Wednesday, November 30, 2005

The Future of Europe

Europe is changing into something unrecognizable in terms of world history, causing questions of identity that in the history of the world no extant group can answer because they exist and not those they conquered. This is a fascinating philosophical question, but it's also a very disturbing problem of what, if anything, we as free citizens do when we watch our world shrink due to conquest by primitives. Below we see one tepid response from France, and then following that we see a letter posted here by a Swede. These questions of identity of the West are going to be with us till there is a concrete resolution, one that we feel will determine the future of Humanity in ways that are not considered by the general populations in the West at this time but that are fundamental to the nature of Man. Over the course of the evening we will return here to add more comments below. for now we leave the reader with these two approaches to our futures:

FRANCE: INTERIOR MINISTER AIMS FOR 25,000 EXPULSIONS IN 2006

Paris, 30 Nov. (AKI) - France's interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy has indicated he intends in 2006 to deport some 25,000 foreigners without proper papers, continuing a policy of increasing the number of such expulsions each year. Addressing the French Senate's commission on illegal immigration, Sarkozy also announced a tightening of rules governing asylum seekers.

In 2006, temporary accommodation will no longer automatically be provided to asylum seekers if they turn down the accommodation offered them, Sarkozy announced. And if their application for asylum is rejected, the asylum-seeker will now have 15 days instead of one month to appeal the decision, he said.

"I have embarked on a policy of systematically sending people back," Sarkozy told the commission. "The number of deportations of foreigners without proper papers which have been carried out has risen strongly," he continued.

A total 10,000 deportations were carried out in 2002, 12,000 in 2003, and 15,000 in 2004, he noted. "There are going to be more than 20,000 in 2005, and I have set a target of 25,000 for 2006," Sarkozy said.

An estimated 80,000-100,000 illegal immigrants arrive in France annually, according to Sarkozy. This compares with an annual 16,000-17,000 irregular migrants currently arriving in Italy per year. The income of traffickers involved in illegal immigration from Africa to Europe amounted to between one-quarter and one-third of the income generated by international drug trafficking, Sarkozy stated.

Sarkozy also criticised the regularisation of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants by the Spanish and Italian governments as "dangerous", the French AFP news agency reported. "In the context of the freedom of movement, these large-scale regularisations are dangerous because they produce a considerable inward pull across Europe," the agency quoted him as saying.
http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Security&loid=8.0.234900726&par=0
***
This letter came in response to a piece on Sweden that we ran in July. Our friends at Gates of Vienna posted the link, and this writer responds as below:

Please. What a load of crap. Here in the socialistic state of sweden we deal with problems in a contructive, slow but clearing way and is not eliminating them as it were some kind of bugs with weapons. The Muslim´s is not a problem, but an unfair society is. ALWAYS. When these people have a solid ground, a nice environment, an income and self-believe there won´t be anything like violence. And this is what will be when the socialistic model work. You´ll see, buddy. (I´m not a big social party fan but I´m certainly not the opposite either. )

And please, we do have a culture, based on respect, freedom and equality values.
***

We welcome your comments, as always.

Here is a link that covers in great and lucid detail some of the situation in Scandanavia. In all, this is a site we find worth visiting, particularly today:
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2005/04/cultural-self-denial.html

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Strange Fruit

Why do our private intellectuals and members of the public intelligentsia and even many ordinary private men and women of the general public in the West assume that Islam is a religion, and one at that given to peace and love and warmth and fuzziness of all kinds? Islam is demonstrably a violent poligion, one based on theft, rapine, murder and imperialism. So, why do our fellow citizens so blithely ignore the obvious even when it's fatal? Why do so many Westerners look at the bodies on the streets and say it's nothing to do with Islam but with our local policies?

We believe that philobarbarism is a form of public insanity growing in our culture from roots in 18C. Romanticism, and that the fruit of the Romantic ideology is
Left dhimmi fascism, a poisoned fruit we eat not knowing its effects even as we obviously sicken and die. We as a general population in the West accept obvious lies regarding Islam, and we suffer mutilation and death at the hands of Muslims because we receive our public ideas from those intellectuals who promote Romantic ideologies whose ground is Irrationalism and proto-fascism. We read, we hear, we see Islam is a religion of peace, and that Zionism is racism, that the Palestinians are victims of Israel, and that the world is under threat from American militarism and hegemony. We buy this nonsense because our public intellectuals sell it and we don't bother to look for another set of ideas in the mental marketplace. We live with the cliches of the age, and they are the same cliches that were made up in the 18C by those whose ideas founded modern fascism. Our intellectuals lie to us, and we, being busy, being social creatures, rely on our professional thinkers for our public ideas. Our public ideas are becoming increasing fatal. Our public intellectuals are becoming increasingly crazier, and we as a general population must be thinking more and more that the course of our general opinions is leading us right to the nut-house. Our public intellectuals, filled to the hilt with hubris, cling to and advance their fascist agendas in spite of all realities and decency. They wallow in the most insane puddles of fascism and expect us to continue to adore them. No, it's time to forget these these fools and look at our own views as we see them without the filters of Left dhimmi fascism. It really doesn't take any particular intellectual gifts to see that if Muslims maim and kill civilians at random and claim they do it in the name of Islam that Islam and Muslims are a genuine threat to our existence. It's time we look at the idiots who belong to the Middle Eastern Studies Association and see them for what they are: Nazis.

It might become clearer to the reader that our current dhimmi academics on the Left are fascists if we look at the history of Nazism in German universities in the 1920s. Below we'll look at a MESA gathering, and then we'll look at a few pieces from a short history of the German Wandervogel movement that became the Hitler Youth. It's our position here that MESA is a Nazi-like organization, and that many of our university professors, particularly in the social sciences, are Nazis no different from those in the German universities of the 1920s.
***

MESA: The Academic Intifada.


Every three years, the Middle East Studies Association (MESA) brings its annual conference to Washington, presumably to impress upon lawmakers the relevance of Middle Eastern studies. The conference is meeting in a Washington hotel right now. So it's an appropriate moment to consider how the field's priorities have shifted since 9/11 and the Iraq war.

One measurable indicator is the papers presented at the annual conference. In the four MESA conferences since 9/11 (2002 through this year), some 1,900 papers have appeared in the program. That's a substantial sample of what interests people. But it's more than a measure of pure intellectual interest. Like all such meetings, MESA is a place where grad students and untenured faculty display their wares, in the hope of attracting job offers. It's also where the mandarins send signals to their lessers about what's in and what's out.

So just what do these people study? There are all sorts of ways to answers this question. One could look at different themes (e.g., gender, Islamism), categorize MESA papers accordingly, and come up with some trends. But that leaves a lot of room for subjective judgment, and some paper titles are so obscure as to defy easy categorization.

Sandstorm takes a different approach. The Middle East is a large and diverse place. It includes many Arab countries, Turkey, Iran, and Israel. With the help of my research assistant, Sandstorm has gone back over the last four MESA conference programs. We've looked through all paper titles for explicit mention of one of seven countries: Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. These countries are where where you would expect to find a greater focus, because of their large populations or geostrategic significance. We've added up the papers, and plotted the results here. (The vertical axis is the percentage of total papers; the figure next to the name of the country is the total number of papers in the 2005 conference.)

[....]

The conclusion of these findings is incontrovertible. For MESAns, the Palestinians are the chosen people, and more so now than ever. More papers are devoted to Palestine than to any other country. There are ten times as many Egyptians as there are Palestinians, but they get less attention; there are ten times as many Iranians, but Iran gets less than half the attention. Even Iraq, America's project in the Middle East, still inspires only half the papers that Palestine does. Papers dealing with Israel are only half as numerous as those on Palestine, and only three of these are about Israel per se, apart from the Arab-Israeli conflict. More than half of the Israel-related papers actually overlap the Palestine category. MESA's Palestine obsession has reached new heights, suggesting this: academe is gearing up for its next intifada.

To appreciate that, you have to go beyond the numbers, to the content of this "scholarship." There you discover that many of the presentations, if not most of them, are blatant attempts to academize anti-Israel agitprop. Here are three quick examples, selected pretty much at random from the program.

There's a paper by one Nasser Abufarha, University of Wisconsin-Madison, entitled "The Making of a Human Bomb: State Expansion and Modes of Resistance in Palestine." It turns out that Abufarha, a grad student, is already well on his way to recognition as a one-man Palestinian propaganda machine. He made this speech at an April 2002 rally in Madison:
In 1948 the State of Israel stole Palestine of its people, its land... In 1967, the Israelis occupied the remainder of Palestine after stealing the nation as a whole....They came to Palestine and forced us, the Palestinians, to pay the price for their troubled history—and we are still paying with our blood and tears.... I salute my people in Jenin for defending our city in the face of the most brutal, murderous army, supported by the most lethal American weapons.... Our message to Powell and Bush: join the world community that has called to impose sanctions on the apartheid state of Israel! (applause)
Abufarha also oozed this bit of sentimental syrup:
For over fifty years, cactus trees in stolen Palestine produce their fruit every season and don't find the people to pick them (they are surrounded by strangers who don't know how or when to pick them, or what they taste like, or if they are even edible). They are patiently blooming their beautiful yellow flowers every spring and fruiting every summer hoping that the people who know them would come the next season. We shall return.
With a Wisconsin Ph.D. in cultural anthropology, an "academic" paper on Palestinian "human bombs," and the support of the MESA network, Abufarha is sure to land a spot teaching "Israel/Palestine" at a university near you.

Here's another example, taken at random: Noura Erakat, law school at the University of California, Berkeley, offers a paper on "Non-State Parties in International Criminal Tribunals: A Case Study of Palestinian Refugees from Jenin Refugee Camp." Noura Erakat is a campus agitator and co-founder of Law Students for Justice in Palestine, a pro-divestment group. This is how she describes herself (warning: this is not a parody):
I never hesitate to assert my Palestinian identity. I am frustrated by the U.S. government's colonization of Iraq, its support of Israeli colonization of Palestinian land, and its economic and military domination of the Arab world in general.... I believe that imperialist ambition of conquest and the accumulation of wealth drive U.S. foreign policy. I believe that people of color within the U.S. and the Global South, generally, incur similar repression and marginalization due to U.S. imperial exercises; I, therefore, identify as a person of color from the Global South. Consequently, I share similar struggles with Latina women, but I am Arabiya [an Arab woman].
Erakat has a two-year fellowship at Berkeley to develop a litigation project to sue Israelis for alleged human rights violations, sue U.S. corporations doing military business with Israel, and protect pro-Palestinian activists and scholars in the United States. Now she'll have a MESA conference paper on her resume—another "academic" fig leaf to cover her naked propaganda when she goes for her next fellowship.

Here's another case: Lori Allen, a post-doc in anthropology at Brown University, offers a paper trendily entitled "Martyr Bodies: Aesthetics and the Politics of Suffering in the Palestinian Intifada." Allen's projects are textbook cases of how to disguise agitprop as scholarship. She did a doctorate at the University of Chicago which purports to be an "ethnography" of the second intifada. The Social Science Research Council funded her research in the West Bank, which was to "examine the role which discourses of pain and suffering play in the creation of Palestinian nationalism."

While in the field, she wrote passionate reportage full of... Palestinian pain and suffering, which she made her own. "It is true that some have accused me of writing one-sided propaganda," she admitted, "and others have warned me against publishing views in a necessarily simplified form that might be interpreted in credibility-wrecking ways. But writing about Palestine from a sympathetic point of view is always going to elicit such commentary, and the professional risks are outweighed by what I feel to be professional obligations and moral imperatives." (I assure Dr. Allen she has nothing to worry about. If she keeps writing one-sided propaganda in simplified form, her academic credibility will increase. It's a risk-free strategy. But I suspect she knows this already.)

One could go on and on in this depressing exercise. Paper after paper reveals itself to be elaboration of Palestinian nationalist ideology, "academized" into "discourse" by grad students and post-docs who've already given stump harangues, organized sit-ins, and written passionate propaganda pieces. This same kind of nationalism, practiced in any other field, would be dismissed as primitive pap. But exceptions are regularly made, and standards are regularly suspended, for crudely apologetic and celebratory analysis applied to (and by) Palestinians. Of course, no one dares to call any of this work mediocre, which is why so many mediocre pseudo-academics produce it. The appalling truth is that in the Edward Said-inflected, Rashid Khalidi-infested field of Middle Eastern studies, you dramatically improve your chances if you sell yourself as a Joseph Massad-in-the-making—someone likely to come up with the next great breakthrough to follow Massad's ingenious discovery that Zionism is really a form of antisemitism.

The foundations of the next academic intifada are being laid right now. When the next major crisis comes in Israeli-Palestinian relations, dozens of Massad-like agitators will have taken up secure positions on campuses, having first established their polemical bona fides in the Palestine-fest of MESA. A few years hence, they will have completed the academic mainstreaming of the "one-state solution" and "apartheid Israel," and they will have generated a vast literature, with theoretical prefaces and bloated footnotes, blaming Palestinian suicide bombings on their Israeli victims. When the sign is given from Palestine, Israel will be assaulted on campus by a veritable army of propagandists, who've been smuggled into the ivory tower because no one has had the courage to stop them, or even to call such smuggling a degradation of scholarship.

So remember MESA 2005 when the next intifada sweeps academe. Sandstorm warned you.

http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/2005_11_21.htm
***

The following is a brief look at German universities and students in pre-Nazi Germany:
--
Universities and colleges had many supporters of anti-Semitism in their faculty. The Prussian Ministry of Science, Art and Popular Education described a "massive swelling of anti-Semitic tendencies in our universities." Two-thirds of the Technical University of Handover student assembly called for a exclusion of "students of Jewish descent" from the student union in 1920.2

2 - "Volkisch Origins of Early Nazism: Anti-Semitism in Culture and Politics", Uwe Lohalm pp. 185

http://www.geocities.com/onemansmind/hr/nazi/Weimar01.html
***
And this is a short bit on the Wandervogel movement that became the Hitler Youth movement:

A Berlin university student, Herman Hoffmann Fölkersamb, founded a study circle for shorthand at the all boys Berlin-Steglitz grammar school where he was teaching. This schoolboy group began to meet without adult leadership about 1895. The early members of the Wandervogel movement liked to consider themselves the pioneers of the youth mission, yet not until November 1901, in the Steglitz town hall cellar, was the Wandervogel, as an association formally created.

Hoffmann did not have a firmly-defined program for the group. He had vague notions about what did and did not represent a reasonable life. These thoughts were developed as the Wandervogel movement spread and was adopted by increasing numbers of German youth. He realized that industry and commerce had come to stay, but he was equally convinced that the individual, instead of passively surrendering to the impersonal and atomizing forces of industrialism, should actively control them. What seems strange to the modern reader is that along with the heralding of nature and the individual was a healthing dose of Teutonic nationalism and anti-Semitism, sounding much like a melding of today's' greens and neo-NAZIs. Here we review some of the tenants of Hoffman and other Wandervogel adherents.

As Wandervogel was the principal German youth movement and not Scouting, it suggests that the movement was more in tune with German youth than Scouting. It is often thought that the Hitler Youth in the 1930s perverted innocent German youth. It appears, however, that German youth in the years before the NAZI seizure of power willingly adopted some of the tenets of the Hitler Youth before even more the more virulent ideology of NAZIism was forced upon them.

The Wandervogel movement was an outgrowth of German Romanticism which influenced the NAZIs. The Wandervogel featured groups of youths hiking, singing, and camping. We would have called it "getting back to nature" a couple of decades ago. It was a reaction against industrialization and urbanization, as was romanticism, and it was something of a model for various Hitler Youth activities.
http://histclo.hispeed.com/youth/youth/org/nat/ger/wander.htm

***

The unbroken line from Herder and the German Romantic proto- fascists to today's MESA Nazis and Left dhimmi fascists is completely clear to those who care to look at it. Our universities are over-run by Nazis and fascist allsorts careerists.

When the general public sees and understands that MESA is acting in step with Geman academics and students of the 1920s they will then see the future we face. Until our public is informed and educated regarding the fascist intentions of our academics we will continue to poison ourselves eating the strange fruits of our knowledge gardens.

Monday, November 28, 2005

Model Muslims

Hey, they're not all bad. What a babe this one is. And check out the story of Muslim babes below. They're not only good to look at, they're real smart too. Like, you know, you can listen to them for a bit?

Model Muslims

Michelle Leslie has raised questions about whether women can follow Islam and a career in fashion, writes Caroline Overington

November 29, 2005 BEFORE she became famous as the young woman arrested in Bali for possession of ecstasy, Michelle Leslie was one of thousands of young Australian girls trying to make it as a model. As part of her job, she posed in bikinis and underwear, and she once was photographed astride a motorbike baring her bottom.

After her arrest Leslie adopted a more modest wardrobe. At one court appearance she wore a sarong over her head; at another, she adopted the full, black burka, the garment worn by the most devout (and the most oppressed) women in the Muslim world.

Leslie's spokesman, Sean Mulcahy, says she converted to Islam at a private ceremony at a friend's house a year before she was arrested. Yet Muslim commentators, including Australian Federation of Islamic Councils head Ameer Ali, say Leslie can't be Muslim and a model. "There's an Islamic code of dressing [that] says women must be modest," Ali says. "You can't go cat-walking with a semi-naked body. That is not allowed in Islam."

But Leslie is not the world's only Muslim model; there are thousands working with the sanction of their parents and communities.

Eva Roslan, 22, is one example. She started modelling at 16, after getting permission from her Muslim parents. "I actually did ask my parents because it was important that they approved," Roslan says. "They had no objection. They were actually quite worried that I was still too young and I will be influenced, that I will get into dangerous stuff, because people are saying that modelling is dangerous. So my mother, she actually followed me everywhere, from when I was 16 until I was 19 and after that she trusted me. Then she said: 'Now I think you can go on your own, just don't break the trust."'

Roslan, who was born and reared in Singapore, says her religion is important, but Muslim society in Singapore is not as strict. "There are a few models who are Muslim," she says. Roslan follows Muslim teaching, she fasts at Ramadan and prays at the mosque, "although not five times a day".

[....]

She has not posed nude but has no objection to doing so in the future, depending on what the occasion. "I haven't so far, but I think I wouldn't mind," she says.

[....]

One of the first internationally known Muslim models was Iman Abdul Majid, who is married to David Bowie. The Somalian-born Iman, now 50, was reared by progressively minded Muslim parents. She was discovered at 19, living in Kenya, by photographer Peter Beard, who took pictures of her nude from the waist up, with her breasts covered by her hands and traditional necklaces.

In an interview in 1999, Iman said she knew her Muslim parents would not approve of the photographs, "known in the fashion world as artful nudes. My father would have found other words," she said. The photographer asked Iman to leave Kenya for a modelling career in the US. "But I was a Somali girl who had been raised a devout Muslim," she said. "I was a diplomat's daughter."

She was also secretly married and could not leave the country without her husband's permission, so she forged the documents she needed to get a passport and fled. She hated disappointing her father by becoming a model, a job he believed unworthy of her talents, and when her parents visited she collected photographs that showed her in any state of nudity and stored them until they left.

The father of supermodel Yasmeen Ghauri, who was born in Canada in 1971, also disapproved of her profession. Moin Ghauri is a former imam of the Islamic community of Quebec. In interviews, he has expressed strong disapproval of his daughter's chosen career. "She is still my daughter, but her actions are completely contrary to the teachings of Islam," he said in one interview. "She is doing something that encourages others to be doing bad things."

Yasmeen Ghauri has said she tried to become a devout Muslim, particularly after she once visited Saudi Arabia, where women are not allowed to drive or show any flesh. "I thought, 'OK, OK, I'm going to be really religious, I'm going to cut off school, I'm going to cover my head and everything.' Then I woke up and said: 'This is ridiculous, I haven't gone to hell."'

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17393861%255E28737,00.html
***

Oh, tie me up. I can hardly stand it.

Thanks to Pastorius at http://www.cuanas.blogspot.com/ for the title graphic.

Quo Vadis, France?

The battle for the future is being fought in the minds of the Western public. It's in those dark and frightening spaces that we will find the answer to the question of the survival of Western Modernity, if it survives, if it survives as something we can recognize. The battle for the survival of the West might already be lost, and we might face the blood-dimmed tide already. Europeans seem to have given up the will to live as free and independent people in favor of sliding into decay and death at the hands of knife-wielding Muslim fanatics bent on world domination and the return to primitivism as World Spirit. Here we look for signs ot the future, signposts along the roadside, as it were, that show us the direction of the West. Below we have two pieces on France, recently visited by Islamic havoc, and we see the mind of the French at work, sort of, if one can call it thought at all.
***

(Angus Reid Global Scan) – Many adults in France express satisfaction with the way Nicolas Sarkozy faced the recent episodes of civil unrest, according to a poll by CSA released by Profession Politique. 48 per cent of respondents believe the interior minister was as tough as required in dealing with the situation.

Conversely, 23 per cent of respondents believe Sarkozy was too tough, while 25 per cent expected him to be tougher.

On Oct. 27, riots broke out in the Paris suburb of Clichy-sous-Bois after the death of two teenagers who allegedly were being pursued by police officers. On Nov. 17, French authorities declared a "return to normalcy" in the whole country. Over 20 nights of violence—which spread to 19 French provinces—at least 8,973 vehicles were torched, 2,888 people were arrested, 126 police officers were injured, and one person died.

In the first days of rioting, Sarkozy referred to the alleged troublemakers as "scum." On Nov. 8, French president Jacques Chirac authorized a state of emergency. Sarkozy declared, "For a period of 12 days, searches will be possible every time we suspect possession of weapons (in order to) systematically apprehend troublemakers and systematically prevent a spread of violence."

In mid-November, Sarkozy openly advocated for the deportation of foreigners who were involved in the violence—even if they are in France legally—declaring, "The Migration Act allows expulsion. I am the interior minister and I implement the rules."

[....]

Polling Data

How would you define the attitude of Nicolas Sarkozy in dealing with the problems in the suburbs?

He was as tough as required

48%

He was too tough

23%

He was not as tough as he should have been

25%

No reply

4%

Source: CSA / Profession Politique
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 957 French adults, conducted on Nov.16, 2005. No margin of error was provided.
***

Chirac's influence sinks to new low
By Henry Samuel in Paris
(Filed: 28/11/2005)

Jacques Chirac's presidency hit a new low yesterday when a poll revealed that most voters think he now has little or no influence over events at home or abroad.

Of those polled, 72 per cent regarded the influence of their president - who turns 73 tomorrow - over what happens in France as "weak".


Jacques Chirac
Jacques Chirac: perceived as a lame duck

Two thirds said his clout on the world stage was feeble, while only 36 per cent thought he held any significant sway over European politics.

[....]

The poll, conducted for Le Parisien newspaper by the CSA institute, was all the more humiliating in that the opinion of supporters of Mr Chirac's conservative ruling UMP party was scarcely more favourable than those of voters on the Left. Only 43 per cent of UMP voters thought he still had a leading role to play in France.

With presidential elections not due until 2007, the poll raises serious questions about Mr Chirac's perceived lame-duck status and his ability to maintain his authority.

[....]

Mr Chirac's 10th year in power has been a bad one. He has a notched up an unenviable string of defeats - not least over the referendum on the European constitution.

The poll is also an indictment of his handling of the wave of rioting in the poor suburbs this autumn.

[....]

The pair appear to have gained political credit from the riots - Mr Sarkozy for his tough stance, and Mr de Villepin for his statesmanship.

[T]he fact that he took three weeks to solemnly address the French [after the rioting began] was manifestly a mistake," said Mr Cayrol.

[....]

Some analysts say his absence from the political stage has been carefully orchestrated to allow his protégé, Mr de Villepin, to appear as the nation's de facto leader, and a credible presidential alternative to his rival, Mr Sarkozy, who leads the UMP.

[....]

The prevailing view is that the president will stop at nothing to block Mr Sarkozy's rise to power - even if it means backing a socialist candidate.

[....]
Chirac's influence sinks to new low
Telegraph.co.uk
***

The French can vote for anyone they like, and not too many people would care, as a rule, even the French. But there is a concern when we read that the miserable Chirac will stop at nothing to block Sarkozy's rise to power. We read above that Chirac is unloved by the French, that he's a lame-duck leader, and that he's on his way out anyway. Why does he think he has the power to stop Sarkozy? Who cares what Chirac's opinions are these days? Muslims do. Obviously Chirac has nothing but contempt for the French people, even those who voted for him, for his own party members. He'll sell out his own for his vanity. What more might he do in the time remaining to him as leader of France? What more might he do to secure his place in the world of Islam? What might that slimey little bastard do to the French people in favour of Islam?

Above, according to one poll, about 73 percent of the French people are roughly in favour of Sarkozy's appraoch to law and order in France regarding the recent Muslim rioting. Chirac seems happy enough to sabatoge Sarkozy. Will Chirac dismiss the opinions of 73 percent of the French people? Ten percent are Muslim. At what point does Chirac slide across the pit from being a scum-bag to being a dictator and a traitor?

If the mind of the French public is a dark and empty space of moods and anti-Anglo hysteria, and if Chirac sells them out to the Muslim world from spite and vanity, what's left for us in the West? Might we, in a fit of outrage, find ourselves in a state of genuine hostility toward the French? And might the French, in a state of rage at the betrayal of their own nation not find themselves divided between fascsims? If Islamic fascism prevails in France thanks to Chirac's dirty dealings, and if the French Right goes to extremes against both Islam and America, then what do we do?The survival of the West isn't just a French matter. If France goes Islamic, thanks to Chirac, we are in serious trouble.

Sunday, November 27, 2005

Romantic Origins of Left Dhimmi Fascism

Islam threatens the existence of the modern world and each and every individual living today and all to come. Islam is a primitive fascist poligion, a dirty little tribal practice that's gotten out of hand and become a world-wide mind-trap for peasants and dysfunctional authoritarians. Islam is a garbage ideology for the stupid and the violent and the hateful. It's the perfect mind-set for the mentally disordered savage who needs total order to survive at a primitive subsistence level. It's spread across the globe and picked up minds like a magnet collecting iron filings. And somehow we in the West are falling for it, accepting it as some kind of benevolent alternative to our own historical values of Israel, Greece, Rome, and Modernity. The question is why we accept the rantings of a 7th century psychopath as acceptable at all, even for a man of Mohammed's time and place. He is obviously, to any thinking and feeling person, one sick piece of work. And yet we are inundated with Muslims, dumped on daily by Islam, and are made dhimmis by self-will in our appeasement of it. Why would we allow ourselves to be swamped by garbage? What is the appeal for so many of our leaders whom so many of us follow blindly and trustingly?

Our position is that this Islamic filth we're fed daily is wrapped in Romanticism. No matter how high it stinks, no matter how foul it is to swallow this Islamic slime, we accept it from fear of being anti-social. Most of us grin and smile and die on commuter trains going to work or sitting in office towers or taking our children to school or dancing in nightclubs or just being alive in the presence of Muslims. We dare not speak aloud of our doubts about Islam because our societies are based on common assumptions about the good will of all religions other than Christianity, Satanism, for example. And we are terrified of being called racists, though anyone who cares to know will already know that Islam is a poligion not a race, and that most Muslims are Indonesians and Pakistanis, not ethnic groups one finds often on the front lines of race abuse. No, those people would be Jews. So, don't we find it often easier to be tolerant of Satanist Jew hating child-molesters? "Why, yes we do, Dag," you say. And of course we're all embarrassed. Something is really badly wrong. Our position is that much of the wrong stems from the very beginnings of the Romantic movement of the late 18th century, a movement that continues to this, our own day. The apples of our wisdom are rotten due to the roots coming from Romance.

We need a working definition of Romanticism if we are to follow this thesis, and today we include definitions from Barzun, a dictionary, and the ever nearly worthless wikipedia. Even this tiny introduction to the concepts of Romanticism will give us a better understanding of why we tolerate the sickness of Islam at all, let alone why we tolerate it in our homelands. With that view of Romanticism giving us a clearer understanding of why we hold the opinions we hold, why we have the attitudes we have, why we say the things we think we mean, we might find that upon some better understanding we don't like the things we hold to be true by virtue of not disagreeing with the commonly held assumptions of our societies. If we see that many of our opinions are held simply because we never gave them any real thought, and that now we do and see them as shop-worn and dirty, maybe we'll toss them out for some new and better opinions. Maybe, knowing the make-up of our beliefs we'll choke on the next dose of Islam poured down our throats. Maybe we'll gag on it and refuse anymore of that filth. But let's look at the origins of our ideas regarding the religion of peace as just another valid expression of the world's Peoples' cultures. Let's look at Romance.

You have lovely eyes, I'm sure, since you're reading this, and I brought flowers. Yes, it's true Romance:


***
[R]omanticism was not a movement in the ordinary sense of a program adopted by a group, but a state of consciousness exhibiting the divisions found in every age. Hence all attempts to define Romanticism are bound to fail. [It is] a Zeitgeist and not an ideology. [Barzun: p. 466]

As soon as it is seen that Romanticism was a phenomenon like the Renaissance, the need for a definition disappears. [p. 466.]

The span of years when Romanticism was the spirit of the age is roughly the last decade of the 18C and the first half of the 19C. [p. 469.]

The use of romantic in English goes back to the 17C when it was used to denote imagination and inventiveness in storytelling and, soon after, to characterize scenery and paintings. [p. 467.]

Behind the first unmistakable Romanticist works stands the thought of four men who by date and upbringing belong to the 18thC but were at odds with it: Rousseau, Burke, Kant, and Goethe. [p. 469.]

In many past posts here we've written about the Counter-Enlightenment movement, part of which is Romanticism, and according to me, not Kant. However, these quotations belong to Barzun, and allowing him space we'll continue by looking at what the general idea of Romanticism is:

[Not Reason but] mind-and-heart is the single engine of moral, social, and scientific progress.... Man, then, is conceived by Romanticism as a creature that feels and can think.... The Imagination emerges as a leading faculty, because it conceives things in the round, as they look and feel, not simply as they are conceived in words.... [P]oetry of the period is predominantly lyrical-- it speaks in the first person to report on its findings within the self. [p. 470.]

Romanticism, then, is a break from the Enlightenment and the search for Human truth through Reason for the universal. Romance becomes a personal quest, and often a community quest, one found in the volk rather than in the individual as individual. But it's more than that as we'll see. The individual becomes not a person but a genius:

He who is possessed by these ideas and can communicate his discoveries is the Genius. [p. 470.]

The Romantic rebels against the rationalist and celebrates the emotionalist. As we've seen in Herder and the nature of private property, the Romantic is at odds with the man as a private person: he must be part of a group to have identity as person. Therefore, to be a genius, one must be the genius of a nation, and that cult of genius that the Romantics developed leads to the cult of personality that we find in the leadership principle, for example in movie stars or in Hitler. The man, being nothing in himself, must be the paradigm of his group, a genius for the whole. The Romantic hero is such a genius. He doesn't merely think, he feels!

The feeling Romantic must return to the age of purity and the place of purity, to a time when the group was strong and happy. The return to Nature, the love of Nature, the fetishizing of Nature that we see today in ecology is rooted in early Romanticism. It is a hatred of cities and privacy and individuality cut off from the world of dirt and feudalism. Fort the Romantic it is a return to Eden where and when people were good because they were good, not because they had material wealth. Simple things, such as manna from Heaven, that is what they long for. There is none of that in the coldness of modern machines and cities. So for the Romantic there is a cult of genius and a cult of Nature. We see it today not only in ecology and hippie idiots dancing naked around the fire at Stonehenge on the summer solstice but in the average concern for healthy food and vitamins. We take the good and we take the bad, not often knowing the difference.

In a piece we ran last post there was reference to eating moose. The writer made it out to be a privilege to eat moose with native Indians in northern Canada. Why is it a privilege in that dim mind? Because of the fetish of Nature that comes down to us unexamined from Romanticism. Frankly, any wild animal is so filled with worms and germs that no one in his right mind would eat any of it if not from necessity. But, when one is told by the culture that it is very cool to eat moose with Natives in the wild, then it seems to taste OK, regardless of the sickness that follows. To refuse to eat wormy meat that tastes like garbage is to fall afoul of the majority opinion that natives living in a state of Nature are spiritually advanced. We buy into these lies and accept them in spite of our own good reason and good sense because we don't have the confidence to shout out loud that this is a load of crap. Our culture values ideas that came to us from men and women who were fighting Napoleon! There is nothing good about eating moose. It is not a spiritual thing, man.

Barzun continues:

In Rousseau's Emile, the eloquent profession of faith offers Nature-- the works of God-- as the proof of His existence and attributes. The concrete beauty of nature speaks directly to the receptive mind. And from the same source comes, as we saw, the cult of nature-- the love of trees and flowers, gardening for pleasure, bird-watch and camping, the the belief that one must leave the unnatural city at least once a year and restore in the countryside something essential to life. [p. 471.]

Flower children, for those old enough to be embarrassed by it, want to save the trees. Yes, and rightly so. But the Romantic ideology that pushes it is not known to be linked to the aesthetic response for most of us. We are not aware of the ideology of Romanticism that validates our aesthetic appreciation. With that Romance ideology that we accept as natural and right, that most of us like when we garden and hike in the wilderness, we do not link a philobarbarist ideology that makes us also swallow Islam. It's there, though. We take the good with the bad slipped in on us. If Nature is good, then those who live in a state of nature must also be good. And if they eat moose, then it must be a privilege to eat it with them. But it ain't. It's a con job. It's the ideology of Romanticism.

We are too often told that we Modernists are cut off from our roots, that we live sterile and meaningless lives in cities and that we should slow down and eat the roses. We should get back to nature. We should get in touch with our feelings. And so on. These things are fine. But it's when we don't realize the Romantic nature of the ideology that puts these ideas forward that we get sucked into accepting Islam and dhimmi fascism along with them.

In the reaction to the Age of Reason, in reaction to the revolutions of Modernity, the American, French and Industrial Revolutions, in particular the French invasions of neighbouring areas of Germans, there was a strong revolt against everything the French stood for: Reason and rationality, science and commerce, privacy and individualism topping the list. There was more: there was a hatred of universality, of men being equal in rights rather than being privileged by titles and birth. There was a hatred of making money rather than of having everything come from land wealth. There was a hatred of cities because they weren't estates with lords. There was a hatred of machines that took away the work of men who made things in their crofts by hand. The individual sold his labour for cash, and he was alone rather than part of a community. That romantic reactionary position of hatred is with us today, and it grows steadily. Both he so-called Left and the Right share that animosity to Modernity. In reaction against Modernity they all look back to the time of feudalism to see if they might not find those who are still living life that was before the time of the revolutions, and yes, dear reader, they find Islam.

Barzun goes on to describe some of the Romantic view thus:

As prophets, for the earliest days of the religion, they castigated the society in which they lived. It was sunk in the mire of commerce and industry, activities that blunted the senses, narrowed the mind, killed the imagination. With these tenets the campaign against the middle class had begun.

The mark of this contemptible creature is his incapacity to understand and enjoy art-- except the academic or sentimental kind. [p. 474.]

Romanticism is a snobbery. We are philistines. We live badly. We chase after oil and profits, and we don't care who we kill in our pursuits, nor that we destroy Mother Nature in the process. We are bad, and we are bad because we are petty, unlike our Romantic heroes who feel real feelings and are in touch with real people, those who live in squalor and eat wormy meat.

REgardless of the many flaws of Romanticism, we cannot claim they were stupid. Many were geniuses. Barzu writes:

With their searching imagination in literature and art, it could be expected that the Romanticist's intellectual tastes would be anything but exclusive.... This was a genuine multiculturalsim, the wholehearted acceptance of the remote, the exotic, the folkish, and the forgotten. [p. 481.]

Jacques Barzun, From Dawn to Decandence. New York: Harper Collins, 2000. pp 465-89.

There is a lovely line in a Herzen novel, Fathers and Sons, that comes to mind dimly, and in time I'll remember it rightly: The father cries out to his wife that their [obnoxious] son is an intellectual and that he's sophisticated, and that he won't spend time with them after his long abscence at university from which he's now returned because his parents are "boring."

Folks, we are the boring ones our dhimmi leaders and intelligentsia despise. They prefer the exotica of Muslim murderers. We are boring!

On that note, we'll leave Barzun and look at less frothy and prolix definitions of Romanticism below. We will see that our own society is caught up in an 18th century ideology of which we really don't have much understanding, and that from it we hold some pretty poor ideas as normal and right when in fact they really suck.
***

Romanticism: The Romantic favours the concrete over the abstract, variety over uniformity, the infinite over the finite, nature over culture, convention, and artifice, the organic over the mechanical, freedom over constraint, rules, and limitations. In Human terms it prefers the unique individual to the average man, the free creative genius to the prudent man of good sense, the particular community or nation to humanity at large. Mentally the Romantic prefers feeling to thought, more specifically, emotion to calculation, imagination to literal common sense, intuition to intellect.
[....]
[Romantics] saw understanding, the intellect as it works in science and everyday life, as an inferior faculty supplying useful, but distortedly abstract, opinion about fragments torn from reality for practical purposes. Reason, on the other hand, was for them intellect in its highest form as an apprehension of the totality of things in their essential interconnectedness.
[....]
Non-philosophical Romanticism disdains ordinary rationality as a practical makeshift for the earth-bound, yielding only a truncated, superficial, and distorted picture of the world as it really is. The directly intuitive, even mystical, apprehension of the world which we owe to poets and to other such creative geniuses does not stand in need of any reasoned support of articulation....
The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Edited by Ted Honderich. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. p. 778.
***

Romanticism
was an artistic and intellectual movement in the history of ideas that originated in late 18th century Western Europe. It stressed strong emotion....

In a general sense, "Romanticism" covers a group of related artistic, political, philosophical and social trends arising out of the late 18th and early 19th centuries in Europe. But a precise characterization and a specific description of Romanticism have been objects of intellectual history and literary history for all of the twentieth century without any great measure of consensus emerging. Arthur Lovejoy attempted to demonstrate the difficulty of this problem in his seminal article "On The Discrimination of Romanticisms" in his Essays in the History of Ideas (1948); some scholars see romanticism as completely continuous with the present, some see it as the inaugural moment of modernity, some see it as the beginning of a tradition of resistance to the Enlightenment, and still others date it firmly in the direct aftermath of the French Revolution.

Romanticism is often understood as a set of new cultural and aesthetic values. [A] new emphasis on common language and the depiction of apparently everyday experiences; and experimentation with new, non-classical artistic forms.

Romanticism also strongly valued exotic locations and the distant past. Old poetical forms, such as ballads, were revalued, ruins were sentimentalized as iconic of the action of Nature on the works of man, and mythic and legendary material which would previously have been seen as "low" culture became a common basis for works of "high" art and literature.

Origins and precursors

The term 'Romanticism' derives ultimately from the fictional romances written during the Middle Ages ("romance" being the medieval term for works in the vernacular Romance languages rather than in Latin). ...

In English literature, Coleridge and Wordsworth were the true architects of the Romantic movement, beginning with their Lyrical Ballads (1798), but the revival of 'romance' in this narrower sense was preceded by a cult of Sensibility. The ' Sturm und Drang' (Storm and Stress) movement in German drama was associated with Friedrich Schiller, and the early work of Goethe, in particular his play "Goetz von Berlichingen", about a Medieval knight who resists submission to any authority beyond himself. Goethe's novel "The Sorrows of Young Werther" (1774) had huge international success. This too concerned an individual who felt a strong contradiction between his own internal world of intense feeling, and the external world that failed to correspond to it. Werther eventually commits suicide. In later works Goethe rejected Romanticism in favour of a new sense of classical harmony, integrating internal and external states.

In English, the term 'Romantick' also embodied experiences of human inadequacy and guilt, quite separate from their traditional Christian grounding; such a sense of [ ] and ever-present dark forces seemed most appropriate in settings of Medieval culture. In Germany and France, Herder praised the Aurora borealis.

While these precursors partly explain the Romantic fascination with the Middle Ages, the pleasures of stressful emotions, and the thrill derived from wilfulness, the actual expression of the Romantic movement itself corresponded to the sense of rapid, dynamic social change that culminated in the French Revolution and the Napoleonic era. However, Romantic literature in Germany preceded these crucial historical events.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism
***

Nosferatu is the first film version of the classic Romantic era novel Dracula.

Saturday, November 26, 2005

Public Opinion and Tabu


Public Opinion and Tabu

Native Indians in Northern Canada provide a good example of what life in Europe will be like in 20 years if Europeans allow the further Eurabainization to continue apace. Laurie Gough wrote of a village in northern Ontario, Canada that is a vision of our future in our cities, not in some remote village in the Arctic Circle but in Paris, in Rome, in London. We saw a world of feral children in feral communities, and the picture is one of culture in psychosis. And people are afraid to say anything about it. There is a tabu against speaking truth to poverty pimps and UN workers and the media. Worse, one dare not speak in universities of poverty and ferality resulting from socialist government. This ain't no stinking university. We blog!

Below is the work of a woman who is afraid to let her name be known in public for fear of reprisals. She too taught school in a land of psychotic and feral people. Because one woman wrote, this woman writes. Because these two women write we hope others will find the courage to write and to speak and to act. There is fear, and real fear of violence, of violent death at the hands of feral savages out of control and fueled by exultation and exhortation. Those people will die like dogs if we allow our systems of government to continue on this path of throwing money and sentimentality and exclusionary privilege at them. "You are Others," the p.c. nannies chant, "and we are not worthy!"

Well, take a look at what we get when the Left dhimmi fascists control the world. And then think about Theo van Gogh. And think of Hirsi Ali and Geert Wilders and so many others who live under constant threat of death by our feral Muslim populations pandered to and primed with cash and permission from our leaders to rant and scream and carry on like monsters unrestrained by any civilizing forces at all, only further inflamed by our appeasement, our encouragement that they act out their savageries and punish us for whatever imagined harm we might have done when we were children or whatever our parents did, or our grandparents or our ancestors of a 1000 years ago. this is the future of our world if we do nothing more than what we do now. this is Canada today. It is Europe tomorrow:


Third World, Sask.
National Post
Wed 23 Nov 2005
Lynne Foster*
National Post

There are native reserves where educated people live happy,
productive lives. I have visited some of them. In general, they are
communities that are close to major population centres, where
residents can access services, gain an education and learn how to
run a business.

But as Laurie Gough showed in her Saturday National Post article
about teaching a Grade Three class in the northern Ontario reserve
of Kashechewan, there are other more remote reserves where residents
are demoralized and impoverished. These reserves are out of sight,
out of mind, with minimal access to the outside world -- ignored by
everyone, money thrown at them without any accountability.

I have worked as a teacher on just such a reserve. Ms. Gough left
her job after three months. For reasons I still can't understand, I
managed to stay for an entire school year.

It was a reserve in northern Saskatchewan. (I won't identify it.
Its people suffer enough as it is. And in any case, there are many
others like it.) I'd made the trip full of high hopes, but doubts
emerged as soon as I arrived with the other teachers.

"You are no longer in Canada," we were told. "This is our land, our
country and you will obey our laws." (This proved true: When I
started, I was offered a set figure as pay. A year later, I received
less than half of this amount. I discovered one cannot litigate
against anyone on a reserve.) In retrospect, I don't know why I
didn't just rev up the pickup and head home right there and then.

The reserve's population was divided into two groups. First, there
was the privileged set, a small group of related people who were on
the band council, worked for the council offices or worked at
band-financed jobs, like driving the snowplough truck.

This group lived at one end of the reserve, where the land was dry,
in attractive houses complete with with Western-style amenities.
They had new cars and trucks, and dressed well.

All the rest, some 95% of the native people on this reserve, lived
in the bush, where the ground was a sea of mud most of the time,
where the elementary school was full of mould, its basement gym
covered with fetid water. Drinking water came from a single tank,
which was accessed by hand. Sewage treatment was non-existent.
Household garbage simply was thrown out people's back doors, to be
feasted on by wild dogs and bears. All the garbage and sewage
leached into the ground -- and then into the river.

There was no regular medical care. Doctors in town had offered to
set up a program of weekly visits. But the Band Council refused.

It was said that most females had been raped at least once. I
remember learning that a six-year-old girl in my class had been
raped just before school began. The episode was seen as
unexceptional, and the rapist suffered no punishment.

I went to many of the houses in which my students lived. It was
common to find an empty house, with nothing but a table, filthy
mattresses on the floor, and a wood stove. Most of the food on hand
was canned or packaged, if there was any at all.

Dogs ran wild, often half-starved. They were beaten and kicked by
the men on the reserve. One large dog -- some said he was actually a
wolf -- claimed me as his food source, slept on my porch, and
followed me everywhere. I fed him as well as I could. He had a wound
on his neck, where one of the other dogs had gashed him.

In the pitch-black nights, the only sounds one heard were the dogs
barking -- and gunshots. The housing provided for teachers was
flimsy. I always feared a stray bullet would come through the wall.

The teachers lived in row houses, apart from the rest of the
reserve. One evening, about a dozen enraged adults burst into the
dwelling of one of my male colleagues and beat him severely over
some disagreement.

I, too, sometimes heard fists banging on my door occasionally. On
such occasions, I took a used a large heavy chair to barricade the
entrance.

Children came to my unit all the time begging for food, telling me
their parents had been drunk for days, that there was nothing left
in their house to eat. I cooked and served eggs and toast and
whatever I could to as many as I could.

Unlike the children Ms. Gough had in her Grade Three Kashechewan
class, my students were generally well-behaved -- except for one,
who suffered severely from fetal alcohol syndrome and burst into
tantrums several times a day. Still, the children had little idea
what it meant to sit in school and learn in a structured
environment. So I had to keep their attention with a great deal of
art and music, singing and poetry, and physical activity. Most
barely spoke English. All of the children had head lice, and I had
to take them to shower weekly, and carry out de-lousing.

Sprinkled in among such bad memories were a few good ones. There
was the one wintry day when I was walking along a road and came upon
a group of men and women butchering a moose. They were drunk on
homemade vodka, and offered me some. All were laughing, giddy over
their high-protein windfall.


Many of the parents I met were loving, kind people who were
genuinely upset that they could not provide their children with a
better life. But I also met angry, drunken parents who had given up
on themselves and their families. It was distressing to see their
dilapidated homes just a short distance from those lovely houses at
the other end of the reserve, with their television aerials and
cars. It was equally distressing that the government allowed the
money that was meant for all the residents to be kept and used by
the few who controlled the reserve.

Welfare Friday was a day the teachers all headed into town, over an
hour's hard drive away. We fled because we knew the weekend would be
full of alcohol, gunshots, fights, beatings and worse.

Every year, there were several deaths when people fell off the back
of pick-up trucks that roared around the reserve. Those in control
of the reserve cared not one bit.

One cold night in winter, there was a loud, urgent banging on the
door of my unit. It was 4 a.m., but for some reason, I opened the
door anyway. It was a father with a young child. There had been an
"incident," he told me. He said he wanted me to protect the child,
and then left. He came back the next day for the boy, and that was
the last I heard of it.

And where does the blame lie for all this? It lies with our
governments. Billions are dished out and that is that. It appears
they do nothing to ensure band councils spend it fairly.

You can provide people with housing, furniture, and all the other
physical amenities. But it is all for nothing if the people have no
purpose in life -- no future, no goals, no dignity. You can take any
hardworking, educated , motivated person and stick him on that
reserve, to live the life of the people. Come back in a year and you
will have an alcoholic, depressed, hopeless person.

Our governments spend so much on programs for the relocation,
education, orientation and counselling for people who come to Canada
as refugees and immigrants. Yet our native people live in conditions
that in many cases are worse than the places asylum-seekers come
from.

Many believe the day is long past when any aboriginal people should
be living in the bush or the remote frozen north. Somehow, they must
be brought closer to the modern world, and given the opportunity to
enjoy all the amenities of Canadian life.

I will never forget my year on this reserve. It has seared my soul.
I remember the beautiful children with their huge brown eyes, and
hope those times when they could smile and laugh and play in my
classroom was of help to them.

We find the greedy and uncaring at all levels. It was not just that
small group on that one reserve who kept most of the funds for
themselves; it's the attitude of government officials at all levels
that lead to the neglect of native peoples. We show concern for the
foreign victims of earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, hurricanes and
illnesses. And yet, somehow, no one thinks of the remote, neglected,
shattered communities right here in Canada. It's time that changed.

http://charlesadler.com/index.php?p=latestnews&action=view_story&id=2758
--

We see above the result of the madness of not demanding obedience to the universal social contract. The above is the result of exceptionalism, of multi-culturalism, of allowing one group of people to live by laws the rest of us have no part of. This is identity facism. This is the fascist dictatorship of culture over person. And this is the story of one woman who found at least enough disgust to write under a false name from fear of perhaps being murdered. Is the public outraged by the horrors she writes about? Well, not hardly. Please read the "Letter of the Day" as posted in the same newspaper that ran both stories above, those by Foster and Gough:

Re: Lesson From Kashechewan, Nov 21, 2005

I recently stayed for a short time in a native reserve four hours north of Montreal. Shortly after my arrival the community [sic] gathered by the lake, around the carcass of a dead [sic] moose to share the meat amongst themselves. I was privileged enough to be invited to participate in the festive event. No one knew I was a photojournalist.
***

Allow me to interpose here to complain about this "Letter of the Day." Who is this idiot who spent a short time in a village and knows enough to comment on native culture? Why, that would be a semi-literate photo-journalist who reduces people to the lump sum of "community," not a single individual in the letter at all but the writer. Yes, the carcass was dead. As we read above about moose-sharing, it comes with the home-made vodka-sharing as well, but here nevermind the news. This letter writer was "privileged" to be invited. Privileged? Take a whiff of a dead rat wrapped in a dirty sock and you'll have some idea of the privilege this dhimmi idiot says she had. Game. It's an acquired taste, and that's not anyone's business but the eater's. But it ain't no privilege to eat that kind of thing if one is used to farm animal food. We're being lied to here. If the author is implying that the natives shared from a scarce resource, then why is it scarce? Why isn't there a steady source of pure and healthy food for all? But we're being lied to here in this Letter of the Day. And as bad as anything in the paragraph above, look at the verbs: "to be invited to participate." Not one single person graces that phrase. The dhimmi idiot who wrote that crap and the rest that follows it has no idea what life is like among feral people and is happy to let us know that we know nothing and that we are guilty of the sins of racism and arrogance and what have you according to the display of our ability to mouth cliches. I blog on that dhimmi idiot!

We have there the "Letter of the Day" in a major national newspaper in Canada. What we don't have is public opinion demanding the military take control of the people. What the hell is wrong with that picture? Fear. Cringing dhimmi idiots who are afraid to speak out in public to demand the end of outrageous savageries and crime. And we are seeing the future of Eurabia as we sit in our rooms and type in fear. Says who? Says Dag Walker in Vancouver, Canada. I am outraged.
***

Neil Bissoondath writes on multiculturalism in Canada below in a book that just arrived at my desk an hour ago; and in anticipation of it I include a few excerpts from the preface. When I finish the book I hope to present more details and some of my own pithy comments, and you, dear reader, are invited to comment well.
***

The publication of Selling Illusions in the fall of 1994 threw me into an experience that was dispiriting and exhilarating in equal measure, that seemed at times schizophrenic. If the adjective seems overheated, consider that on October 8, The Globe and Mail ran a long, prominent, totally negative review, the kind of review that left the writer no room for solace. One week later, on October 15, the book made its debut on the same newspaper's bestseller list at number one. This was my first indication that while much of the intelligentsia, particularly on the political left, would view the book with distaste, many Canadians in the public at large would react more favourably—and these were the people I wanted to reach: not those who made it their business to ponder and defend the ideology of multiculturalism but those who lived it day by day....

Through the long weeks of travel and talk and exchanges both public and private, I came to understand that if Selling Illusions struck some critics as having little new to say, that was because I had simply put on paper what many people—perhaps, if the polls are accurate, the majority—had long been thinking but,intimidated by the atmosphere of reverence that surrounded the policy, had kept mostly to themselves. Many people read the book and found themselves staring into a mirror of their own feelings.

[....]

Selling Illusions did no more than point out what all could see but few dared declare: the multicultural emperor had no clothes.

The multicultural emperor, however, had bite—or at least a loud growl. Then Minister of State for Multiculturalism, Sheila Finestone, came to the defence of her department by declaring in a speech to the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, "I don't enjoy Neil Bissoondath. I don't enjoy his lack of understanding of choice." I had failed to understand, she said, that all Canadians had the freedom to choose what they wanted to be and what they wanted to do—which only proved that she had utterly failed to understand the book, which was precisely a plea for the government to stop limiting those most personal of choices through its interpretation and promotion of multiculturalism. Lumping me with critics from the Reform Party, she stated her belief that such attacks on multiculturalism were threatening the very fabric of Canadian society. In other words, she echoed in more elegant form the advice I'd once received from two of her minions at a conference in Ottawa—that I shut up. That was as close as she got to engaging the substance of the arguments.

Undeterred by stinging media reaction to her speech, Ms. Finestone, whose penetrating intellect today enlivens the Senate of Canada as much as that august body can be enlivened, then told Susan Ormiston, an interviewer for CTV's W5, that "There isn't any one Canadian identity. Canada has no national culture." Failing to see that in voicing multiculturalism's unstated mantra she had just made a stunning claim, Ms. Finestone reacted to Ms. Ormiston's expression of surprise with a dismissive, "Well, where's your national culture?" In the coming days, letters to the newspapers provided her with the answers her bureaucrats could apparently not supply.

[.... more]
http://www.penguin.ca/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,0_0141006765,00.html?sym=EXC