These are all the Blogs posted on Tuesday, 13, 2009.
Tuesday, 13 October 2009
Islamists Attack Pakistani Christian Family For Refusing to Convert
From The Sikh Times
International Christian Concern (ICC) has learned that on September 28, Islamists attacked the home of a Christian family for refusing to convert to Islam in Murree, a town near the Pakistan capital of Islamabad.
Rafiq Mashi Bhatti and his family had lived in peace and harmony with their Muslim neighbors for years. However, in the past few months, they received anonymous phone calls and letters warning them to convert to Islam, leave their home or die.
The threatening letters were inscribed with verses from the Qur’an, including Sura 5: 51 which reads, “O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends...”
In one of the letters, the Christian family was told, “You Christians are agents of US led forces…Therefore it is our religious duty to wipe out all Christians from Islamic Holy land of Pakistan.”
The family reported the death threats to the police but the police were unable to prevent the attack.
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown won this accolade once before, when she railed against the "coup" by which Boris Johnson "took over" as London's mayor. It was a free and fair election, but what is that to a professional victim?
And so power inexorably shifts towards authoritarianism, new imperial arrogance and design (bafflingly known as "liberal intervention"), fundamentalist Christian revivalism, enforced assimilation ("You WILL love and only ever praise this country"), racism and cultural protectionism, Anglo-Saxon privilege and unregulated capitalism which creates both appalling levels of wealth and poverty.
I repeat what I wrote the last time she won Dozy Bint of the Week: Ms Alibhai Brown was a refugee from Idi Amin’s Uganda, and was very lucky indeed that this country gave her a home. Had she been forced to go to Pakistan to be with her fellow “Asians” and Muslims – I notice she did not choose to join the Ummah – her life would have incomparably worse. As a woman, she would have suffered all the horrors that Islam inflicts on women. As an Ismaili, she would have been persecuted still further. Instead, living in England, she has made a successful career as a journalist – albeit a mediocre one.
Look here, you dozy bint, you have nothing whatever to moan about. Brown, you are off colour. Yasmin, you stink. And Alibhai - I wish you were elsewhere.
Unfortunately, she is still with us and still moaning. Here, from The Independent (h/t Esmerelda) is here latest whinge about the party conferences, which are one big conspiracy against Asians, women, Muslims, Asian Muslim women, and above all against Yasmin Alibhai-Brown:
I have only been going to the fests for five years and still sometimes feel I shouldn't really be there, with the political beasts and the scribes who twin and swim with them perfectly.
The first years were scary. I had to pretend I was undaunted by the sharks of power. It gets easier, and this time I almost felt as if I was among friends as all three parties tried so frightfully hard to bus in a diverse crowd of delegates and highly visible wannabe candidates to prove politics in Britain is now really, really modern and progressive. Like the awesome public celebrations in China, messages and images were slick and gratifying, less so the reality. My one overwhelming impression was that when politicians spoke they had in their minds an essentially white, middle-class audience, people like themselves, in other words.
A group of Muslims complained to me that young people – students, performers, visitors – from Pakistan are now denied entry indefinitely. I brought this up with MPs at a party and was told to grow up and start taking terrorism seriously. So all Pakistanis are terrorists then? It is not only Anton Du Beke who appears to think so.
Students like these? And a man may perform and visit and be a Muslim. England is not short of students, performers or visitors. No, not all Pakistanis are terrorists, but most are Muslim, and they are, like Fran Kubelik in The Apartment,a bad insurance risk.
On the ostentatious stand-by-your-mannery of the Prime Minister's dreary wife, Ms Alibhai-Brown is cloyingly sentimental:
I loved the Sarah Brown moment. We Asians are sentimental and husband-as-god will have touched many. "See?" our ladies will have said: "How homely she is, so Indian really."
She's all heart. Well, not quite all. She has a mind, too, for there is no fooling her when it comes to the Jewish lobby:
Other lowlights to report – all three parties were lavishly entertained by the over-influential Friends of Israel, and too many black and Asian attendees behaved like old colonial supplicants. Highlights were fringe debates over Europe, identity and equality where the young of all backgrounds were engaged, visionary global citizens.
So "all backgrounds" doesn't include Jews and "global" doesn't include Israel? As for the "lavish" entertainment, Luciana Berger, Director of Labour Friends of Israel, comments:
Yasmin, you didn't attend the Labour Friends of Israel reception at Labour party conference. If you had done, you would have been served house wine/orange juice and chips. Crisps and peanuts if you got to a bowl in time. Hardly lavish.
As for our supposed 'over-influence', you don't attempt to present any evidence. Because there isn't any. Your remark is pure prejudice. It is just bigotry and as such the Independent shouldn't be giving it a platform.
Readers are not convinced by the YAB's display of self-pity, self-importance and ingratitude. Here are two not untypical comments:
This woman is still trying to squeeze more guilt out of the white middle class, something from which she has made a good living despite zero talent and zero achievements.
If this professional whining immigrant doesn't like the United Kingdom she is free to leave. As they say in Australia FIFO (which stands for Fit In or go elsewhere).
FIFO is an accounting term too - I knew they'd come in useful one day. Sadly, I fear the YAB will be Yabbering on for years to come.
Times columnist Libby Purves holds the unfashionable view that people should pay for internet content. And before anyone points out the irony of my pasting from Times Online, I buy the print edition every day:
Call me a reactionary, call me a Murdoch lackey, but the fact is that, after a vague flirtation with the concept that “information wants to be free” and years of internet surfing, I feel a sense of revolt.
It’s been fun: like a jammed fruit machine spewing free tokens or a whisky-galore shipwreck. But it’s got to stop. Content — whether music, films, pictures, news or prose — can’t be free and flourish. The music and movie industries are fighting: journalism, after the ego trip of gaining millions of online readers, is following. It has to. There is no alternative.
The labourer is worthy of his hire, time is money, pay peanuts and you get monkeys. Pay nothing and you get dumb (or worse, venal) monkeys. Nothing costs nothing. And to do a straightforward deal is better than to endure an oblique and more sinister levy: the selling of your attention to hidden persuaders.
New English Review contributors are not "lavishly entertained", as Yasmin Alibhai-Brown puts it, by the "over-influential Friends of Israel". (As opposed to the hair-shirt austerity of the Saudis?) On the contrary, New English Review is run on a shoestring, and desperately needs readers' donations to keep going.
Please click the donation button to your left. If you feel the amount you can give is insultingly small, it isn't. Widow's mite, if you're lucky, and as the little girl said, caught short while swimming in the sea at Blackpool, every little helps.
A French physicist with the European atomic research centre near Geneva was charged with terrorism offences by a Paris judge last night after investigators said that he offered to work with the North African branch of al-Qaeda.
Adlène Hicheur, 32, who is of Algerian origin, was arrested last week with his younger brother after intelligence agents intercepted his alleged internet contacts with al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.
The physicist, who works at the giant atomic collider at CERN (European Organisation for Nuclear Research), which straddles Swiss and French territory, told the Islamic group that he was interested in committing an attack but had not begun any material preparation, according to police sources. He had acknowledged contacting the militant organisation, they said.
The brother was released last weekend without charge.
Judge Christophe Teissier, of the anti-terrorist branch, ordered the French internal security service, the DCRI, to open an investigation into the possible offence of “association with criminals in relation with a terrorist enterprise”. Judge Teissier placed the scientist under formal investigation and ordered his detention.
The arrest raised the possibility that Islamist militants could be seeking nuclear weapons technology or planning to attack nuclear targets.
Dr Hicheur is reported to have worked for the British Government’s Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (RAL) in Oxfordshire for about a year in 2005. He was placed under surveillance by French officers last year after US intelligence services intercepted internet messages he allegedly sent to contacts close to al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (Aqim).
However, his arrest last week has sparked a furious row among France’s anti-terrorist magistrates. Judge Teissier’s critics say that he missed an opportunity to obtain invaluable information about Aqim networks by moving to detain the suspect at an early stage in his investigation. They said that he should have held off and kept the man under surveillance.
Brice Hortefeux, the French Interior Minister, is also being criticised for publicising the arrest. Detractors say that the publicity will have driven the suspect’s contacts underground.
CERN said that Dr Hicheur, one of 7,000 scientists working on the Large Hadron Collider, did not have access to any of the underground facilities and did not handle anything that would interest terrorists.
A spokesman described him as highly qualified: “This fellow has a doctorate in particle physics, so he is clearly an intelligent person,” he said.
The scientist also worked as an instructor in experimental physics at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne. “We are pretty shocked and surprised,” said Jerome Grosse, spokesman for the institute.
Residents in the suspect’s home town of Vienne, in eastern France, said that his success had made him a role model for young Muslims. “They are good boys,” said one neighbour of the suspect and his brother. “They are from a family of six children and from a very moderate Muslim family which is seen as a model of integration.”
The suspect’s brother is reported to have graduated from the University of Paris with a degree in biomechanics. After graduating, he taught at the 500-year-old Collège de France in Paris — one of the country’s most prestigious research institutes.
But of course, as we all know, a lack of opportunity, education, access to resources, etc., etc., are the chief causes of terrorism. That's why we are striving mightily to bring hope, education and prosperity to the Muslim world, especially in Iraq and Aghanistan. If Muslims just have jobs and a chance for a better future for their families, all this terrorism business will be forgotten.
Wilders at Columbia U: College Republicans go for Dutch-flavored controversy
On the heels of the Victory of Dutch Politician Geert Wilders in a U.K., Immigration Tribunal overturning the controversial ban against his entry to Britain comes news of his apperance at my alma mater, Columbia University (CU). A BWOG post, "College Republicans Go for a Dutch-Flavored Controversy" revealed that Wilders will appear at an event limited to Columbia ID holders and invited guests on Wednesday, October 21st at 8:30PM in the Frank Altschul auditorium of the School of International Public Affairs (SIPA). We had been working diligently with the event co-sponsors, the CU College Republicans, the CU Chapter of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East and the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Additional sponsors of the CU Wilders event include Columbia Political Union, the Columbia University International Relations Forum, and the Columbia International Relations Council and Association.
In an ironic turn of events, the Wilders event at CU is payback for the controversial apperance of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at Columbia in 2007 that we chronicled in a New English Review article, " President Bollinger, President Ahmadinejad and Columbia's Faculty Cabal." The Faculty cabal that foisted the Ahmadinejad visit on CY Presidentg Bollinger came largely from prominent members of SIPA.
The BWOG post on the Wilders visit notes:
"Wait," most readers are saying, "who?" Well, Wilders is the head of the Party for Freedom, a right-wing party particularly noted for its hardline views on immigration and Islam; far from being a fringe movement, the party finished 2nd, with 17% of the vote, in the recent EU elections. His anti-Islam film Fitna has received international condemnation, with most countries refusing to allow its airing. For more, let's kick it over to the smart people at the Economist: "[Wilders] has publicly questioned the loyalty of two cabinet members with dual nationality (ie, Turkish and Moroccan as well as Dutch). He called a third minister “barking mad” because of her liberal integration policies. And he has demanded a ban on immigration from Muslim countries. Mr Wilders might seem just a provocateur. But his power lies in the rhetoric that he uses to contrast such liberal notions as gay rights and female emancipation with the image of an intolerant and anti-modern Islam...Polls show that the Dutch rate freedom of speech as one of their most important values—and many see Mr Wilders as its champion."
Here's what the CUCR release said about the Wilders event they are sponsoring:
Wilders has been vigorously supporting the consideration of a law in the EU providing guarantees of free speech akin to our First Amendment rights. But he is currently the victim of anti-free speech policies throughout Europe. He is the subject of criminal proceedings in his native Holland for his views. An Interpol warrant for his arrest has been issued by a court in the Kingdom of Jordan, where he is accused of defaming Islam. He was banned from entry to the United Kingdom to attend a private meeting at the House of Lords and the showing of his controversial film, Fitna, although as a Member of Parliament in the EU he has rights of free access. Columbia University College Republicans has found his silencing by the governments in Europe to be a gross violation of free speech.
Wilders graduated from the Dutch Open University with a Law degree but wanted to see the world and spent several years in Israel and neighboring Arab countries. Back in the Netherlands, he worked in the health insurance industry before entering politics. After serving as a council member in Utrecht, he entered national politics as a member of the People's Party, but broke with it in 2004 to found his own Party for Freedom. According to polls conducted among Dutch voters, he is the most popular political figure in the Netherlands.
The David Horowitz Freedom Center (DHFC)) was instrumental in reaching out to the CUCR for this CU event for Wilders. The DHFC in Philadelphia has also worked with Temple University Republicans for an event on Tuesday, October 20th, as well as, a closed VIP luncheon for Mr. Wilders on Thursday, October 22nd.
We commend the courage of the CUCR student sponsors, CU SPME faculty leaders and the David Horowitz Freedom Center contingent we have worked for this Columbia Wilders event. We earnestly hope these events in New York and Philadlephia sends a resounding message of resolve to fight for free speech on America's elite campuses.
Israel may bar officials from travel to the EU given the ‘blood libel’ of the UN Goldstone Report
The Washington Times has a disturbing report "Israelis may stay home to avoid arrest in Europe"about the Netanyahu government being forced to deny travel for security officials in the cabinet from travel to the EU. The reason: the rise of EU member countries angling to arrest these Israeli government officials based on the fictional, some would call it ‘blood libel’ of the UN Goldstone Commission report. The Goldstone Commission report falsely accused the IDF or committing hundreds of civilian casualties in wanton disregard for international human standards. Needless to say Palestinians representatives and OIC members at the UN General Assembly are demanding prosecution of Israeli security officials for alleged ‘war crimes’ during Operation Cast lead in Gaza.
Note these comments from the Washington Times article:
Israel is seriously considering restricting travel to Europe by its senior officials and military officers, fearing they might be arrested in the wake of a disputed U.N. report that accuses the Jewish state of targeting civilians in its Gaza war earlier this year.
Avital Leibovich, a spokeswoman for the Israel Defense Forces, told The Washington Times on Monday, "Currently there is no specific advisory and different senior officers are continuing their travel as planned. However, we are in touch and we are discussing with the foreign ministry and other legal authorities whether we need to take additional steps like potential restrictions of travel."
Moshe "Bogie" Ya'alon, a retired Israeli general who now serves as minister for strategic affairs, canceled a trip to London out of concern that he might face an arrest warrant, said Jonathan Peled, a spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday harshly criticized the U.N. report, written by a team headed by South African Judge Richard Goldstone, "as distorted" and vowed not to permit the Israeli officials who launched the Gaza war "to arrive at the International Court in The Hague." The U.N. Security Council will discuss the report on Wednesday.
Note the revelations about the Goldstone Commission report fiction in a discussion with Dan Diker of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and Jon Schanzer of the Washington, Dc – based Jewish Policy Center in a recent New English Review article, “Israel, Iran and Middle East Realities:”
Diker: This is reflected in the world’s treatment of the State of Israel. I am comfortable saying that I don’t think there is a country in the world today that is so self-monitoring from an international legal point of view on the battle field than the State of Israel. We have legal officers in every division that, in real time, are actually consulting with the commanding officers as to what is permitted and what is not permitted to do in terms of fighting in urban built up areas. The Goldstone Commission Report has never delved into the major problems that caused Israel’s military response. The Hamas attackers have become the international victims while Israel tried to defend it citizens from more than 10,000 rocket attacks. Those rocket attacks went largely unanswered by Israel military and absolutely unanswered diplomatically by the United Nations.
Hamas has launched rockets at Israeli towns and villages from within residential dwellings in Gaza. The Report never discussed the fact that there were Palestinian mortar shells that misfired and killed Palestinians and they killed their own civilians. They fired anti tank missiles, rifles, machine guns at Palestinian buildings in Gaza that had been entered by the IDF despite the fact that there were Palestinian civilians in the area. Hamas was doing the firing. The Goldstone Report never delved into these issues. This is a massively one-sided, biased report and should be vomited out by the international community. Again, it is reflective of a double-standard in the world’s treatment of Israel. Look at the United States operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and you tell me why there has never been the equivalent of a Goldstone Report, despite the fact that, by mistake, the United States has killed many civilians in its battles against Al Qaeda and Iranian backed groups in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Gordon: Jon, do you have anything to add?
Schanzer: Number one, the rocket threat that Israel responded to that lead to this war in Gaza cannot be understated. Over the course of about six or seven years, there were thousands of rockets fired into Israeli air space and these were rockets that were fired indiscriminately by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, and several Al Qaeda affiliate groups. They would aim these rockets blindly at Israeli land, hoping that the rockets would hit a house, a school, a car, a gas station and sometimes they did and sometimes they didn’t. And this has been completely downplayed by the Goldstone Commission. Those facts were left out and really leaves the Goldstone Commission Report with zero credibility. Not mentioned, was the fact that there was a lot of violence taking place among the Palestinians themselves during this war. Violence which resulted in a number of casualties, injuries and deaths. Hamas and Fatah were actually at war with one another throughout this conflict as I documented in my book. Hamas was rounding up Fatah members, torturing them, killing them in flagrant violation of international law and human rights. This was not mentioned in the Goldstone Commission Report, which did not look at some of the tougher questions, but instead just looked at the war itself. Even that was a mischaracterization of Israel’s really painful attempts to minimize casualties in the war.
Imagine that a UN Commission Report led by a South African Jewish jurist, Richard Goldstone, of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at the Hague morphed into a classic blood libel casting blame on IDF human rights performance during a battle to save Jewish lives from barrages of rockets fired by Islamic terrorists in Gaza. Further imagine the result is that EU member countries believe this noxious fiction and are preparing to arrest senior Israeli officials for possible prosecution at the ICJ when they fly there on official business. You would say this was the stuff of a grade B movie based on a bestselling pulp fiction novel.
But 'art precedes life' with an EU that has lost its moral compass that tries and finds Israel and by definition Jews 'guilty as charged' in the court of public opinion based on this 'fictional' UN Goldstone Commission Report. The result is that the Netanyahu government is forced to bar senior Israeli official from leaving Israel for destinations in the EU. This is an absurdum ad reductum. Now the only destinations that Israeli officials can travel to on non-stop flights would be Canada and the US, maybe. I say maybe, because, the Obama Administration might seriously entertain allowing service of process of ICJ warrants for the arrest of Israeli officials who flight directly to the US. The Muslim umma via the OIC block of nations in the UN General Assembly is champing at the bit like a pack of ravenous hyenas to refer the fictional Goldstone Commission Report for trial of Israeli security officials in the dock at the ICJ. Sic Gloria transit Mundi in topsy turvy legal world created by ICJ Justice Goldstone. The lyrics of the ditty from "Alice in Wonderland" seem apt to characterize what is going on in the aftermath of the release of the Goldstone Commission report: "How doth the little crocodile improve his shining tail, and pour the waters of the Nile On every golden scale! ..."
Yemen Government Claims More Success Against Houthi Rebels
By Edward Yeranian Cairo 12 October 2009
Yemeni government forces are claiming they killed another 59 fighters in their battle against Zaidi Shi'ite rebels, near the northern town of Saada.
Yemeni soldier fires against targets of Yemeni Shi'ite rebels in Saada province, Yemen
(File Photo - 31 Aug 2009)
Fighting between Yemeni government forces and Zaidi Shi'ite rebels loyal to leader Abdemalik al-Houthi continues to rage in many pockets across the mountainous northern province of Saada, as both sides struggle for control of the area.
The Yemeni defense ministry is claiming to have killed 59 Houthi fighters in a series of recent skirmishes, while a Houthi Web site is also claiming to have inflicted casualties on government forces.
The government says it "repelled" a rebel attack on the northern outskirts of Saada city and says it "made major progress in expelling [them] from the regions of Maqa'ash and Anad."
Editor-in-chief Hakim Almasmari of the Yemen Post newspaper says government forces have inflicted serious casualties on the Houthi rebels, but the rebels still cling to large swathes of territory in and around Saada.
"Over the last two weeks, the government has had many successes on the ground. Over 300 Houthi [rebels] have been killed," said Almasmari. "But in reality the Houthis still control large parts of Saada, even though many of their followers have been killed."
Egypt and Saudi Arabia are continuing efforts to mediate a truce agreement in Saada.
But Almasmari says there is no let up in fighting, despite talk of negotiations.
"There is continuous fighting going on and the fighting right now in Saada is in 15 different places," he said. "It is not only in one side of Saada. It is in many different cities or towns in Saada and Amran. The government announces that it is winning all the fronts, but according to our sources, the government is winning when it comes to followers [of Houthi] killed, but the government is losing when it comes to taking control of these lands and places."
Meanwhile, humanitarian groups such as the Yemeni Red Crescent Society and the UNHCR are struggling to bring aid to thousands of refugees displaced by the fighting.
UNHCR spokesman Andrew Knight says there has been another delay in delivering aid from a relief convoy that crossed the border Sunday from Saudi Arabia.
"The trucks carrying humanitarian assistance at the border region transferred the NFIs [non-food items] onto the trucks of our implementing partners, and from there, went to the warehouse," said Knight. "Unfortunately, due to a couple of technical issues, distribution was not able to take place today, but we are hoping it is going to take place tomorrow."
The United Nations estimates there are up to 150,000 displaced people from the sporadic conflict in Saada province, which first began in 2004.
Without a powerful despot, and without a large community of non-Muslims to exploit and to rely upon directly and indirectly (for Jizyah, or the Jizyah of foreign aid, and for help of all kinds, including that large-scale presence of Infidel wage-slaves that the rich Arabs of the Gulf rely on), Muslim states will naturally tend toward violence in the settling of scores. Since Islam presents a picture of the world where there are only, in the end, Victor and Vanquished, even though the Victor in the Qur'an, Hadith and Sira are the Party of Muhammad, the Party of God, the Muslims, and the to-be-vanquished are the Infidels, the Unbelievers, those who refuse to accept Islam, the aggression and the worldview do not disappear, but deeply affect, the minds and hearts of Muslims. They see conflict and not compromise as the way to settle all differences. They see conspiracy theories, where non-Muslims might simply see grievances, some of them justified. They see force as the final answer to all disputes about power.
And that is what is happening in Somalia and Yemen today, and will happen soon enough in Iraq, and would happen in Afghanistan and Pakistan tomorrow, if the Western world pulled out and stopped its aid.
And pull out, and stop its aid, the Western world most definitely should.
And then watch Muslim states, and peoples, without benefit of Western aid, a Western presence to keep the peace (those “Trucial States”) or bring a semblance of efficiency (Lord Cromer, Edward Cecil and “Memoirs of an Egyptian Official”), or to stamp out the slave trade (see J. B. Kelly, “Britain and the Persian Gulf, 1795-1880), or bring “prosperity” to Muslims (whose inshallah-fatalism and hatred of bid’a, innovation, will keep them poor, for even the trillions they have received, quite undeservedly, because of an accident of geology has not been well spent, and will never create a modern economy, but always one based on foreign, mainly non-Muslim, wage-slaves) or “freedom” (George Bush deeply desirous of bringing “freedom to ordinary moms and dads in the Middle East”).
And after the West pulls out, pulls out its troops, pulls out its aid, pulls out as many people as it can, after we distance ourselves as much as we can from the world of Islam – not entirely, not as long as oil is necessary, but much more than we have done, after we recognize the danger of a large-scale Muslim presence and, all over the Western world, act intelligently and justifiably on that recognition, that anagnorisis so long overdue, we can then watch and learn from what we see in the lands ruled by Muslims.
Pull up a chair. Watch the spectacle, now unmediated by a Western presence. Watch the spectacle of Muslims now in Somalia and Yemen, and see them soon in Iraq, and give them a chance to behave similarly in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Everywhere. Dappertutto.
Millions of Cats. Yes, Wanda Gág may be the overlooked Halford Mackinder of our age. Or more exactly, those who grasp the likely efficacy of a millions-of-cats strategy are the overlooked halford-mackinders of the age.
Perhaps that seemingly crazy notion is true. Perhaps everything you needed to learn you really did learn in kindergarten
This is a movie about the Nazis. The Nazi-German aggressive impulse is dated by the Americansto the time of Bismarck. This should not surprise. It was important to build up support for a war against Nazi Germany, and that could not be done by simply carefully distinguishing the "bad extremist Nazis" from the country, Germany, most of whose people had come to enthusiastically endorse Hitler and the Nazis, and all of whom were part of the Nazi war effort and would have to be defeated, through force, if the Nazis were not to win. The director of this film, and others not only in this series of four but of other series about the reasons for, and conduct of, the war, was the great Frank Capra. Most Americans think of Frank Capra round about Thanksgiving, when they see the America of their dreams in "It's A Wonderful Life."
Halford Mackinder's "Heartland" theory comes in around 6:40. The German geostrategist Hausdorfer is mentioned earlier.
See especially the last two minutes of the film, begining at about 8:10, about those who in the Western world aided the Nazi propaganda effort to confuse and mislead and trap the unwary.
Note the quote from Hitler at 8:12:
"Demoralize the enemy from within by surprise, terror, sabotage, assassination. That is the war of the future."
Then look at the next two minutes about the local agents used to "soften up" his intended victims.
The American film is about the threat posed by the Nazis. The present, much wider threat, to the civilised world and its people, can be dated back to 1200 years before Bismarck.
Jacqui Smith week gets worse as Geert Wilders wins appeal
Thanks to Alan for this welcome news. Philip Johnston in his Telegraph blog:
It has not been Jacqui Smith’s week to say the least (and it is only Tuesday). First. an official report into the arrest of Damian Green, ther Tory immigration spokesman, criticised the disproportionate approach taken by the Government and the police towards the informaiton leaked to him. Green was arrested last year after an investigation was ordered by the Home Office alleging that national security could be at stake. And who was the Minister in charge: Jacqui Smith, then Home Secretary.
Then, the House of Commons standards and privileges committee concluded that she had breached parliamentary rules by claiming that a room in her sister’s London house was her principal residence rather than the family home in Redditch. She apologised to the House, though in a half-hearted way.
Now, the Appeal Court has overturned her decision to ban the Dutch politician Geert Wilders from coming to Britain. He was invited in February to show a film about Islam to a group of parliamentarians but the Home Office refused him entry to the UK. At the time this was seen as an affront to this country’s traditions of free speech but that did not seem to bother the Government.
So she breached expenses rules, closed off free speech and set in train an investigation that led to an MP’s arrest in the Palace of Westminster (though she was aboprad at the time and apparently unaware that the police were going to act).
What an extraordinary legacy for the occupants of one of the great offices of state. Had Miss Smith not stood down in the summer, she most assuredly would be packing her bags by now.
Victory for free speech in the UK: "Geert Wilders is free to enter Britain "
The Telegraph U.K. has this stunning news, "Geert Wilders is free to enter Britian" about the victory of Dutch politician Geert Wilders in an Immigration Triubunal proceedings. The decision by the law courts overturned the mind numbing decision of disgraced former Home Secretary Jacquie Smith in the floundering Gordon Brown Labor government that barred Wilders, an EU parliamentarian from attending a private meeting at the House of Lords last Janaury to show his controversial film about Islam, "Fitna." Ed West notes in the Telegraph report:
It’s being reported that Dutch MP Geert Wilders has won his appeal against being banned from the UK. According to Radio Netherlands:
The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal in London has ruled that the British government was wrong to deny populist Dutch politician Geert Wilders entry to the United Kingdom. Mr Wilders planned to show his film Fitna to the British parliament. The government refused to allow him to enter the UK on the grounds that he represented a threat to public order. It is not clear whether the tribunal’s decision means that Mr Wilders is now free to travel to the UK. The British government has not yet reacted to the ruling.
Whether or not one agrees with Wilders’ views on Islam, which make me look like “Koran” Armstrong in comparison, the ban was outrageous. Britain allows all sorts of shady and colourful foreigners to use our premises for their nefarious activities – in contrast here was an elected representative of a democratic European party who was invited by two British parliamentarians to privately broadcast a film about religious fundamentalism.
Wilders had every right to come here, and as far as I can see the only reason he was banned was cowardly British fear of French-style riots. Lord Ahmed, a self-proclaimed Muslim “leader” who, unlike Wilders, has never been elected by anyone, said that Wilders’s criticism of his religion was “an incitement of religious and racial hatred”. He denies saying he would bring down 10,000 protesters to the Lords, but there was a definite air of surrender in the air.
Meanwhile the Government’s great friends, the Muslim Council of Britain, called Wilders “an open and relentless preacher of hate”. (This is the same MCB that has been reluctant to attend Holocaust Memorial Day and objects to mention of the “alleged Armenian genocide” and the “so-called gay Holocaust”.)
Tell you what. For $100,000 Hugh Fitzgerald will be your butler, Esmerelda Weatherwax the cook, Artemis Glidden Gordon the chaufeur, Theodore Dalrymple will conduct an examination and tell you to buck up and get on with your life, and Mary Jackson will entertain with her own rendition of "White Cliffs of Dover" (sans bluebirds). Tolstoy (the talking parrot) will provide the dinner conversation. That's twice the entertainment for half the price. What do you say?
Blogger Lenin is intolerant of tolerance, and therefore by implication tolerant of intolerance. Or vice versa:
Tolerance is an expression of resentment. Historically it has been an attitude that dominative majorities adopt toward oppressed minoritiesm, and so it remains. To be the subject of this tolerance, one must have already been designated a worthy object of aversion by the majority, at best to be indulged on account of the magnanimity of those with power. To be the subject of this tolerance, one must already have been deemed normatively aberrant. That means that some sort of idea of what organically belongs and does not belong to a given political imaginary (community, nation, etc.) has already been stipulated: thus white rule, patriarchy, heteronormativity, etc. are often asserted in the very gesture of 'tolerance'. The subject of tolerance does not really belong, is foreign, and might easily be rejected by a much less tolerant host. As such, should the basis for this maganimity be undermined or threatened, tolerance can easily lapse into its opposite: "zero tolerance".
"Lenin" is nothing if not original - nothing it is then. Two political theorists, Wendy Brown and Rainer Frost are on the case. From Discoursology, required reading for merchants of memes:
Both were keen to point out their shared perspectives, agreeing, for instance, that the term tolerance operates on a field of power, that it constitutes subjectivities, and that a critical view of the discourses involving tolerance is necessary.
[Brown] gave an imposing list of what interests her about ‘tolerance’; about the normative discourses of tolerance:
how do discourses of tolerance constitute political identities (the West as a civilisation; the homophobe who is “against gay marriage” but “for tolerance”)?
why did the New York Times declare the election of Obama a “triumph of tolerance”?
how does that utterance discursively resubordinate the object that it claims to free?
how have openly Zionist museums of tolerance managed to steal the mantel of tolerance for their explicit project of sanctifying Israel and demonizing Palestinians?
why would most Europeans today normally associate tolerance with the “problem” of immigrants?
how does tolerance discourse manage to fuse culture and religion and to render culture and religion ontological, i.e., something to be tolerated at the very level of being?
how did the Netherlands manage to make tolerance of nudity and gay sex into a threshold of citizenship for its potential Arab citizens?
how and why are individualism, secularism, enlightenment, civility and tolerance linked in civilisational discourse, such that western liberal democracy becomes identical with tolerance (despite fascism, slavery, etc)., whereas Islam becomes identified with intolerance?
how was tolerance deployed to justifiy the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan?
what do the operations of discourses of tolerance reveal about contemporary liberal democracy?
why has the notion of tolerance had such a renaissance in the last 15-20 years?
how is it ontologising the differences that it claims only to negotiate?
to what extent does this discourse figure contemporary societies as inherently riven by these naturalised differences?
what happens when tolerance shifts from belief as its object to identity as its object?
what happens when police, schoolchildren, social workers, etc, are taught tolerance as a way to negotiate their encounters with one another as transgender, Muslim, Jewish, homosexual?
how does tolerance substitute for equality while claiming to be the same as equality — or to be at least supporting equality?
how does tolerance subtly stratify and abject certain people?
how does tolerance today recentre certain hegemonic norms (e.g., when someone speaks of tolerance towards Arabs, immigrants, etc, what norm of nationality is being recentred)?
how do contemporary discourses of tolerance comprise a set of normative operations that often hide themselves as such?
how do contemporary discourses of tolerance manage challenges to cultural hegemony by construing those challenges as naturalised (antagonistic) differences or deviations?
how is tolerance a dimension of multicultural governmentality?
Governmentalities, surely? One is never enough. I have seldom seen so many questions begged as by that belief-beggaring list.
In my last post, I used the term "beg the question". I am 90 per cent sure I used it correctly, but the question - begged or not - is by no means settled. In fact it's a beggar of a question.
Begging the question means assuming a statement or claim is true without providing evidence. A conclusion is drawn from an argument based on a premise that has not been proved and needs to be proved.
In my post below, a political writer, with the rather unpolitical name Wendy Brown, attempts to prove that tolerance is repressive and furthers the interests of the powerful. Some might say: "This begs the question of who is powerful". It doesn't, though; it raises or provokes that question. As part of her argument, Brown asks:
How have openly Zionist museums of tolerance managed to steal the mantel of tolerance for their explicit project of sanctifying Israel and demonizing Palestinians?
This begs the question, because the assumption that tolerance is a tool of the powerful - and that the powerful are "openly Zionist" and that is a Bad Thing - is contained within the case she is making. And when are those open Zionists going to stop beating their wives?
A begged question usually comes in the form of a statement rather than another question. Having explained what "beg the question" means, one blogger justifies his insistence on the correct usage as follows:
Perhaps I am being way too anal about this, but I believe that clear and cogent thinking is extremely important, and an important part of solid thinking is having a solid understanding of the words and phrases used.
I think there's a bit of question-begging going on there, too, but if I go into it I may disappear up my own backside. Talking of which, Dale Jacquette - good job he's not married to Jacqui Smith - has taken the question of question-begging to a whole new dimension:
The fallacy of many questions or the complex question, popularized by the sophism Have you stopped beating your spouse? (when a yes-or-no answer is required), is similar to the fallacy of begging the question or petitio principii. Douglas N. Walton in Begging the Question has recently argued that the two forms are alike in trying unfairly to elicit an admission from a dialectical opponent without meeting burden of proof, but distinct because of the circularity of question-begging argument and noncircularity of many questions. I offer a reconstruction of the many questions fallacy according to which it is just as circular as begging the question, concluding that many questions begs the question. The same analysis contradicts Walton's claim that questions can beg the question, drawing a distinction between questions as the instruments of question-begging, and as vehicles for categorical noninterrogative presuppositions that beg the question.
“It is fair to say there are individuals in the United States who ascribe to al-Qaeda-type beliefs,” Napolitano said in an interview with Bloomberg Television today. “And so it makes information-sharing, it makes effective law enforcement and it makes the shared responsibility of law enforcement ever so important.”
In other news, scientists have discovered that the sky is blue and what goes up must come down.
It doesn't matter if many Muslims, out of prudential considerations, do not show up. What matters is the desire. And the desire, for those who, enjoying the great privilege of living in Great Britain, identify themselves as Muslims, which at this point means they are signalling that they agree with, or certainly do not reject, what the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira inculcate. No Muslim living in the West can now hide behind the claim of ignorance of what Islam teaches. None of them can claim, as they might, were they illiterate villagers living in a hut in rural Afghanistan, that they do not know what Islam teaches, what Islam requires. They know.
And now, because of our own individual acts of refusal to listen to the likes of Bush and Blair and Obama, and instead to study, to read, to find out just what Islam is all about and what allows us no longer to be constantly surprised, but able to grasp the previously mysterious, that is how Muslims think, and what they do, and how they act, and why they do. We Who Are Not Surprised have earned the right to be listened to; our masters -- bushes and blairs and browns and obamas and jacks-of-all-straws -- have not.
This seems like a compromise decision. So long as she's in the custody of the state of Ohio, she should be fairly safe. A troubling aspect of this is her long term ability to stay in America if it turns out she and her parents are here illegally. I believe they arrived when Rifqa was an infant.
ORLANDO, Fla. -- A teenager who said she fled to Orlando from her Ohio home to escape religious persecution will be sent to a foster home in Ohio, a judge ruled on Tuesday.
Rifqa Bary, 17, made national headlines when she fled from her parents' home because she claimed they planned to kill her for converting to Christianity. Bary posted a video on YouTube calling her parents radical.
A Florida Department of Law Enforcement investigated Rifqa Bary's claims and found no evidence she would be a victim of an honor killing if she were returned home. There was also no evidence of assault or abuse.
A Florida judge on Tuesday said Rifqa will be returned to Ohio once her parents meet two conditions. First, the Barys must they are in the U.S. legally. The judge said he asked the couple for their immigration papers three months ago and has only seen a partial VISA and an incomplete passport. The judge said a contempt of court charge is a possibility if he doesn't get the paperwork.
Second, the Barys must prove that the teenager can continue the virtual high school program she began in Florida while in Ohio.
Bary's parents have filed a criminal complaint against the Central Florida pastors who assisted their daughter.