Where Do We Go From Here?

Three days ago Dymphna and I were summarily ejected from Pajamas Media. That same night I posted a report about what happened, and floated the idea that we could avoid taking on any new advertisers by appealing directly to our readership for financial support.

Well, folks, it looks like we’re going to be able to do it.

You really came through: in three short days we made up the PJM shortfall for the rest of the year, so we won’t be launching any more annoying fundraisers until at least January.

Thank you all for your extraordinary generosity.

Gifts have arrived from the following places:
- - - - - - - - -

• Argentina
  
• Australia
  
• Canada
  
• The Czech Republic
  
• Denmark
  
• Finland
  
• France
  
• Ireland
  
• Italy
  
• The Netherlands
  
• Norway
  
• Sweden
  
• Texas (Yes, I’m listing it separately, due to the number of donations that came in from the Lone Star State.)
  
• The UK
  
• The USA

From now on our site should load quickly. The last time I timed it, fourteen seconds elapsed between clicking the link and whwn the full text was displayed — unprecedented!

The only ads or links remaining on the sidebar are for friends and/or allies, and none is being paid for. No scripts are left except for the TTLB listing, the site meter, and the 910 Group blogroll. That’s why the page loads so quickly now.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
My temperament is naturally optimistic, so I tend to see this crisis as an opportunity.

Our operating costs are minimal, and the donated funds will cover them. The basic requirements are the satellite internet connection, various online hosting services, the site meter subscription, and occasional hardware purchases. There’s sufficient overhead left after meeting those needs to pay for a few field trips to blogging-related events in Yankeeland. There may even be enough spare change in the budget to cover a beer or two.

So we’re working with a new business model here — a worldwide voluntary collaboration involving hundreds, perhaps thousands of people, one which requires almost no money to operate.

What kind of precedent is there for such a thing?

What marketing director worth his salt would even consider it?

So we’ll see where it goes from here. As usual, we’ll be taking suggestions.

What Is to Be Done?

Gates of Vienna commenter Ioshkafutz has taken up the postion of volunteer poster with the following treatise. He says:

This essay originated in a comment on last night’s post, referring to El Inglés’ recent scandal.

As it is pertinent to the discussion in “Cassandras,” the original essay apeared as a comment on Little Green Footballs, where it was deleted while I was silenced for eternity for my sin of saying out loud what others think.

And may a flock of pigeons poop in both my eyes if I have changed anything but some spelling and punctuation. [Though your editors may have made changes for the sake of our readers. Send the pigeons our way - Editors ]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Charles Johnson said: “What is to be done is to continue educating people and exposing the agenda of the jihadists.”

I, in my identity as “Mammamia”, responded:

Please allow me to dissent. And please bear with my long post.

You say: “What is to be done is to continue educating people and exposing the agenda of the jihadists.”

Well, creating awareness is certainly a form of “doing,” but obviously, it is not enough. In fact, seen from another perspective it is doing nothing at all.

For example, I can denounce malaria, describe everything science knows about malaria and wax extremely eloquent about the harms of malaria, but unless I or those influenced by me actually go out and spray DDT (or whatever they do these days), I’ve done nothing, or rather, despite all my good intentions and hard effort, I have failed to get anything done.

No, I am not suggesting that Muslims are vermin that need to be sprayed with poison. They are men, women and children with first names and last names and personalities. Islam is an old and majestic belief system, strong and complete enough to survive 1400 years, through the likes of Mongol invasions, colonialism(s), modernism(s), etc.

When I read the term “Islamo-Fascism,” I chuckle. We WISH it were Fascism, which only lasted twenty years! Today in my Italy, (the country that invented Fascism), there are very few real, honest-to-badness Fascists. In “liberated” Iraq instead, a girl was just religiously murdered by her father for falling in love with an Englishman. If one is to believe reports, this has also happened (and gone unpunished) thousands of times in the UK itself!

So despite defeat and exposure to freedom and superior Judeo-Christian and/or Secular values, Islam is as strong as ever and posits itself as an alternative system, with its own charter of Human Rights, its own complete set of values, which though perhaps abhorrent to some, has certainly proven its ability to successfully weather the ages.

Many of us laugh at these Bedouins, calling them “rag-o-heads” and “camel-riders,” but the way things stand, one way or another (through their merit and our demerit and perhaps through the way petroleum collected under the earth’s surface); the green oriflamme flag seems destined to fly triumphantly over huge swathes of Europe. And who knows? Even the next American President might have three Islamic names and the full support of Farrakhan!

Where was I?

Oh, right: I was expounding on the difference between denouncing and “doing.”
- - - - - - - - -
There are certain things to be considered, certain questions to be asked.

Do Muslims have a conscience? Well yes, of course they do. They are men, women and children. Anybody (perhaps not openly Jewish or Danish) who has traveled to the Middle East or Pakistan can vouch for the incredible graciousness of the people. They, the Muslims, have an Islamic form of conscience, resulting from an ethos derived from their religion. They don’t seem to get upset so easily about their own wrongdoings, whereas they are easily offended to paroxysms of rage by perceived slights from others.

For us this is the very definition of lack of conscience, for them it is simply being a good Muslim. It’s the old story of tribalism trumping ideals. “The worst of ours is still better than the best of yours… and that is why one of our terrorists can walk around our sacred rock, whereas one of your saints who has spent the best of his boogie years spoon-feeding the starvelings of the Sahel cannot.”

I certainly don’t like the word genocide, nor am I a Fascist, but I think back on the Aztecs and underneath it all, honestly, I’m glad that their culture of human sacrifice was obliterated from the face of the earth by those Christian invaders. Is one permitted to say that? Admittedly, the Spaniards (and others) didn’t go about it too nicely. They were Fascists, Nazis, Pinochetists, and worse. They were Ponce de Leonistas.

But wait! Did I say “culture of human sacrifice?”

You know something, Mr. Charles? The Muslim culture of human sacrifice is even worse than was the no-longer-extant Aztec one. The old Aztecs would at least hold grand ceremonies at appointed times and places and pluck the throbbing heart out of designated victims (captured enemies). Today, forty percent of British Muslims openly admit (though if silence is consent - and I think it is - then it is closer to ninety-nine percent of Muslims) prefer random, helter-skelter slaughters. These are “kaboom” splatter orgies (any time, any place and whoever is there is there). with, of course, that quintessential Islamic touch of the perpetrator’s suicidal participation. This act of sneaky self-sacrifice is to be rewarded by instant matrimony with 72 fawn-eyed virgins possessed of self-repairing hymens. Being a Frank Zappa fan myself from way back - I bet even before you - we can say that the suicidal heroics of Islam appear to be intimately entwined with plooking privileges.

Wow! Imagine having so many of these worse-than-Aztec people in your country!

Millions of them, as in the Netherlands and the UK and Belgium and Sweden and France!

Millions of people who consider your country “Dar ul Harb” - “Land of war”, and whose men of God defend terrorism in a day and age when the goods to kill an entire city the size of Paris can handily fit inside a briefcase and the technology to do such a dastardly deed is available on the Internet.

Now into this comes characters such as me, and - no doubt - the dreaded El Inglés. Big Isaac Asimov fans, wanna bet? Ever read the Foundation Trilogy, Harry Selden and the psycho-historians? We think we’re geniuses, but all we’re really saying is the ultra-obvious “something’s gonna break… and it’s gonna get very ugly.”

What does it take to imagine a dirty bomb going off in Birmingham or a water supply poisoned in Padova or a mega-train accident arranged in Barcelona? What does it take to imagine twenty Jumbo jets with thousands of passengers simultaneously dropping into the ocean? Why is it so easy to imagine a huge bomb killing tens of thousands of people somewhere in Israel with alternate / parallel images of ululating women, Kalashnikovs joyously firing into the air and candies handed to children?

CANDIES TO CHILDREN - to celebrate SLAUGHTER!

CELESTIAL VIRGINS - to reward suicidal SLAUGHTER!

You, Signor Charles, accuse us of toying with Genocide. But give it a bit more thought.

• Isn’t Ken Livingstone toying with genocide when he invites his sheik friend?
  
• Isn’t the BBC toying with genocide when it hides the truth?
  
• Isn’t the Storting of Norway, the organism that gave Arafat a peace prize and now finances Hamas, toying with genocide?
  
• Isn’t Jimmy Carter toying with genocide much more than a Northern League Umberto Bossi type regionalist who has a Fiamma Nierenstein in his Berlusconi coalition?

You might call Bossi a Fascist or a Nazi, dear Mr. Charles, because he’s like that Belgian guy you’re not fond of (the one who supposedly thinks that Belgians are the superior race). Check out who Fiamma Nierenstein is. What is she doing in a government with Massimo Fini ex Movimento Sociale - that is to say, Fascist?!

Who are you jiving with your political debris, Signor Charles?

Anyhow, what’s gonna happen when the Lincoln Tunnel explodes, or Seattle suddenly finds herself poisoned to death? Why not? The spiritual leader of the man who might just rule the USA howls “God Damn America!” Isn’t the Reverend Wright - and by extension - Obama toying with Genocide?

Okay, never mind the rhetoric. Here’s the question:

Let’s say America is hit in a big way again by the Muslims. Everybody in Topeka, Kansas writhes and moans to death because of a light dust that a passing glider drops. It’s traced to the Muslims, an organization called, say, Habibi el Mahmoud Shabaam. As happened after 9/11, candies are handed out, there’s dancing in the street and there are lame apologies and freaky excuses. What’s the right reaction? Should only Habibi el Mahmoud Shabaam be punished or is all of Islam to blame? If all of Islam, how is this so? Wouldn’t it be more or less what El Inglés would do if he were dictator (in the last part of his infamous essay)?

Out of this you might imagine me to be a genocidal fascist-hugging freak. But instead, I’m an ex-hippy, Jew-loving, Catholic and full of Kumbayah. I even like multi-culturalism… that is, I liked it until the Muslims came along. What’s wrong with Chinatown and Little Havana?


Yes, dear members of GoV, and should any of you be here, dear Pajama People (supposedly the defenders of free speech and grassroots’ opinionating), this comment at LGF was deleted and my person banned from the premises by Charles, who reasoned:

“Disgusting. The fascist sympathizers and genocide spouters always seem to show up in dead threads two days later.

This one will not be back.”

[Ah, but who knows if that will be the case? There is many a crooked lane to the crooked house, where lives the crooked mouse lizard.

And so-called fascist sympathizers are legion. They are just not necessarily fascists. -- Ed.]

Racism in Denmark is Disappearing

Denmark has recently shown that it opposes Islamization, and that its opposition spans the political spectrum, from the Socialist Workers’ Party to the Danish People’s Party.

However, the latest evidence indicates that the national distaste for Multiculturalism and Islamization is not motivated by racial hatred. Henrik of Europe News has translated an article from last week’s MetroExpress about recent trends in Danish attitudes towards other races:

Almost no racism in Denmark

Only 26 police reports concerning discrimination in 2007

Hardly anyone is being rejected from discotheques or are subject to humiliation due to their skin colour in Denmark, according to the number of police reports concerning racial discrimination, which has dropped to its lowest level of a decade.

From 2006 to 2007 the number of cases reported to the police fell by 60 % to a record low of 26, according to a report by Rigspolitiet [national police]. For instance, the police district north of Copenhagen filed only three cases in all of 2007, and none so far in 2008.

“Previously we had quite a few cases were immigrants were not admitted to discotheques due to their skin colour. We don’t see these cases any longer. It might of course be that the immigrants no longer visit the discotheques in question, or it may be that the discotheques are in compliance with the law,” states police inspector Karl Erik Agerbo, chief investigator of Nordsjællands Politi.

Immigration spokesman of Venstre, Karen Ellemann, believes that a major information campaign during 2006 against discrimination in the nightlife has paid off.

- - - - - - - - -

“It is a cause for joy that we now have the results of our targeted effort. We have made it clear to everyone that the Danish society does not accept racism.”

Do you believe that only 26 individuals were discriminated against due to their skin colour during all of last year?

“This is something I really do wish to believe. It remains important to make it clear that no one has to suffer from racism.”

Henrik’s take on the last comment:

Some may suggest that racism is there, but not reported to the police. The fact that there has been a campaign targeting this issue makes it abundantly clear that this argument is flawed: If alleged “racism” isn’t bad enough to cause the bother of filing a police report, it simply cannot be much of a problem.

Is Europe a “Christian-Muslim” Continent?

According to the doctrines of established Islamic jurisprudence, any real estate that has ever been conquered or occupied by Muslims remains the sacred territory of the Ummah in perpetuity. Regardless of later events — the Reconquista, the establishment of Israel — Muslim land is Muslim land forever.

The juridically recognized domains of Islam are considered to be held as a waqf, or scared trust, by the entire Ummah. These waqf territories include not only current Muslim-majority nations and previously conquered lands, but also the buildings and grounds of mosques and madrassas, Muslim cemeteries, and even the homes and community buildings where Muslims live and congregate.

Bear all this in mind when you read the following press release from the OIC. The European ethnic groups that Mr. Ihsanoglu mentions are considered part of “Europe’s Muslim identity” because they were originally conquered and converted to Islam by the sword.

It’s also notable that dhimmi-wannabes like Prince Charles are doing immense damage to the defense of indigenous European culture with their fawning attitudes towards Islam:

The Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, delivered a speech at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies in the United Kingdom on Monday 28 April 2008 in which he tackled a number of crucial issues.

One of these issues was the identities of entities and groups which have been, according to Ihsanoglu, “affected by the vicissitude of times and the changeable fortunes of peoples”. He talked about injustices suffered by the peoples of Bosnia and Kosovo, and questioned the motives behind wars and difficulties in which these two European nations, for instance, have gone through.

Ihsanoglu stated that it is appropriate to tackle these injustices from cultural and intellectual perspectives and not only from a political perspective. Furthermore, he raised a number of questions about the identity of Europe and whether or not Europe does have a Muslim identity in addition to its Christian identity. In this context, he quoted Prince Charles, who praised the contribution of the Islamic Civilization and great Muslim scientists to Europe over 800 years of Muslims presence in Spain.

Moreover, he stressed that Muslims of European ethnicities such as Albanians, Bosnians, Torbich and Romans are all ethnicities of indigenous European origin, in addition to the millions of Muslims who have immigrated to Europe. As such, he stated, our present-day civilization which have strong Muslim roots, would qualify to be labeled a “Muslim-Christian” Civilization. He asked whether it would be right to admit that Islam and Muslims constitute one of the key components of the European Continent?

- - - - - - - - -

In addition to the above, Ihsanoglu discussed how the way the OIC views the future and Islamic solidarity. He noted that during the last decade, the OIC Member States started to sense the need to revitalize the Organization and close ranks with a view to breaking free from the state of despondency and lack of action after a series of setbacks. He stressed that the deterioration of the socio-economic situation in most of the OIC Member States, coupled with rampant poverty, unchecked illiteracy and uncertain future, have compelled these countries to seek remedies for these impediments through joint actions.

The Secretary General also elaborated on the importance of the Ten-Year Programme of Action Document adopted by Mecca Summit in 2005 in dealing with the most pressing challenges facing the Muslim world today. He stated that this Document has constituted a paradigm-shift with a practical and realist timetable to ensure achieving the requested goals of the OIC. The Document has also enabled the OIC to come up with an amended Charter for the OIC which was endorsed by the 11th OIC Summit in Dakar in March 2008.

Ihsanoglu demonstrated the role of the OIC in the cultural, educational, scientific and economic fields. For example, he stated that the OIC Member States are working to promote cooperation to achieve sustainable development and strengthen intra-OIC economic and trade cooperation with a view to establishing a Muslim Common Market.

The Secretary General concluded by stressing on the OIC’s move, at the international level, to disseminate the true and correct teaching of Islam. He reiterated his call for the need to increase emphasis on dialogue and for historical reconciliation between Islam and the West.

Hat tip: TB.

Migration as Jihad

Established Islamic doctrine — based on the Koran, the hadith, and the sunnah — states that any believer who dies in warfare against the unbeliever, or while defending the Ummah, is a shahid, a martyr. A martyr’s reward is a place in paradise and the perpetual service of 72 virgins.

The soldiers who die for Allah in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon are martyrs. Suicide bombers in India, Bali, Iraq, Afghanistan, London, and Israel are martyrs. The innocent Muslims killed by terrorist bombs (or at least the men and boys among them) are martyrs.

And now the “asylum-seekers” who drown in the Mediterranean trying to reach Europe are considered martyrs.

According to AKI:

Algeria: Illegal immigrants who drown are ‘martyrs’, says imam

Algiers, 29 April (AKI) — Algerian immigrants who drown in the Mediterranean Sea on their way to Europe should be considered ‘martyrs’, according to a prominent imam.

According to the local daily, Ennahar, Sheikh Shamsedin Bourubi issued a fatwa, or religious edict, on Monday saying that the Muslim faithful should pray for their souls.

“The immigrants who leave Algeria by sea in a bid to reach Europe and die by drowning in the Mediterranean are ‘martyrs’ and are not committing suicide,” he said.

- - - - - - - - -

“So it is legal to conduct funeral prayers for their souls.”

The Bourubi’s fatwa appears to contradict a preceding fatwa issued by the Algerian ministry of religious affairs.

According to the government body, immigrants who leave the country illegally and die in the ocean are committing suicide and should not be given prayers that are in violation of Islamic doctrine.

The ministry had therefore banned illegal immigration, saying it was against Islam. [Note: the author means “emigrants” and “emigration”. — BB]

But Bourubi disagreed with the government’s stance.

“The illegal immigrants that leave by sea face enormous risks and pay enormous sums of money to improve their living conditions,” he said.

According to the Algerian theologian, it is important to understand the social motivation that pushes young people to immigrate.

The Libyan dictator Muammar Qadafi has spoken of the coming conquest of Europe, which will occur through demographic jihad rather than violent jihad. Through the migration of the faithful and the power of the Islamic womb, Europe will be reclaimed for the Ummah.

European political leaders refuse to recognize the nature of the Islamic tidal wave that sweeps across the Mediterranean and the Bosphorus and inundates their cities.

But the Muslims themselves understand the nature of what’s happening. Their intentions couldn’t be more clearly stated.


Hat tip: insubria.

Reputed $1.2 Million Paid to Free Spanish Hostages

It took two and a half months of captivity before the crew of the Danica White was freed, but a little over a week ago a Spanish fishing boat was captured by Somali pirates, and by Saturday the crew had been released.

On Saturday the BBC reported:

Pirates free crew of Spanish boat

Pirates have released a Spanish fishing boat and its 26 crew members seized off the coast of Somalia last week.

The Playa de Bakio, a Basque tuna fishing boat, was released along with all of its crew on Saturday, the Spanish government says.

Deputy Prime Minister Maria Teresa de la Vega said the crew were safe and on their way to “safer waters”.

She said the release had been achieved through talks. A local official told the BBC a $1.2m ransom had been paid.

This is just as AMDG predicted: for “negotiations” read “paying of ransom”.

The article continues:
- - - - - - - - -

“Five men on a speed boat came to the ship and informed the pirates that they were ready to meet their demand of ransom,” said Abdi-salam Khalif Ahmed, a local leader in the Somali port town of Haradhere.

“They then boarded the ship and handed a bag with $1.2m to the leader of the pirates.”

Ms de la Vega, who did not comment on whether a ransom had been paid, said her government had taken steps to ensure that “a similar situation does not taken place again”.

“We must put an end to maritime piracy,” she added.

Well, duh — keep on paying ransom, and you’ll get more piracy.

This isn’t rocket science.


Hat tip: AMDG

Cassandra’s Fate

Oh Cassandra, what did you know?
You who bring bad news wherever you go.

                  — Al Stewart, from “Helen and Cassandra”

According to the ancient Greeks, Cassandra’s curse was to see accurately into the future, but without the possibility that she would ever be believed:

Cassandra was the most beautiful of the daughters of Priam and Hecuba, the king and queen of Troy. She was given the gift of prophecy by Apollo, who wished to seduce her; when she accepted his gift but refused his sexual advances, he deprived her prophecies of the power to persuade.

And so Cassandra’s name has come to mean someone who utters unwelcome and unheeded predictions of disaster.

We’re not really playing the Cassandra role here. We don’t pretend to be able to see into the future. But we’re interested in sifting data, tracing possible trends, and following divergent threads of speculation to see where they may lead.

Momentous events are building up across the globe. It’s quite possible that an aggressive and barbarous Islamic revival will acquire a nuclear bomb or other weapons of mass horror in the near future. That dreadful prospect makes it imperative to at least attempt a peek into the various plausible scenarios that lie ahead of us.

But some people consider certain areas of speculation to be out of bounds.

To be specific, what got Gates of Vienna in trouble recently was an exploration of the possibility of civil disorder, mass insurrection, and the general breakdown of European governmental authority if unchecked Muslim immigration into the continent continues. If existing political authority were to erode, one of the imaginable consequences is that mob violence, the emergence of well-armed paramilitary organizations, or new authoritarian regimes supported by outside powers could initiate mass slaughter against Muslims.

The events described above might occur if existing European governments fail to change current policies. The EU and its member states are ignoring the will of their people, the example of history, and the principles of prudent governance. Any state that fails in its duty to protect its citizens will of necessity be viewed as illegitimate, and cannot continue to wield authority indefinitely.

When that authority breaks down, all bets are off. A chaotic and unpredictable situation emerges, and any number of unsavory scenarios become imaginable.

That, in a nutshell, is the thesis that got Gates of Vienna in so much hot water. We were seen as advocating genocide, or being less than adequate in our declarations against it, or opening the door to it and making it more likely by talking about the possibility that it might happen.

I don’t buy that argument.

I don’t believe that there are legions of unwashed slope-browed atavistic Europeans who will be activated by my words.

I don’t think genocidally-minded people need my permission to start thinking about doing vile deeds.

I don’t accept that my analysis will “open the door” to the idea and somehow make it acceptable.

This is balderdash. Did all those ban-the-bomb folks with their posters of mushroom clouds make it more likely that the USA and the USSR would nuke each other? Were they advocating nuclear war?

Or were they instead reacting to what they believed was a real possibility, something that they wanted with all their hearts to prevent?

With the Cold War and MAD in mind, take a look at this excellent essay that arrived in our mailbox yesterday.

Vegetius Renatus is the pseudonym of a longtime reader from the Washington D.C. area who works as a consultant on logistics, organizational planning, and the supply chain. Wargaming and prediction are his stock-in-trade, so he offered his thoughts on the recent controversy.

Rather than Cassandra, consider Paul Revere and Herman Kahn.


Wargaming the Unthinkable
by Vegetius Renatus

Catching flak for thinking about the unthinkable has a long and honorable history.

Gates of Vienna has raised concerns about internal violence — civil war, leading to genocide — as a possible outcome if Europe’s political leaders do not deal with Islamization through political means. GoV published an essay characterized as a possible future scenario, stating it was “descriptive, not normative,” which apparently was not enough of a disclaimer for Pajamas Media, which cannot support thinking about the unthinkable concerning the future of Islamization in Europe.

So be it. PJM was never intended to be a think tank nor a serious wargaming organization, but rather a commercially successful aggregation of popular bloggers. PJM is committed to journalism about the present, not speculation on the future; but in order to take action to prevent the Islamization of Europe, and to organize to prevent it politically, serious speculation and generation of possible scenarios are required.
- - - - - - - - -
This is yet another example of the development of a Second Generation of activists and analysts working against Islamization. The First Generation analysts continue to emphasize current reporting and creating an awareness of the immediate threat, which has a value on which all can agree, but which is no longer adequate.

A Second Generation of activists and analysts is now envisioning scenarios for possible futures, developing policy and legislative initiatives, and aggregating in political parties and community organizations. The new phase of resistance is not a rejection of the older efforts, nor a devaluation of them, and the continuing efforts to create a public awareness of the threat have lasting value.

However, more active resistance is bound to occur — including the organized generation of future scenarios required for planning — with or without the approval and participation of the valued First Generation who sounded the initial warnings about Islamization.

They are the respected “Paul Reveres” who kept watch and alerted the public; but wars are not won solely by watchmen. As Churchill said, “Let our advance worrying become advance thinking and planning.”

During the 1950s and 1960s Herman Kahn, one of the founders of the Hudson Institute, applied systems theory and game theory to “thinking about the unthinkable,” which at the time was the strategic importance of a second strike capability in a nuclear war with the Soviets — and the survivability of a nuclear war. Responses to his work were often highly negative.

From Wikipedia:

Due to his willingness to articulate the most brutal possibilities, Kahn came to be regarded by some as a monster, although he was known as amiable in private. Unlike most strategists, Kahn was entirely willing to posit the form a post-nuclear world might assume… A willingness to tolerate such possibilities might be worth it, Kahn argued, in exchange for sparing the entire continent of Europe in the more massive nuclear exchange more likely to occur under the pre-MAD doctrine.

Interestingly, a number of pacifists, including A. J. Muste and Bertrand Russell, admired and praised Kahn’s work, because they felt it presented a strong case for full disarmament by suggesting that nuclear war was all but unavoidable. Others criticized Kahn vehemently, claiming that his postulating the notion of a winnable nuclear war made one more likely.

The latter criticism is similar to that applied by critics to GoV for considering the scenario of genocide as a possible outcome of the weakness of European governments in the face of a truculent and supremacist Islam.

Kahn helped develop the American discipline of wargaming and the developing of scenarios for contingency planning. See, for example, his many articles on developing future scenarios at the Hudson Institute, and perhaps most apropos, “In Defense of Thinking”, in which he wrote:

Seventy-five years ago white slavery was rampant in England. Each year thousands of young girls were forced into brothels and kept there against their will… One reason why this lasted as long as it did was that it could not be talked about openly in Victorian England; moral standards as to subjects of discussion made it difficult to arouse the community to necessary action…Victorian standards, besides perpetuating the white slave trade, intensified the damage to those involved. Social inhibitions which reinforce natural tendencies to avoid thinking about unpleasant subjects are hardly uncommon.

[…]

The psychological factors involved in ostrich-like behavior have parallels in communities and nations. Nevertheless, during the sixty years of the twentieth century many problems have come increasingly into the realm of acceptable public discussion.

[…]

If thinking about something bad will not improve it, it is often better not to think about it. Perhaps some evils can be avoided or reduced if people do not think or talk about them. But when our reluctance to consider danger brings danger nearer, repression has gone too far.

In 1960 I published a book that attempted to direct attention to the possibility of a thermonuclear war, to ways of reducing the likelihood of such a war, and to methods for coping with the consequences should war occur despite our efforts to avoid it. The book was greeted by a large range of responses — some of them sharply critical. Some of this criticism was substantive, touching on greater or smaller questions of strategy, policy, or research techniques. But much of the criticism was not concerned with the correctness or incorrectness of the views I expressed. It was concerned with whether any book should have been written on this subject at all. It is characteristic of our times that many intelligent and sincere people are willing to argue that it is immoral to think and even more immoral to write in detail about having to fight a thermonuclear war. [emphasis added]

There is a persistent tendency within polite society to think that merely discussing a horrific possibility makes it more likely to occur. This fallacy may be difficult to refute, but it’s also difficult to support — can anyone identify a chain of causation that leads from a discussion (without advocacy) to the awful events in question?

On the other hand, it’s easy to see that opening a previously closed topic might help prevent dreadful future events. When people who loathe the idea of such occurrences become aware of their likelihood, they begin to mobilize to prevent them.

Thinking the unthinkable isn’t merely a sound wargaming strategy; it’s a public duty.

Thanks, Everyone

Last night, a few hours after we were expelled by Pajamas Media, I laid out our new situation and suggested that we might be able to remain free of advertisements if readers were to give us enough direct support.

Well, so far, after just twenty-four hours, it looks like we may be able to do it. Dymphna and I have been overwhelmed by the generosity of our readers, some of whom we already knew from their participation in the comments, and some we have never met before. Thanks to each and every one of you.

We’ve also received a lot of supportive email, and exchanged chit-chat with several new correspondents. One of our donors replied to Dymphna’s thank-you note with this message:
- - - - - - - - -

Thank you very much for your note — it is indeed an honor to represent my state in such a way. It was my great pleasure to finally contribute, since I have enjoyed reading the posts on GoV for so long. The work you and the Baron do is of such great value and importance that I could not fail to at least do my small part to keep things up and running. After all — every great ideological struggle needs a sound (or at least compelling) intellectual base — without it the resistance to Islam will amount to little more than undirected thrashing about. You help provide the means for that base to develop and mature, using the medium that is best suited to the needs of that effort. It is my hope that today’s work with the pen will prepare enough Americans for that day when we must take up the sword.

Thank you for all the hard work you put into your writing and the maintenance of your site. Thank you as well for being among those who are not content to sit by and watch in silent horror.

This blog has evolved into a genuine group effort, and everyone participates in one way or another. Besides our contributors, correspondents, translators, commenters, and publicly credited tipsters, we also rely on tipsters who prefer to remain anonymous and other sources who help compile and distribute information.

Other readers simply spread the word. Afonso mentioned earlier in a comment that he prints out and distributes some of our posts — there is no more gratifying response than that.

So posting is a little light because we’re dealing with such a large flood of generosity. But things will return to normal soon.

Meanwhile, though it’s been hectic, we have thoroughly enjoyed hearing from readers who don’t comment but want to support our efforts. The whole experience was inspiring.

If anyone didn’t get an acknowledgement, please let us know.

None of it would have happened without the help of Pajamas Media… they came in, and our angels followed after. From all over the US — you Texans are something else — plus Australia, Canada, the UK, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, the Czech Republic, France, and Italy.

Nothing from the Fiji Islands, though.

I wonder what’s up with that?

Freedom of Speech With No “Buts”

Our Danish correspondent TB has translated an article from last Saturday’s Berlingske Tidende about the meaning of free speech in Denmark.

It’s amazing what First Amendment purists the Danes are, considering that they don’t even have a First Amendment. They could certainly teach some Americans — Sen. John McCain and about half the Supreme Court come to mind — a thing or two about what free speech really means.

TB’s explanatory notes appear in square brackets in the translation below:

Thor P.: The Mohammed drawings were much needed

On Sunday Folketinget [the Danish Parliament] in a huge event celebrates the fact that 2,000 people have been granted Danish citizenship this year. Among other things there will be a speech by the chairman of Folketinget Thor Pedersen, who praises the Mohammed drawings for putting a spotlight on freedom of speech.

The Mohammed drawings were nothing less than a most-needed eye-opener, Folketinget’s chairman Thor Pedersen (V) [V stands for Venstre, the ruling party] thinks, who compares the drawings with the old days, when someone stated that the earth was not flat: A needed provocation, the chairman thinks, who does not want to hear any “buts” when talking about freedom of speech.

“It is not illegal to be impolite. It can be unwise at some times, but it is not illegal. Demonstrations can make people feel indignant, but it might actually contribute to the process of a better understanding of life if one says what he means. It was the same when someone once said that the earth was not flat. It turned out that it was good that someone said that the earth was not flat,” says Thor Pedersen.

His message comes as Folketinget celebrates the big day of citizenship in Christiansborg. Last year 2,000 individuals were granted citizenship, and today 600 of them turn up to listen to Thor Pedersen’s speech.

Danish values

His message is that along with citizenship you have to fight for the fundamental values in Denmark — and here Thor Pedersen points specifically to freedom of speech. And that is needed as long as the Danes take freedom of speech as a given.

The chairman does not understand why anyone in Denmark had problems with the controversial movie about the Quran made by Wilders.

- - - - - - - - -

“People can choose not to watch the Wilders movie; that is their choice. It is very simple. There are a lot of things I think are rubbish, so I do not watch them. And I do not search for them either. People should be allowed to see what they want to see, and then you can just choose not to watch what you do not want to look at,” Thor Pedersen says.

It came as a surprise for Thor Pedersen that some Danes did not perceive freedom of speech as an absolute during the Mohammed-crisis, and instead added a “but” at the end of the statement “we have freedom of speech.”

“Either you have freedom of speech or you have not.. It is not a goal in itself to insult other people’s feelings, but that is not the same as saying people cannot speak out freely. If one can only say what other people enjoy hearing then you do not have freedom,” Thor Pedersen says.

Therefore he thinks that there are no limitations on freedom of speech other that what is described in the constitution.

Because freedom of speech is also valid when other people feel provoked by the statements and thoughts that someone comes forward with.

New Danes to be celebrated

And to those groups who say “but”, the message is:

“There are religious forces, and here I do not only think of Islam, but also on other religions, who do not like it when people say what is on their minds. There are also political forces who do not like it when people say what they think. And there is only one thing to say: When you have freedom of speech, then people can say what they want about religious matters as well as political,” Thor Pedersen says, and thinks that the day of citizenship is an important day.

“A lot of our new citizens have lived in a society where saying what is on your mind is outright illegal. But they have now chosen that [the right to say what you mean] and therefore it is very important to celebrate the newest Danish citizens,” Thor Pedersen says.

Ummah: Be Part of It (Or Else)

If you’re a Muslim in the West and you want to be in style, then Style Islam is the website you want to visit.

It’s a sophisticated operation with a variety of products and a design-your-own feature for T-shirts, sweatshirts, and other apparel. Some of the designs feature slogans such as “Go Halal” and “Hijab Supporter”.

And then there’s “Hijab: My Right, My Choice, My Life”. Hmm… I wonder if a girl’s father, brothers, uncles, and cousins agree that it’s her choice. Do you think she ever removes her hijab to find out?

Then there’s a new version of an old hippy-dippy standard, “Drop Love, Not Bombs”. And did you know “Jesus Was a Muslim”?

Why stop with Jesus? Socrates was a Muslim. Holger Danske was a Muslim. Copernicus was a Muslim. Karl Marx was a Muslim…

The brains behind Style Islam is a German-born ethnic Turkish Muslim named Melih Kesmen. According to Today’s Zaman, Mr. Kesmen was inspired to start his business by the crisis over the Danish Motoons:
- - - - - - - - -

When cartoons insulting Islam and the Prophet Mohammed hit the headlines around the world, his first reaction was to design a T-shirt with the message, “I Love My Prophet — Mohammed” and hit the street in London. Upon seeing the great positive reaction he received — peppered with the few verbal assaults he had anticipated — he began brainstorming possible ways of spreading Islam’s message through a more contemporary and esthetically appealing manner, and came up with slogan-bearing T-shirts.

“We aim to interact with people around us through the messages written on the T-shirts. Basically, we call on non-Muslims to learn about Islam not from the Western media, but from the very people they walk past in the street every day,” Kesmen explained, adding that this street fashion aims to present the message in a more appealing way to the youth of Europe.

But what about the youth of Europe who can’t walk past these inspiring T-shirts on the street, because they’re not allowed on the street? The ones who are in prison, I mean. More specifically, drug-addled hedonistic British rock stars who are doing time for their misdeeds.

Take, for example, Pete Doherty. If you’re looking for a visual definition of the word “dissipated”, click the Al-Arabiya link and examine the photo. Fortunately for Pete, being incarcerated hasn’t kept him from finding Allah:

Drug-addict UK rocker turns to Islam in jail

Drug-addicted British rocker Pete Doherty is a changed man since he began reading the Quran while in jail, his friends were quoted as saying in British newspapers on Sunday.

Doherty, the lead singer of the hugely successful Babyshambles group, is being held in isolation at London’s notoriously tough Wormwood Scrubs prison, after being sentenced to 14-weeks in jail for violating his probation by taking drugs.

Friends of the British pop star said he asked for an English copy of the Quran and has been reading it ever since, British tabloid The Sun reported.

“He’s got a lot of Muslim friends and they’ve been [on] him for ages to study it. Now he’s on his own he’s got time on his hands to study it,” The Sun quoted a friend as saying.

Friends say the troubled rocker — who The Sun earlier this year described as a “bleeding, bloated, greasy, drug-addled junkie” — has now found solace in Islam’s holy book.

[…]

In the past, Doherty was obsessed with Scientology after being introduced to the cult-like religion by his then girlfriend.

From Scientology to Islam. I won’t venture an opinion as to which one is the frying pan and which one the fire.

But what about conversions the other way? If a Muslim discovers Jesus (who was also a Muslim, after all), is there an inspiring T-shirt for him?

Not if he’s a second-generation Muslim in the UK. If he happens to find Christ, he’d better keep his mouth shut, or he’s likely to face a can of petrol, a match, and the indifference of the police — and not necessarily in that order.

According to the Times Online:

British Muslim ‘bullied’ for converting to Christianity

A British citizen who converted to Christianity from Islam and then complained to police when locals threatened to burn his house down was told by officers to “stop being a crusader”, according to a new report.

Nissar Hussein, 43, from Bradford, West Yorkshire, who was born and raised in Britain, converted from Islam to Christianity with his wife, Qubra, in 1996. The report says that he was subjected to a number of attacks and, after being told that his house would be burnt down if he did not repent and return to Islam, reported the threat to the police. It says he was told that such threats were rarely carried out and the police officer told him to “stop being a crusader and move to another place”. A few days later the unoccupied house next door was set on fire.

Christian Solidarity Worldwide, a British human rights organisation whose president is the former Cabinet minister Jonathan Aitken, is calling on the UN and the international community to take action against nations and communities that punish apostasy.

Its report, No Place to Call Home, claims that apostates from Islam are subject to “gross and wideranging human rights abuses”. It adds that in countries such as Britain, with large Muslim populations in a Westernised culture, the demand to maintain a Muslim identity is intense. “When identities are precarious, their enforcement will take an aggressive form.”

Drop Love, Not Bombs.

Except for apostates. For them, bombs are perfectly appropriate.


Hat tips: for Style Islam, Steen; for the Al-Arabiya article, TB; for the Times Online story, Doug.

On Being Cast into the Outer Darkness

“But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw a man there who was not dressed in wedding clothes, and he said to him, “Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?” And the man was speechless.

“Then the king said to the servants, “Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

“For many are called, but few are chosen.”

                  — Matthew 22:11-14 (New American Standard Bible)

Well, the other shoe has finally dropped.

Do you notice anything different about this post? For example, how quickly the page loads in your browser?

That’s because there are no more advertisements. As of today, April 27, 2008, Gates of Vienna is no longer a member blog at Pajamas Media.

I received a phone call this afternoon from Roger Simon, the CEO of PJM, announcing that our relationship was terminated, and that we should remove anything connected with PJM from our blog’s template. The specific reason given was our publication of Surrender, Genocide… or What?, the guest-essay by El Inglés that has caused so much argument for the last few days. Roger informed me with regret that the PJM Board had decided to cancel our contract.

Every since the recent unpleasantness started last October, I’ve been expecting it. And now the footwear has hit the floor at last.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Our association with Pajamas Media started almost exactly three years ago. When the venture was announced, we were in the very first group of “little blogs” that signed up. Not long afterwards we were listed on their blogroll and started running PJM ads.

It was a very exciting moment. Pajamas Media’s avowed intention was to leverage the unfettered free speech of the blogosphere into something larger, a business model that would draw on the traffic of blog visitors to pull in ad revenue, and simultaneously help increase that traffic by networking us all together and publicizing our efforts.

The idea was an excellent one: scoop up the tired, the poor, and the hungry bloggers yearning to be free, give them a place to hang out, and encourage a combination of first-hand reporting and cutting-edge opinion.

No holds would be barred, because PJM was to be different from the MSM, a place where voices could be heard that would otherwise remain silent.

Unfortunately, idealism doesn’t always make for a good business model. When the principle of open debate conflicts with hard-nosed commonsense business interests, it’s no contest. PJM has moved up into the big time now, and, like the mainstream media, it has to run its operation like a business.

I respect and support that. We’re not good for business, so they’ll get no argument from me: of course we had to go.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Dick: “We have the freedom of speech in America.”

Tom: “And you’d better say what you’re supposed to say!”

                  — the Smothers Brothers (not sure which album)

In a skype discussion prior to my writing this post, one of my good friends mentioned that PJM had “censored” us.

But I object to this formulation. Only a government body can censor us. This was a contractual arrangement between Dymphna and me on the one hand, and a corporation on the other. A clause in our contract specifically allowed PJM to do what it did. We freely entered into the contract, and this event has nothing to do with censorship.

Business is business.
- - - - - - - - -
But now we come to a dilemma. For a long time many readers have complained that our blog is slow to load, and the embedded advertisements were the major cause of the problem. Now the problem has been solved, but it creates a new one: how to make up for the lost ad revenue?

Our traffic is large enough that we have standing offers from several other advertisers for our banner and skyscraper ad slots. But we’d rather be ad-free, because the blog is more visually appealing, and we enjoy the rapid page load as much as you do.

So here’s what I propose: based on our traffic figures, and making a guess as to how many of those people are serious return visitors who like our blog, I estimate that $20 from every regular reader would make up the shortfall we’re facing for the rest of the year. Come January, we can review the situation again and see how it looks.

You can use the tip cup on our left sidebar; and when the PayPal form comes up, you’ll see “Natural Intelligence of Central Virginia” — that’s our business name.

For those countries which make up the largest portion of our readership: as of today, US $20 = UK £10.08 = €12.81 = CA $20.27 = 95.59 Danish kroner. For other currencies, see the XE universal currency converter.

You might call this the “Keep Gates of Vienna Ad-Free” campaign.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
So why have we been cast into the Outer Darkness?

As most of you know, El Inglés took a hard-eyed look at the situation in Europe, and his careful analysis concluded that if present trends continue, a breakdown of civil authority is likely to occur, resulting in what he called a discontinuity.

In mathematical terms, a discontinuity is a point on a curve at which all the derivatives (differentials taken to the nth level) cannot be defined. The curve is termed “discontinuous” at that point, and any further behavior in that direction is unpredictable, since the differential equations that describe the curve cannot be solved. An asymptote to a hyperbolic curve is one of the simplest examples of a discontinuity.

“Curve” is used loosely here, and a function in more than two dimensions can exhibit the same characteristics. When a three- or four-dimensional surface is involved, the discontinuity is often called a “singularity”, especially by physicists. A black hole is an actual physical expression of a spatial singularity.

El Inglés’ analysis led to the conclusion that much of Europe is inevitably facing a socio-political singularity due to the soft totalitarian superstate known as the EU, the dangerous ideology of Multiculturalism, and the presence of large numbers of unassimilated Muslim immigrants.

On the other side of that singularity, events are inherently unpredictable — none of us knows what the outcome will be, only that the singularity is on its way.

In order to prepare for a worst-case scenario, El Inglés looked at the distinct possibility that there will be a breakdown of central political authority in one or more European countries within the next five to twenty years. When that occurs, various scenarios can be imagined:

• Violent gangs morph into armed militias, as elements of the police and armed forces “flip” to the side of rebellious mobs, while the official and ineffectual government attempts to suppress them;
  
• Revolution arrives, followed by the installation of one or another kind of violent militaristic tyranny;
  
• Confrontations arise between the existing violent Muslim gangs and newly-aroused mobs of aboriginal Europeans; and
  
• Combinations of and variations on the above scenarios.

So many variables are involved that the final outcome cannot possibly be known. Governments may respond with violent repression while they still have obedient police forces. Intervention by the United States, Russia, or other external powers may occur. A recently-acquired nuclear weapon or dirty bomb may be used against a European city. A brutal and charismatic leader may arise and organize his countrymen on the basis of left-wing, right-wing, or nationalist ideology.

Any or all of the above has the potential to lead to a genocidal situation, either at the hands of loosely organized paramilitaries, or a newly-installed totalitarian dictator, or an intervening outside power, or combinations of these.

What seems more likely to me is the Lebanization of Europe, a gradual slide into a Balkanized patchwork of warring factions existing in a state of chronic low-level warfare, with all its attendant horrors: assassinations, massacres, rapes, atrocities, destruction of property, and so on.

This scenario would avoid an outright apocalypse, but lead to a diminished and impoverished Europe, a continent that no longer acts a beacon of civilization and is a mere shell of its former self.

All of the above speculation is called “war-gaming”, and anyone who reads it as an advocacy of genocide or dictatorship is illiterate, skimming the text too fast, or is disingenuously misreading it in order to pursue an agenda.

We (and by “we”, I mean not just bloggers or writers, but also our duly constituted civil and military authorities) would be failing in our duty if we did not look ahead to try to foresee all possibilities. We need to war-game what might lie ahead in the best case, worst case, and all other scenarios in between.

A look at a worst-case alarmist from the past is instructive. The quote below is from an essay entitled “Supporting Germany’s Rearmament; and the Steady Slide to WWII” (pdf format) by an Australian writer named Ian Kenneth Buckley:

The failure to institute universal arms limitation which led to the ultimate breakdown of the First World Disarmament Conference 1932-1933, together with the rise of Hitler, was to make the rearmament of Germany a certainty. And tragically it was not only Hitler and his Nazi supporters who wanted Germany’s rearmament, but many influential figures in Britain and elsewhere, as we shall shortly see. One prominent exception, however, was Winston Churchill who, from the early 1930s never ceased to warn his Conservative colleagues and others of the danger, the inevitable consequence of war if Germany, especially under Hitler, was allowed to rearm. He likewise warned of the dangers of encouraging Hitler by acceding to his demands on other nations.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Returning to the present, we’re not the only ones war-gaming the current situation in a less-than-sanguine fashion. Daniel Pipes has recently written in similar terms, referring to an op-ed by Ralph Peters:

American author Ralph Peters sketches a scenario in which “U.S. Navy ships are at anchor and U.S. Marines have gone ashore at Brest, Bremerhaven or Bari to guarantee the safe evacuation of Europe’s Muslims.” Peters concludes that because of European’s “ineradicable viciousness,” its Muslims “are living on borrowed time” As Europeans have “perfected genocide and ethnic cleansing,” Muslims, he predicts, “will be lucky just to be deported,” rather than killed. Indeed, Muslims worry about just such a fate; since the 1980s, they have spoken overtly about Muslims being sent to gas chambers.

Violence by indigenous Europeans cannot be precluded but nationalist efforts will more likely take place less violently; if any one is likely to initiate violence, it is the Muslims. They have already engaged in many acts of violence and seem to be spoiling for more. Surveys indicate, for instance, that about 5 percent of British Muslims endorse the 7/7 transport bombings. In brief, a European reassertion will likely lead to on-going civil strife, perhaps a more lethal version of the fall 2005 riots in France.

[…]

One can virtually dismiss from consideration the prospect of Muslims accepting historic Europe and integrating within it. U.S. columnist Dennis Prager agrees: “It is difficult to imagine any other future scenario for Western Europe than its becoming Islamicized or having a civil war.”

But which of those two remaining paths will the continent take? Forecasting is difficult because crisis has not yet struck. But it may not be far off. Within a decade perhaps, the continent’s evolution will become clear as the Europe-Muslim relationship takes shape. [emphasis added]

So why do Daniel Pipes, a respected anti-jihad scholar and expert on Islam, and Ralph Peters, a well-known opinion journalist, get to use the g-word without being branded “Nazi sympathizers” or “crypto-fascists”?

They’re using the word in the same way that we are, as a speculation about possible scenarios that lie ahead if Europe does not institute a drastic change of policy. All three of us are being descriptive and not normative about the topic.

It could be that we’re all “alarmists”, but being an alarmist is part of the job description for any war-gamer who wants to be effective.

A more stringent standard has been applied to us for several reasons:

1.		We’re mere uncredentialed bloggers, lacking the requisite letters after our names that guarantee polite respect from journalists and academics. We are thus automatically regarded as potentially dangerous ideologues from the loose-cannon lunatic fringe.
2.		We have been under continuous verbal attack for six months by several blogs and writers who have more power and influence than we can ever hope to achieve.
3.		We have expressed a prominent and public skepticism about the existence of a “moderate” Islam, or at least whether such putative moderation is likely to have any effect on the events that will unfold over the next generation.
4.		We have allowed any and all commenters, provided they abide by our discursive rules, to speak freely under our umbrella, even when they use intolerant, ill-chosen, and provocative language.

So those are the ground rules, and that’s just the way it is. If we say the same things that Daniel Pipes does, a ton of bricks comes down on us.

But we’re used to it. We didn’t pull any punches to try to protect our PJM franchise, and we won’t do so in the future.

We’ll continue to post guest-essays by people we may not always agree with, but whose work is insightful and thoughtful and deserves to be aired.

And we’ll continue to let our readers mouth off in the comments.

I really do believe in free speech, and not the namby-pamby watered-down “let’s not offend anyone” version. I believe in the tough kind, the kind that includes views that I personally consider wrong and misguided.

But out of some combination of all this will come the “line of best fit” that will help save the West.

It’s an ugly batch of sausage that’s being prepared here. You’re all well-advised to avert your eyes.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Not all good things come to an end
Now it is only a chosen few

                  — Elvis Costello, from “Almost Blue”

So long, Pajamas Media. It was good to know you.

I’m sure you will continue to do great things without us. With any kind of luck, jettisoning the questionable passengers from your sled will help you attract more investment capital, and allow you to build an effective and innovative model for the New Media.

I wish you nothing but the best. Here’s lookin’ at you, kid!

That Racist Jimmy Carter

A reader in Georgia (the Confederate one, not the one in the Caucasus) named Paige sends us occasional emails about the doings in her state and around the South. Her latest message arrived early this morning, and was so dripping with outrage that I asked her permission to post it.


“Gillerman calls Carter ‘a bigot’.”

Well, he certainly got that right. The peanut farmer/Sunday school teacher is a disgrace to my state and our country. Can’t we just white-out his presidency and pretend it never happened?

Oh, Miz Lillian, what have you foisted upon us?

Ynet reports:

Gillerman calls Carter ‘a bigot’

Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations called former President Jimmy Carter “a bigot” for meeting with the leader of the militant Hamas movement in Syria.

Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, “went to the region with soiled hands and came back with bloody hands after shaking the hand of Khaled Mashaal, the leader of Hamas,” Ambassador Dan Gillerman told reporters at a luncheon briefing Thursday.

- - - - - - - - -

The ambassador’s harsh words for Carter came days after the ex-president met with Mashaal for seven hours in Damascus to negotiate a cease-fire with Gaza’s Hamas rulers. Carter then called Mashaal on Monday to try to get him to agree to a one-month truce without conditions, but the Hamas leader rejected the idea.

The ambassador called last weekend’s encounter “a very sad episode in American history.”

Carter himself is one big sad episode in American history. The man who, as President, left hostages in Iran. The man who propagated a fear that the world was running out of oil and there would be none by 2000. His advice? Put on a sweater.

I swear, I want to buy that Carter a t-shirt inscribed: “I Love My Profit.”

And Miz Lillian, his momma? She was right: she should've stayed a virgin and saved us all a heap of sorrow.

— Paige

Diana West Joins the Blogosphere

Actually, she’s been there for quite a while.

And long before she was a blogger, she was writing columns for The Washington Times. Back in the Stone Age of the internet, before blogs existed, I used to buy actual dead-tree newspapers, mostly the WashTimes. Both Diana West and Michelle Malkin drew my attention, as well as other columnists who never made the transition to the blog world. Later I found her column online at the Jewish World Review.

But today she sent us a brief note about her blog, drawing particular attention to a post from earlier this week about Gaza, cultural relativism, and Gen. George S. Patton. First she quotes from the columnist Isi Liebler, who talks about Israel’s greatest failure:

…its reluctance to expose to the world the criminal nature of our Palestinian neighbor, the PA no less than Hamas. To this day, we continue understating the barbaric culture of death and the ongoing anti-Semitic incitement which permeates every sector of society under the jurisdiction of our Palestinian neighbor: mothers joyfully dispatching their own children to Paradise as suicide bombers; schools (even kindergartens), mosques and media inciting to kill Jews; Mahmoud Abbas, our peace partner, providing pensions for families of terrorists; spontaneous street celebrations erupting whenever terrorists succeed in killing Israelis in restaurants or shopping malls. The failure by our government to internationally expose such barbaric behavior reflects its slavish denial of reality.

To which she adds her own thoughts:
- - - - - - - - -

I feel the United States has played and plays a similar role in the denial of reality when it comes not only to the depredations of jihadis, but to the vast differences in Western and Islamic culture.

[…]

The other thing the video reminded me of were some unvarnished cultural observations Gen. George Patton made in his journal in 1943 — a long way away from politically correct speech codes, self-censorship, fears of “giving offense,” and, in Europe today, indictment and possible jail time for the “crime” of violating “hate speech” codes even in private writings.

Go over to Ms. West’s post to read what Gen. Patton had to say.

She also has a new book, The Death of the Grown-up. I’ve read the reviews, but I haven’t read the book itself. When I find the time…

Honey or Vinegar?

During the last few days’ controversy, our email has run the gamut, ranging from the “you Nazi swine!” type of disagreement, through polite disapproval, all the way to strong support and agreement.

It’s good to have the support, but I also respect principled disagreement. I value a well-reasoned argument against me, because I’ll read it carefully, and think about it. It might change my mind, or it might make me put together a stronger case defending my position. Either outcome is a good one.

I received a dissenting email this morning which was intelligent and friendly, and deserves a public response.

First I’ll post the full email, and then I’ll address it point by point. This will be a long discussion, so get yourself a cup of coffee and a doughnut if you intend to read beyond the jump.

Dear Gates of Vienna Editors,

It seems to me that you have made a very poor editorial choice by publishing the “genocide” article by the pseudonymous El Ingles. I’m sorry to see that, because like you, I believe that it is better for people worried about the future of Europe to cooperate with each other rather than waste energy fighting each other. We should be seeking allies, even if we have some disagreements. Normally I’m very sympathetic with your viewpoint, but I must say that in an effort to show your independence, you’ve walked into the trap of seeming to validate your critics.

The “descriptive”-vs-“prescriptive” dichotomy is literally true but rhetorically dubious. Once you start opening your mind to the suicide option of genocide, you are crossing an intellectual divide that has a pretty miserable history. So you are playing with fire, and I’m sure that you know you are doing that.

The reasoning of El Ingles is also debatable. History does not often pose simple a, b, c choices. It is entirely possible over the next decades that a substantial fraction of Europe’s Muslim population will modernize and assimilate to European Enlightenment values. If you know about Wafa Sultan and other heroic figures who are fighting the Wahhabi-reactionary wave of influence, you will see genuine resistance to the medieval throwbacks in Islam. In fact, as you know, a long-lasting wave of modernism swept over the Muslim world earlier in the last century, and has only been pushed out of sight by the wave of Saudi-funded missionaries who manage to control the discourse. The modernists are still there (as in Turkey) but they are now keeping their heads down.

- - - - - - - - -

You are giving in to despair about population trends. I understand that, but it is not effective politically, and it may not be accurate. For example, in the case of Britain, there’s reason to think there will be a renewal of modernism within the Muslim population, combined with Eastern European (Catholic or Orthodox) immigration, combined with a more sensible (and hopefully democratic) EU policy. Certainly Sarkozy, Merkel, and perhaps Brown must be thinking along those lines. Over a decade or two, that may substantially dilute the influence of destructive radicals. The British public is now tired of Labour, which has carried out disastrous immigration policies, and may be swinging to the Tories. While the Conservative Party is now still taking an old-fashioned multicultural line, once it is in power it will have to deal with the consequences in reality. With frequent bomb plots going on, it will take only one crisis before they may have to introduce far better immigration policies.

When more Muslim countries acquire nuclear weapons, which may be inevitable, that is also bound to shock European opinion. Add continued security challenges, and the public pressure for sensible immigration controls is likely to flip. The difficulty is there is a power elite still locked into an unworkable multicultural mind-set. Nobody believes in that any more. The situation is therefore very similar to the atmosphere of crisis that elected Margaret Thatcher, or for that matter Winston Churchill.

So the counsel of despair is understandable but premature. I understand the need to sound the alarm, in a media culture that has been oppressively Party Line, to say the least. That is a very important function of free speech. I don’t quarrel in the least with your right to publish provocative articles. It just seems to me that with this one, you have shot yourself in the foot.

I also understand how annoying it is to be constantly slandered as a proto-Nazi. It’s a toxic feeling. The temptation is to respond by giving the proverbial finger to the accusers. That is what I suspect happened in this case.

The fact is that saner voices are catching on in Europe, even though things are more frightening currently than they are in the United States or Australia. Changes are subtle, but pervasive. Some heroic figures are standing up in public, and the vast silent majority is open to them. With improved free communications — like “talk radio” via cell phones and the web — things can get better. Strategically, perhaps you should consider positioning your blog to take advantage of positive developments, rather than fighting what seems like an overwhelming tide of negativity.

I hope you see this as the thoughts of a friend. It is meant to be supportive. You can attract more bees with honey than vinegar. But I understand the temptation to go for the vinegar.

Now to answer your objections.

I’m sorry to see that, because like you, I believe that it is better for people worried about the future of Europe to cooperate with each other rather than waste energy fighting each other.

I agree. That’s why I choose not to fight with people who should logically be my allies. They may fight with me, but I won’t fight back. If I have a disagreement with someone who’s on the same team, I do my best to keep it private and work towards a compromise. This is the way to build a resilient and effective coalition of groups who share a common objective.

We should be seeking allies, even if we have some disagreements.

And so we are. Some allies refuse our overtures. Others insist that alliance be only on their own terms, terms which may well violate our own principles, or damage the mission. No alliance will be undertaken simply for its own sake.

Normally I’m very sympathetic with your viewpoint, but I must say that in an effort to show your independence, you’ve walked into the trap of seeming to validate your critics.

I’ve walked into no traps. El Inglés and I had discussed his article well in advance of its publication, long before any of the current brouhaha started.

In any case, I don’t take into account in advance the reactions of people who already consider me a “crypto-fascist” or a “Nazi sympathizer”. Why should I? What good would it do me to try to appease such a bloodthirsty idol?

The price is too high, and the possible payoff meager to non-existent.

Besides, letting the opinions of people who hate me dictate the terms of what I do is a way to let them live rent-free in my head. I won’t do it.

The “descriptive”-vs-“prescriptive” dichotomy is literally true but rhetorically dubious. Once you start opening your mind to the suicide option of genocide, you are crossing an intellectual divide that has a pretty miserable history.

I don’t agree. This fear of discussing awful possibilities is a version of “warding off the evil eye”. Don’t mention the awful event, or you might make it happen!

I don’t buy that kind of logic. People who refuse to examine clearly the horrendous possibilities that lie ahead of us are whistling past the graveyard.

World war was unthinkable in 1938. No decent person wanted to contemplate the possibility. The free nations of Western Europe were ready to do anything to avoid it.

And yet it came anyway, and was much more horrific, deadly, and destructive than it would have been if the political and cultural leaders of the day had listened to people like Churchill. In 1935 a clear-eyed, unflinching look at the likelihood of what lay ahead would have saved literally millions of lives.

We have an obligation to the next generation not to repeat the errors of the 1930s.

So you are playing with fire, and I’m sure that you know you are doing that.

That’s your opinion. I disagree.

The fire exists. I can see its light and feel its heat. I point to it and say, “Look out for the fire!”

As a result, people call me an arsonist.

I can live with that kind of unfairness. It’s just part of the price of doing business in the blogosphere.

The reasoning of El Ingles is also debatable. History does not often pose simple a, b, c choices. It is entirely possible over the next decades that a substantial fraction of Europe’s Muslim population will modernize and assimilate to European Enlightenment values.

What is the evidence for this? Can you provide statistics and cite your sources? I see no sign of what you describe. For every Muslim in the West who adopts the enlightened attitudes of modernity, or for every apostate who converts out of Islam without being murdered, there are ten thousand traditional fundamentalists who adhere to Koranic injunctions, and more arrive every day.

Where is the evidence that what you say is true? Besides someone else who simply asserts it as fact, show me a credible source that refutes me, and I will concede.

If you know about Wafa Sultan and other heroic figures who are fighting the Wahhabi-reactionary wave of influence, you will see genuine resistance to the medieval throwbacks in Islam.

Wafa Sultan is a brave and admirable woman who deserves all the support we can give her. But, as I mentioned above, for every Wafa Sultan there are thousands upon thousands of unregenerate traditional believers who rely solely on the Koran. They, in their myriads, believe that it is right and just to kill Wafa Sultan for her apostasy. Many of the people who believe this have been in the West for decades, or were born here. Speculating that the situation may become otherwise is wishful thinking.

And you’ll notice that Wafa Sultan — as well as other prominent apostates like Salman Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Ehsan Jami — get virtually no support from the governments and cultural elites in their countries. In fact, they face active hostility, because they don’t behave according to their ethnic stereotypes, and have committed heresy against the reigning Orthodox Multicultural dogma.

Existing European policies, both official and unofficial, discourage assimilation and conversion out of Islam, and thus encourage the brewing of radical jihad ideology.

In fact, as you know, a long-lasting wave of modernism swept over the Muslim world earlier in the last century, and has only been pushed out of sight by the wave of Saudi-funded missionaries who manage to control the discourse. The modernists are still there (as in Turkey) but they are now keeping their heads down.

To get an idea of the patterns of Islamic revival, I suggest reading Global Jihad : The Future in the Face of Militant Islam by Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo. The author traces the ebb and flow of Islamic revivals throughout the last 1300 years.

The pattern is this: when Muslim nations are defeated militarily, they tend to leave the strict sharia-based version of Islam behind and modernize to some extent. But as soon as circumstances warrant — as soon as the faithful are strong enough and/or threatened enough — a revival occurs. “The true Islam” re-emerges, and the jihad against Dar al-Harb resumes.

Right now Islam feels itself both strong and threatened. Its strength comes from the virtually limitless wealth generated by the petroleum windfall. It is threatened by the encroachment on all fronts of the West, with its decadent, pagan, vice-ridden, hedonistic, and irresistibly tempting culture. This combination of affluence and puritanical reactionary zeal is fueling a revival of classical Islam unlike any seen since the Ottomans fell back from Vienna in 1683.

So what likelihood is there that this revival will fade any time soon? Assuming that no alternative to oil is found, what will turn back the current tide of jihad except a massive violent reaction on the part of the infidels?

You are giving in to despair about population trends.

I am not in despair. You have chosen to read my opinions as motivated by despair, but you are mistaken.

If I were despairing, I wouldn’t have undertaken such a difficult, time-consuming, and thankless task as this one.

I understand that, but it is not effective politically, and it may not be accurate. For example, in the case of Britain, there’s reason to think there will be a renewal of modernism within the Muslim population, combined with Eastern European (Catholic or Orthodox) immigration, combined with a more sensible (and hopefully democratic) EU policy.

An attractive scenario. Once again, on what evidence do you base these claims? Opinion polls? Some other sociometric data?

Show me the sources. I certainly haven’t seen them.

Certainly Sarkozy, Merkel, and perhaps Brown must be thinking along those lines. Over a decade or two, that may substantially dilute the influence of destructive radicals.

C’mon, man, where have you been? Sarkozy and Merkel have already signed on to the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, which is the Eurabian pig all painted up with rouge and lipstick to make it look OK to the general public — assuming that the general public even wakes up long enough to pay attention.

Read the European newspapers. Look at The Brussels Journal or EU Referendum or Europe News.

I see no public evidence that what you predict shows any sign of happening. What do you know that the rest of us don’t?

The British public is now tired of Labour, which has carried out disastrous immigration policies, and may be swinging to the Tories. While the Conservative Party is now still taking an old-fashioned multicultural line, once it is in power it will have to deal with the consequences in reality.

It seems at least as likely that the next bomb plot in the UK will start a mass stampede to support the BNP, or simply inaugurate the descent into civil and political chaos that El Inglés has speculated about.

But I’ll defer to our British readers, of whom there are plenty. How likely is it that the Tories will regain any public confidence before the Troubles begin?

With frequent bomb plots going on, it will take only one crisis before they may have to introduce far better immigration policies.

Frequent bomb plots and one crisis — especially when accompanied by a continued failure to protect the public from immigrant (Muslim) violence and crime — will just as likely spark a civil insurrection. Why do you think your version is more likely?

When more Muslim countries acquire nuclear weapons, which may be inevitable, that is also bound to shock European opinion.

That’s an understatement. It may also shock Tel Aviv, Belgrade, and Rome into becoming glassy craters.

Add continued security challenges, and the public pressure for sensible immigration controls is likely to flip.

This is where you, I, and El Inglés all agree. The point of contention is about what lies on the other side of that “flip”.

The difficulty is there is a power elite still locked into an unworkable multicultural mind-set. Nobody believes in that any more. The situation is therefore very similar to the atmosphere of crisis that elected Margaret Thatcher, or for that matter Winston Churchill.

Yes indeed. And it’s important to remember what happened to cause Winston Churchill to be elected.

And we all better get down on our knees and pray to God that there is another Winston Churchill out there somewhere, waiting to be elected in 2011 or 2015 or whenever it is that European cities really start to burn.

Because I think it’s just as likely that a Lenin or a Castro or a Tamerlane is waiting in the wings, ready to deliver his country from the crisis by filling the mass graves with multiple hecatombs of anyone who gets in his way.

So the counsel of despair is understandable but premature. I understand the need to sound the alarm, in a media culture that has been oppressively Party Line, to say the least. That is a very important function of free speech. I don’t quarrel in the least with your right to publish provocative articles. It just seems to me that with this one, you have shot yourself in the foot.

So I’ll limp. It won’t be the first time.

I also understand how annoying it is to be constantly slandered as a proto-Nazi. It’s a toxic feeling. The temptation is to respond by giving the proverbial finger to the accusers. That is what I suspect happened in this case.

You see this as “giving the finger”. I see it as continuing to do what got me called a Nazi in the first place.

Once again, if I had to vet everything I say to make it acceptable to all the people who have declared themselves irrevocably against me, I’d never write anything that’s worth reading.

The fact is that saner voices are catching on in Europe, even though things are more frightening currently than they are in the United States or Australia. Changes are subtle, but pervasive. Some heroic figures are standing up in public, and the vast silent majority is open to them. With improved free communications — like “talk radio” via cell phones and the web — things can get better. Strategically, perhaps you should consider positioning your blog to take advantage of positive developments, rather than fighting what seems like an overwhelming tide of negativity.

If you think we don’t celebrate the positive developments, then you haven’t been reading GoV for very long. There may not be very many positive developments, but we sure do celebrate them when they come along.

In fact, we have celebrated one of the most positive European developments in decades: the rise of Vlaams Belang from a questionable fringe party to a mature, responsible, and effective political force. It is the most popular party in Flanders, and possibly the party most dedicated to civil liberties and the free market in all of Europe.

If you’re looking for constructive and lawful change in Europe, Vlaams Belang is everything that you would want in a political party, and the best that any European country is likely to get.

Yet there are many who don’t see this as something to celebrate, but who react with dread and scorn instead.

Funny about that.

I hope you see this as the thoughts of a friend. It is meant to be supportive. You can attract more bees with honey than vinegar. But I understand the temptation to go for the vinegar.

And I thank you for your friendly criticism.

But I don’t see what I offer here as vinegar. We simply have lots of exotic varieties of honey, and not all of them are to everyone’s taste.


In order to fully refute El Inglés, one must argue against some overwhelming statistics. Reposted below is that graph of immigration trends in the UK:


The vast bulk of the “Asians” are not assimilating, and radical jihadism is fermented in the toxic mix that gathers in the enclaves and no-go zones of large European cities.

The current trends all point to increased immigration. The most heartening news — the revised rules on family reunification in Sweden, for example — only serve to damp down the acceleration just a little bit. The growth will continue at current rates for a while, and then maybe slow down a bit in five to ten years.

Given the relative fecundity of the newcomers versus the aboriginals, this means that even if immigration stops dead in the near future, the proportion of unassimilated Muslims within their host countries will more than double within a generation. And immigration is not going to stop dead in the near future — unless there is a major earth-shaking event in European politics.

All of the above is contingent on the assumption that current trends continue the same, or are only slightly ameliorated. We are heading for disaster if things continue as they are.

But things cannot continue as they are.

It’s not possible. The welfare state will collapse. The introduction of political Islam will likely spark a violent reaction from ordinary European citizens. Taxation policies are drawing the continent closer and closer to an economic meltdown.

Things can’t continue the same. The question remains: What form will the changes take?

Since the situation is a chaotic one, the future can’t reliably be predicted. But Gates of Vienna will continue to attempt a clear-eyed evaluation of all the possible scenarios.

Honey or vinegar: we want to see it clearly.

And I’ve still got one undamaged foot left to shoot.