These are all the Blogs posted on Thursday, 25, 2007.
Thursday, 25 October 2007
A Musical Interlude: Black Coffee
Posted on 10/25/2007 8:34 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Thursday, 25 October 2007
France's Immigration Law
"PARIS - French lawmakers adopted a hotly contested bill on Tuesday that would institute language exams and potential DNA testing for prospective immigrants, making it more difficult for families to join loved ones in France.
The DNA amendment, the most controversial aspect of the legislation, is meant to ensure that claims of family ties are true. It was added as a way to ensure that visa-seekers were not using fraudulent papers, common in some African countries."
Though the second paragraph explains that the sole reason for the DNA testing (voluntary at the moment, when it should be mandatory) is an attempt to limit fraud, the first paragraph offers an outrageously loaded description of the measure, describing it as one that makes "it more difficult for famlies to join loved ones in France."
"Loved ones." "In France."
We are talking about fraud. About a man who is allowed to "re-unite" with his wife, and brings along four two wives, or three, or four, and a sister-in-law or two, and a cousin or more. We are talking about "families" with children who are not the children of those who claim to be their parents. We are talking about millions and millions of people, hostile to the political and legal institutions, and to the wellbeing of the inhabiants, of the Infidel nation-state of France, to which they cannot, as long as they remain good Muslims, offer real loyalty to, taking advantage of the absurd wide-open immigration rules of France which, like all the other countries of Western Europe (and North America) has behaved for decades like Thidwick the Big-Hearted Moose.
Basta with all of this. And especially with the letting in, and conferring of what should be the great and rare privilege of citizenship, on those who do not and cannot, as a matter of belief, offer loyalty to the Infidel nation-state. That a few can jettison Islam is no consolation. Sarkozy's minister Rachida Dati, one of ten children of a Moroccan immigrant, may be just fine -- but what about the other nine? Should they all be allowed in, on the hope that one out of ten will turn out to be just like Rachida Dati? Does that make sense?
Posted on 10/25/2007 10:03 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Thursday, 25 October 2007
Radical, Violent, Extremist -- Season To Taste, Or, Epithets Ad Libitum
"radical violent jihad"
-- from a recent statement by Mitt Romney
Other candidates do the same thing. They pile on the intensifying epithets: "radical extremist violent jihad." It is as if, by piling on the verbal pillows of so many quite unecessary adjectives, one cushions the verbal blow to the noun "jihad."
But surely the duty of those who are running for President, and who therefore presume to be able to protect us, is to demonstrate, ever more clearly, that they have a grasp of the ideology of Islam, that they also have a grasp of Ibn Warraq's lapidary dismissal of putting faith in "moderate Muslims" because, as he put it, "there are moderate Muslims but Islam itself is not moderate" and it is the belief-system, and the possibility of eternal return to that belief-system in all its full-bodied menace and malevolence, by those who might possibly, for reasons Infidels do not always comprehend, outwardly exhibit the lineaments of a "moderate Muslim" -- that is, demonstrate a certain laxity or unobservance of what is prohibited and what is commanded in Islam, but in fact, at the deepest level, retain a defensiveness about Islam that leads them to lie about the contents of the faith, and what they themselves believe, or may, sometimes quite easily, once again allow themselves to believe.
All of this has to be brought out by one or more of the candidates. In so doing, they will force other candidates to do the same -- or show that they are incapable of doing the same -- ever upward from the lowlands at the foot of Mount Truth to higher up, for a more elevated and wider perspective.
Start by pruning those epithets: "radical" and
violent" and "extremist." Start using the word "Jihad." Start discussing how attention to "terrorism" alone misses all the other instruments of Jihad, and that those instruments include the Money Weapon, well-financed and carefully-targetted campaigns of Da'wa all over the Western world, and demographic conquest (here give some of the alarming figures, starting, say, with The Netherlands).
And Romney so far has been among the best in his willingness to employ the word "Jihad" -- a word that has never, I think, crossed the lips of Bush or Rice. But he too needs to keep going, keep at it. And so does Giuliani. And so do the Democratic candidates, who should be able to demonstrate, who need to demonstrate, that their opposition to the war in Iraq is not the result of a failure to comprehend the menace of Jihad, but is an opposition to the misunderstanding of the right goal -- weakening the Camp of Islam -- that cannot be attained by any cockamamie and sentimental schemes to bring "freedom" to "ordinary moms and dads" in the Middle East. A display of icy determination to end the squandering of tangible resources -- men, money, materiel -- and intangible but vital ones such as morale, military and civilian -- would go a long way to relieving doubts about this candidate, and that one.
Posted on 10/25/2007 10:10 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Thursday, 25 October 2007
Sudan Expeditionary Field Force
Osama bin Laden is now attacking the government in Khartoum, decrying the permission given by the fanatical Arab Muslims in Khartoum to the "infidels" -- i.e., allowing in some completely ineffective troops from the African Union to "keep the peace" in Darfur.
He needn't worry. Turabi is still Turabi, and the Muslims of Khartoum are just as fanatically vicious as they ever were. They are just willing to be a bit more mindful of Muhammad's "war is deception" as they attempt to diminish Western pressure on them. Hence that "peace treaty" with the Christians and animists in the southern Sudan, which "treaty" is, of course, merely a hudna or "truce" treaty and, for the past six months at least, has been grossly violated by the Sudanese government -- and with seeming indifference by the Western powers, which content themselves with the notion that there is now an agreement, a "peace agreement," in the southern Sudan, and they can all forget about that part of the Sudan.
In Darfur, the Sudanese government has made sure that the troops will only be from the African Union, and has repeatedly said that not a single Western soldier will be allowed in. In other words, there will be no force effective enough to smash the Janjaweed, and protect the black Africans being killed for the crime of being black African, rather than Arab, Muslims.
Osama Bin Laden and his Arabs famously treated the Afghani Muslims with indifference, or contempt. The Arabs, after all, are the "best of peoples" to whom the Qur'an was given, and -- so Muslims believe -- in Arabic. In his remarks on the Sudan, he reveals his indifference to, or rather his tacit approval of, the mass murdering of black Africans. That is not surprising. What is surprising is how this is overlooked by the entire Western world, including those -- such as Nicholas Kristof -- who write about the Sudan without any mention, much less understanding, of either Islam, or that aspect of Islam that makes it a vehicle for Arab cultural, linguistic, economic, and political imperialism. That subject is too difficult and too troubling for the heart-on-sleeves (and Pulitzers carefully pocketed) likes of Nicholas Kristof and others like him, who can report, who can be mere reporters, full of their easy anguish, but who cannot make sense, for themselves much less for others, of what it is they have been reporting on. They cannot explain the promptings, the attitudes, the atmospherics, that move the people who run the government in Khartoum. They cannot explain the Arab Muslim view of non-Arab Muslims. Don't expect someone on the mental level of Nicholas Kristof to conceivably beable to make a connection between the massacres of Kurds by Arabs in Iraq, and the cultural and linguistic imperialism of the Arabs directed at the Berbers in Algeria, and what is happening in Darfur, where he reports so much, and understands so little.
No, Bin Laden doesn't have to worry about the Turabi government in Khartoum. They know exactly how to delay any day of reckoning.
But what of the American government? Does it realize what an opportunity it is missing by not sending a few thousand troops to seize all of the southern Sudan (with its oil, that would allow that region to pay for itself, and deny those oil revenues to the Arabs in the north?), and Darfur, and holding them until a referendum on independence can be held? That would be a blow for that "freedom" and "democracy" that, unlike in Iraq, might actually mean something because the southern Sudanese are not Muslims, and those in Darfur are nominal Muslims who, having had a taste of the Arab Muslim attitudes, might be willing to listen to the message of Christianity -- already hundreds of refugees from Darfur have apparently, once out of the Sudan, converted to Christianity. Quite an opportunity presents itself for the American government to draw a line against further Arab (and Egyptian Arab) expansion further south, threatening Ethiopia, and Kenya, and the rest of the littoral, including Tanzaniya, which is where the old Arab slave trade had its entrepots, at Pemba and Zanzibar, to ship those black slaves to the Arab slave markets of Muscat, and beyond.
But Tarbaby Iraq gets in the way. It gets in the way of properly dealing with Iran's nuclear project. It gets in the way of domestic surveillance that is amply justified. It gets in the way of thinking clearly about the future of the Western countries now subject to demopraphic assault from within. It gets in the way of considering the Jihad as a world-wide phenomenon, one for which terrorism is the least effective of its weapons.
Bin Laden needn't worry about the Sudan. The government there knows exactly what it needs to do to protect the Arab Muslim position, and it has already violated the "peace agreement" with the south in ways that, if Bin Laden knew, would leave him well-satisfied. And they are doing much the same, or trying to, in Darfur.
Those who need to worry about the Sudan are the Infidels. Why has the American government not yet taken the step -- the "humanitarian" step -- of rescuing the black Africans of Darfur and the southern Sudan? Why has it not allowed its troops to be deployed effectively, instead of ineffectively -- to attain exactly the wrong goals -- in Iraq? Why has it not created a situation in which the Arab League would have to denounce the Americans (and other Western troops) for protecting the obviously grateful (see those photographs of smiling black faces surrounding their saviors and protectors) for ending the mass murder, by Arabs, of black Africans. What better way to drive a wedge between Arabs and sub-Saharan Africa? What better way to bring to the attention of black Americans, one group long targetted for sinister campaigns of Da'wa, that the Arabs conducted a slave trade that lasted far longer (indeed lasts to this day, despite Western efforts to end it), and claimed far more victims (see "The Hideous Trade") than the Atlantic slave trade and that the Qur'an permanently recognizes the institution of slavery (and Saudi clerics have restated that position repeatedly), and the fury of the Arab League over the rescue of black Africans in Darfur or southern Sudan ought to tell us all a great deal about the real attitudes and intentions of the Arabs.
The Sudan presents a great opportunity to weaken the Camp of Islam, through a very small deployment and application of force. Iraq, on the other hand, presents a great opportunity to weaken the Camp of Islam not through the bringing of "democracy" and keeping the country together, but by the removal of American troops, in order that the pre-existing fissures, sectarian and ethnic, may work themselves out, as they inevitably will.
There is no contradiction here between a policy of removal in Iraq and intervention in Sudan. Both measures would contribute to weakening the Camp of Islam. And that is, or should be, the goal.
Posted on 10/25/2007 10:15 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald