Palestinian Nazi terrorism against the Jews. It still would have allowed Islamic immigration, not only for economic reasons (somebody still had to work those aging textile plants in the north of England, and to clean the toilets), but because they would have sympathized with the Islamists murderous hatred against the Jews.

Thus, Europe STILL would have looked the other way while Palestinian/Islamist terrorism was directed at Jews and Israel (and America) all the while not realizing that it was growing and metastasizing right on European soil, until (as is the case now) it was too big and too ruthless to stop.

Fjordman and Mark Steyn have both referred to multiculturalism and PC as a type of cultural AIDS -- it weakened Europe's resistance to fighting the infection of Islamofascism. With all due respect to them, as they are far greater writers and thinkers than poor old me -- I think anti-semitism was really the "cultural AIDS" for Europe -- as Europe failed to fight the growing Islamoterrorist network so long as its primary goal seemed to be the extermination of Israel -- a goal with which an anti-Semitic Europe was in sympathy.

And that Jew-hatred would have been there in a traditional "Christian" Europe just as in a left-secular one.

Zerosumgame said...

Let me correct one line -- I meant to say the murderous hatred and support of terrorism of the Anglican bishops

Mr. Spog said...

Zerosumgame: Assuming that what you say about Christianity being inherently (rather than merely historically) anti-Semitic were true, this still would not have prompted a traditional Christian culture to allow mass Muslim immigration. The point is that without a religious foundation a culture falls into "inane stupidity" (Whit) or "radical stupidity" (Eric Voegelin). Only stupidity, blindness to one's own interests, can account for recent Western policies. Your scenario fails to take into account that a Christian Europe would have behaved less stupidly, assuming it had had some coherent form of government. It might have had little sympathy for Israel, but neither, for example, would it have allowed short-term economic benefit to override all other considerations in determining immigration policy. That is definitely post-Christian behavior.

As for Christian anti-Semitism, perhaps I should let someone more knowledgeable reply to your post. I'll just say that Paul, who was a Jew, and who spoke of Christianity being a branch grafted onto a Jewish root, could not have been anti-Semitic in the way you suggest, even if he has been interpreted that way.

FluffResponse said...

i think it was fjordman who pointed out that, in a blink of an eye, europe threw out or killed her jews (creative and useful) and brought in millions of muslims (predatory and parasitic). fjordman also suggested that the response to auschwitz has been a tremendous insistence on "tolerance," though tolerance in the new case is suicidal.

most church hierarchies have sympathy for jews. i think that in a broad sense, christianity is not an enemy to the parent religion.

the real problem for europe is described in an adjective that, when properly understood, is terrifying: "post-Christian."

with the biblical God less and less present, we see (as many predicted) an increasing lack of self-restraint. people need to internalize discipline; and when they don't, when their families are broken and their impulses are more-or-more in play, they come to fear the impulses and to wish for an outer tyranny to keep their inner madness is check. enter, fascism, enter, islam.

This notion that we need our fellow citizens to have strong, centered egos is not original, but may not be obvious.

what is our hope for a revival of western discipline and birth rates? an upturn in confucianism?

it is good news if the west is waking up to islam. it would be better news if people returned to the churches. i don't believe we'll be able to convert the muslims to christianity, but we will be able to reverse this immigration, which is ahistorical, unprecedented, and singularly stupid.

Hugh Fitzgerald has a good essay about the varieties of islamic communities, and why that variety isn't really important to the infidels:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011967.php

whit said...

I can't deny the anti-semitism endemic in Europe but Europe has been post-modern for a long time.

This man was one of the last authentic articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer

Russet Shadows said...

Oh here we go again. Another wanna-be Gibbons blaming the problems of the present on the newfangled religion of Christianity.

The most ludicrous claim that Paul was anti-Semetic is up first: Paul was a Jew. He certainly did not hate Jews as a race or as a people. To take his writings as a command or a justification for genocide is to read them with an ulterior motive in mind, and purposefully wrench passages out of context. That should be stark raving plain as day.

The "second covenant" that you derisively refer to as originated with Jesus, not with Paul. Jesus, was, and is, physically Jewish. Was Jesus pushing for a liquidation of Jews because of their race? Uhm, no. In fact the old anti-semetic canard that the Jews were killers of Christ would have no traction if the Jewish leadership was just doing what Jesus wanted them to do!

I could go on, but I have a feeling that we are dealing with a serial overgeneralizer much like Darwin, and nothing will convince him.

Zerosumgame said...

russet shadows

You cannot accept that in order to legitimize early Christianity as the new true faith, its early founders -- from Paul, to the various Apologists, all the way on Augustine in the 5th century -- had to do so by deligitimizing the original faith from which it sprang.

Further, it would not have been politically judicious for early Christians to blame Jesus' death on the Romans, given their vast power and the early Christians' desire to proselytize throughout the empire.

So once the Jews were crushed in 70 CE, it became possible for the writers of the gospels to reinterpret history to place added blame on the Jews, who were now beaten.

And when the Jews were exterminated and scattered after the Bar Kochba rebellion (CE 133-135), the early Christian theologians realized that the Jews were now basically powerless, and could be slandered at will.

Within about 15 years of the Bar Kochba rebellion, Justin Martyr was basically writing into Christian history the charge of deicide against the Jews, to be reinforced before the end of the second century by Origen.

That you can't bear to face this part of your history is YOUR problem. But it never ends, does it? Jews get slaughtered and persecuted, and when we try to stop it or even point it out, it's our fault.

fluffy said...

zerosumgame:

I jumped into this discussion 19 1/2 centuries after it started, but I tried to get up to speed.

I personally believe that anyone that would 'de-legitimize the original faith' is trying to shoot themselves in the foot, missing and hitting their knee. Indeed, Paul wrote of the gentile Church as a wild olive branch grafted into the tree. Without the root there is no true connection to G_d.

I know that there has been anti-semitism in the church since the second century (and probably the first), but I will not try to explain it. It always perplexed me how people could ignore the fact that Jesus himself was Jewish.

Archonix said...

There's a book I recommend for people who are trying to figure out where christianity stands regarding judaism, as opposed to where certian christians stand. It's called Paul, The man and the teacher in the light of jewish sources by Risto Santala. I've often found that many of the so-called anti-semetic parts of christianity are historical misunderstandings brought about by a lack of historical context.

Anyway, I don't know if it's in print at the moment, but if you can find it please read it.

eatyourbeans said...

Enough. Please, stop.
Whether Christianity likes or dislikes Jews doesn't interest me. Whether Jews like or dislike Christianity doesn't interest me.

I am only interested in one thing.
What is to be done?