Rowan Martin's Anglican Laugh-In

Bill sums it up. You're wondering why the Anglican Church is failing and dying? Well, it's not from lack of effort to keep it going on Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Martin's part, he who suggests that Sharia in Britain is inevitable. Decline and Fall of Anglicanism? Piffle. There's a solution to any of that, and Bill nails it:

"The only thing that stops the CoE being universally popular is our failure to abandon all doctrines that upset people who don't subscribe to our beliefs. If we just continue to chip away, people are bound to be eventually convinced by our confidence, our rejection of fashion and the eternal truth of our message.

We just need to be nicer."

Posted by: John on Friday, 20 October 2006 at 11:09pm BST; link below at Thinking Anglican.
****

Yes, there is hope in Rowan Martin's revival of the 1960's skit comedy routines now showing in an Anglican Church near you, if not yet back on television. Give it time and you just might see the Anglican Church in reruns.

Here's the latest knee-slapping comedy piece from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Martin, as presented by a very clever journalist with far more media smarts than Rowan himself:

Rowan Williams: Sharia Law in the UK "Unavoidable"

Posted by: delusional in News, Politics, Ramblings

…or in other words, the probability of a religious leader saying something mind-numbingly stupid is always close to a value of 1.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams (principal leader of the Church of England) has stated in an interview for the BBC World at One programme that the adoption of Sharia Law in the UK is unavoidable. [warning: link contains inexcusably daft view-points]

He bases his view on the idea that some British citizens (in this case Muslims) do not relate to the the British legal system. Therefore, he argues, they should be given a choice of which law they would like to be tried under ie: British Law or Sharia law.

He seems to think this is a sensible idea.

Well, perhaps I feel that I don't relate to British law too easily either. Perhaps the courts would give me the option of being tried under the laws of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

[....]

Update: Rowan Williams has apparently received death threats as a result of this interview. Presumably some slightly less loony Bishop has offered to bat him over the head with a scepter.
http://www.delusionofgrandeur.co.uk/2008/02/07/rowan-williams-sharia-law-in-the-uk-unavoidable/
****

Across the pond, but still related, the American version of the Anglican Church has this news:

"US Episcopal report highlights concerns over church attendance drop"
by Lillian Kwon, Christian Today US Correspondent
Posted: Saturday, December 1, 2007, 12:26 (GMT)

An Episcopal Church committee has released an interim report that reveals positive trends as well as concerns in declining membership and church conflicts.

In a brief assessment of facts and trends in the Episcopal Church, the 'State of the Church' report – issued by the House of Deputies Committee in November – indicated the need for a "plan for action" at all levels of the denomination in response to membership drops.

In 2006, the number of Episcopal churches growing by 10 per cent or more decreased, and the number declining in membership by 10 per cent increased, according to the report. Average Sunday Attendance (ASA) also dropped by three per cent in 2006 compared to one per cent the previous year.

An estimated 41 per cent of the attendance drop can be attributed to the departure of congregations from their dioceses.

And almost half of Episcopal parishes and missions have an ASA of 70 or less.

Conservative parishes and Anglicans discontent with the liberal direction of the Episcopal Church have left the American church body and realigned with like-minded churches from overseas.

The Episcopal Church – the US branch of Anglicanism – deepened rifts when it consecrated openly gay bishop V Gene Robinson of New Hampshire in 2003.

Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has indicated that those who have left the national Church only account for less than 1 per cent of the total number of US Episcopal parishes.

According to the report, an increased number of congregations reported "serious conflict" from 2001 through 2005. The consecration of Robinson was one of the frequently mentioned sources of conflict in 2005.

Other areas of concern in the national Church include the "failure of some dioceses to fully support the program of The Episcopal Church at the national level", which is in turn negatively impacting its domestic operations and overseas mission work.

Four Episcopal dioceses have already taken steps to split and realign with a conservative Anglican leader. Most recently, the Diocese of Forth Worth in Texas voted to approve constitutional amendments and remove language that states the diocese accedes to the Episcopal Church's constitution and canons.

In December, the Diocese of San Joaquin could be the first Episcopal diocese in the country to take a final vote and leave the national Church. The diocese has been invited to align with the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of South America.

Bishop Robert Duncan of the Pittsburgh Diocese is also in the process of forming a separate Anglican structure in North America that would remain faithful to the global Anglican Communion. Bishop Duncan contends that the Episcopal Church has "failed" the communion and rejected "obvious scriptural teaching".

[....]
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/us.episcopal.report.highlights.concerns.over.church.attendance.drop/15084.htm
****

Things must be going well in America for the Anglicans/Episcopalians if as "Katharine Jefferts Schori has indicated that "those who have left the national Church only account for less than 1 per cent of the total number of US Episcopal parishes." Yeah, except those are the ones who have formally split from the Church, and it doesn't account for those who likely will as the snowball of schism, to mix a metaphor, continues its down-hill roll. My arithmetic is kind of poor, but this lot of figures surely impresseth me greatly anyway: "churches growing by 10 per cent or more decreased, and the number declining in membership by 10 per cent increased...." And to sum up the good news, "that reveals positive trends."

Some might think that Anglican Church attendance and the drop in membership would show the marketplace is rejecting the current Anglican sales pitch to the Anglican masses. Rowan Martin, eternally comedic, has the solution: Sharia in Britian. Yes, dear reader, sadly, you and I did not become filthy rich only because strikingly original ideas such as that just don't occur to ordinary folk like us. Well, OK, I'll speak for myself then.

Here's a Thinking Anglican who can speak for himself about Church attendence:

"The minister of my last parish commented last year that they had solved the problem of people who come only for Christmas, Easter and special events like Baptisms. They had complained to the people so often that they only show up for these events, that the people listened and stopped coming to those too...." Posted by: Cheryl Clough
****

Crisis in the Anglican Church

In recent years the Anglican Church has received very little good publicity in the press. In the UK weekly church attendance has dropped below a million, and worldwide the church has been bitterly divided over the issues of homosexuality and the ordination of women priests. Newspaper headlines during the past month, however, have suggested that the situation has suddenly and dramatically deteriorated, with words like "schism" and even "anarchy" being used.
http://www.biblequizzes.org.uk/crisis-anglican-church.php
****

For those numerically-minded, help yourselves while I go have coffee:

Posted by David Virtue on 2004/12/10 10:36:00 (6638 reads)

EPISCOPAL CHURCH ATTENDANCE CONTINUES STEEP DECLINE

By David W. Virtue

WEST CHESTER, PA (12-10-2004)--Attendance statistics for The Episcopal Church USA in 2003 reveal a church in continued steep decline with nearly 36,000 active baptized members leaving for greener theological pastures, a significant drop from 8,000 in 2002. Another 24,000 Sunday worshippers left the ECUSA last year, more than twice the previous year.

In 2002 the church claimed a membership of 2,320,221. In 2003 it was down to 2,284,233, the church officially declared.

Some 85 parishes closed their doors - 7,305 in 2002 to 7,220 in 2003.

Average Sunday attendance in 2002 was 846,640. In 2003 it was 823,017.

The percentage of churches with any increase in average Sunday attendance (ASA) also dropped from 39 percent to 34 percent.

And for the first time churches with any loss in average Sunday attendance rose from 49 percent to 54 percent, the first time in living memory that it has reached over 50 percent.

Even those churches that were growing by 10 percent in the past five years dropped from 31 percent to 28 percent with those churches declining 10 percent in the past five years rising from 39 percent to 43 percent. Even when people leave, some churches keep them on the books.

The two parishes with the largest membership (but not necessarily attendees) were St. Martin's in Houston with 7,365 members. It claims an increase of 228 over the previous year and St. Michael's & All Angels in Dallas which rose to 7,243 from 7,166 in 2002.

But the largest attended parish in the ECUSA is the evangelical parish of Christ Church, Plano under the leadership of Canon David Roseberry. In 2003 it had 1,975 members a slight increase of 42 members over the previous year.

The number of congregations with 10 members or less jumped from 234 to 247. Those with congregations between 100 and 300 registered a significant loss in members.

The most startling figure was that the median average Sunday worship attendance of all Episcopal churches across the whole country is 77 members (down from 79).

And who's running the churches these days?

[T]he percentage of clergy under age 40 make up only 9 percent, with nearly 50 percent of all clergy now aged between 50 and 60. http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1775
****

As some might recall, Arte Johnson, the one wearing a German army helmet, used to curl his lips and say to the audience, for no particular reason: "Verrrry interes-stink. But not very funny."

A Drop in the River of Time (1)

The following post originally ran at Covenant Zone, Friday, September 14, 2007. I'm posting it here in the expectation of writing part two, based in part on reading interviews with Rene Girard. Asoriginally, my concern is with how those today feel superiour to those of yesterday, all the while making mistakes or committing crimes far more heinous than before. For now, Part One:

She was in her 50s back then, still an attractive women to look at, very pleasant to be around, gentle and placid, a lady uninvolved in the brute rush of—men. She spoke softly, sometimes seemingly unaware of the import of her anecdotes, such as the story of the nice young man she had a slight affair with many years before, shortly after the war, a nice young man from Denmark, a young man who’d been conscripted into the German Army, who’d been reluctant to join, who’d gone to the tropics afterward to live a quiet life as a hand on a riverboat in the jungle. She looked still surprised when she told me the other young men on the boat didn’t like her boyfriend, there being no reason she could see for them not liking him, he being attractive and nice, courteous and kind. The other young men on the boat tormented him, seemingly for his time in the army, which she felt was unfair to him, he having been conscripted. And she sighed and looked dreamy when she said he fell overboard one evening and was caught in the boat propellers, how awful it was to see him like that, how she’d never forget him. “He was so nice, you know.”

I do know. I recall laughing out loud when she told me that. I knew some “nice old men” who were nice. I laughed then; I could laugh now. We might all in time know others of various sorts who claim this or that, those who believe for or against; and in the muddle of Wonder we could come away with stained and dirty faces all of us looking much the same.

Over the course of the long way through the years I’ve met nice men and not so nice men, some of whom of either kind weren’t much of either mostly. Some I’ve met have claimed their innocence, which makes me laugh; and I’ve met others who claim they want only justice, which makes me howl. Those I meet, each and every unique one, all the sons of their fathers.

Hemmingway did it, and so too did Kosinski, between them Sven Hassel doing it in a book I’m reading this evening. They italicize parenthetical narratives. Before ‘our heroes’ stand the giddy old lady at the wall and shoot her, let me step back a bit and bring out the fathers of our children, anecdotal and italicized.

‘Look, they can do what they bloody well like,’ declared the youth, vaingloriously certain of himself. ‘I don’t give a tinker’s damn for any of ‘em. Far as I’m concerned, they can go and get knotted.

He was sitting on the draining board, his feet in the sink, eating pickled gherkins from a jar. As he spoke, his companions solemnly nodded their agreement and approval. The house was full of young people, boys and girls, all very vociferous and very sure of themselves; sure of their ability to stand out against authority and of their willingness to face death rather than fight for a cause they did not believe in. On the chairs and the tables, stretched out on the floor, squatting in the corners, in the kitchen, the salon, the bedroom, this band of young rebels shouted their agreement.

‘It’s not our war!’ cried a disembodied voice from beneath a table. ‘We didn’t start it, we don’t want it, and we’re not going to fight it!’

‘People are dying every day, in their thousands, and the poor fools don’t even know what they’re dying for—‘

‘They torture them at the Gestapo. People are scared to open their mouths and tell the truth anymore,’ declared a young girl who was not quite as young as she looked and was doing her best to seduce a nervous youth who was still a virgin.

‘Well, I’m not scared!’ screamed a fragile-looking creature from his position on top of the unlit stove. ‘When my turn comes to be called up I shall tell them exactly what I think of them!’

‘Hear, hear.’ Muttered his companions, while the nervous youth took off his spectacles and vigorously polished them, rather alarmed at his won daring at being in such company.

‘What happens if the Gestapo comes?’ queried some faint-heart sitting in the passage.

‘Let them come!’ A young boy seated on the kitchen table, who was in the habit of declaiming dramatic poems that he learnt by heart, threw wide his arms and faced them challengingly. ‘Let them come! What do we care? The world is our oyster… and this land is our land, because we are the future! They can’t force us to fight and destroy ourselves!’

One Sunday morning, five months later, their weekly meetings were brought to an end by the sudden arrival of three men. Three men in leather coats, wearing shoulder holsters.

The nervous youth, who greeted their appearance with shrill screams of hysteria, was silenced by one sharp slap across the face.

The young girl who was not so young as she seemed, and how never had succeeded in seducing him, managed to spit out a couple of obscenities before she was kicked in the stomach and pushed to one side.
The boy in the sink had moved to the bathroom and was making love on the floor with his girlfriend. They were separated with a few well placed prods with the butt end of a pistol and sent downstairs to join the others.

The poet wet himself with fright the very moment the intruders arrived. He offered no resistance of any kind.

In a long line, shuffling single file with their heads hanging, fifty-two boys and girls left the house and entered two green coaches that were waiting outside. The world was their oyster, but fear was an unknown quality and they were meeting it face to face for the first time.

For three days they were retained at Stadthausbruke No. 8. Their treatment was not particularly harsh, but it was enough to simply be there; it was enough to learn the meaning of fear and to understand that courage had no place in their lives. Courage was for those with power.

After three days they were put into uniform and sent off for training. Several died during the preliminary courses of instruction; some through accidents, others because they chose to. And as for the rest, they battled on and tried to come to terms with their new situation and their new selves; tried to grow reconciled to the fact that when it came to the point, they were no different from all the other poor idiots whom they so heartily despised.

They didn’t want to fight. It wasn’t their war. They hadn’t started it and they didn’t believe in it. But they fought, just the same.

That’s a passage from my second-favorite Danish Existentialist philosopher, Sven Hassel, Assignment Gestapo. London: Corgi Books, 1965; trans. Jean Ure, rpt. 1973; p.p. 110-111.

Nice kids, likely. Nice young men, nice old men. One drops here, one drops there, 52 drop; all drops in the River of Time. And still the level lowers.

Canada's "Human Rights" Shame: Louise Arbour

In light of the current reaction from the public against the outrages of "Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals" let's look at the story as it extends beyond these shores, so far as across the whole of the world, but then, really, only to Israel. This story comes from Nov. 24, 2006. Since that time things have only gotten worse. First, from the Jerusalem Post:

Israel could be considered deserving of more blame for its actions in the Lebanon war than Hizbullah, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour said in an interview with The Jerusalem Post Thursday.

[....]

Arbour spoke to the Post in Tel Aviv on the tail end of a five-day trip to Israel and the Palestinian territories. The visit came on the heels of international condemnation and charges of human rights violations following an IDF strike in Beit Hanun in which 19 civilians were accidentally killed.

According to criminal law, "there is very little distinction between recklessness and intent," she said. "It is a small distinction as to whether you desire the result, or you foresee it as virtually certain and you do not care. In terms of culpability there is not a lot of difference between recklessness and intent."

[....]

Asked by the Post if there was a distinction under human rights law between missile attacks aimed at killing civilians and military strikes in which civilians are unintentionally killed, Arbour said the two could not be equated.

"In one case you could have, for instance, a very objectionable intent - the intent to harm civilians, which is very bad - but effectively not a lot of harm is actually achieved," she said....

[....]

[I]n looking at the two groups, she found that the lack of human rights was "particularly acute in the occupied Palestinian territory."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1162378470980

Such profound hatred of civility gives a whole new sense to Milton's line: "Eyeless in Gaza at the mill with slaves." But in a rare fit of fairness, I must admit that perhaps Arbour has had a change of heart and is no longer the legalistic philistine she was a few years ago. Let's see:

The Israeli army estimates about 250 rockets and mortar rounds have pounded Israel since last week. Israeli troops killed more than 30 Palestinians over the same period.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, in a speech on Wednesday, denounced Israel's "Disproportionate use of force and targeted killings" As well as Palestinian militants' firing of rockets into Israel.

Arbour, a former UN War crimes prosecutor, told the forum that international law forbids collective punishment and said Israel should lift all restrictions on aid intended for Gaza.

"All parties concerned should put an end to the vicious spiral of violence before it becomes unstoppable," she warned.

[....]

GENEVA, Switzerland: The UN Human Rights Council on Thursday demanded Israel lift its week-long blockade of Gaza, rebuking the Jewish state for the third time for violations in the Palestinian territories since the forum was set up in 2006.

[....]

Delegations from the United States and Israel, which both have observer status at the Council, boycotted the two-day session, diplomats said.

[....]

Canada was the lone vote against it.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3498351,00.html

Now, I could have sworn I was on the bus, but I truly missed the stop where it made sense that a Canadian civil servant, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Arbour, could stand up and contradict the government just because she feels like it. She was appointed, she can be recalled.

This is simply one more case of extra-legal opinionators making statements based on feel-good and ya-ya. These public fools have a physical effect, and too often that effect is death-- of others. It cannot go on like this without some break in the system. No one must die just because it upsets Ms. Arbour to see them live. Those who live in Canada cannot continue to allow this kind of fundamental outrage to go on in their names. High Commissioner or not, Ms. Arbour is condoning murder of innocent civilians by playing to the gallery. That, dear reader, strikes me as a war crime.

Geert Wilders and the Jooos!

At Jihadwatch earlier today a comment showed up on a post about Geert Wilders' up-coming film. Ya can't make up this kind of stuff:


This guy who made this film is following on Van Gogh's footsteps in making an anti-islamic propaganda film: will he follow his fate, too?

A fact totally ignored by the media all the people who attacked islam in Netherlands are not DUTCH, but jews living in Netherlands.

Why dont just say straight out instead of hiding behind labels.

This is important because the last the time of the cartoons, a whole dutch embassy was burned in Tehran and goods from that country were boycotted by many muslims. This is not fair to the Dutch ,is it?

The dutch are honest, hard working white people, but the some people of jewish origin are obviously corrupting matters there.

But what actually drives people who attack islam so unfairly: it is the publicity they seek? why do they hate islam so much? these are questions i ask myself every day.

People can live so much peacefully without these provocative films in the name of freedom of speech.

But what freedom of peech exists in Europe when no one can talk about matters such as the death of the jewish people in the second world war? This is merely mischief hiding behind slogans.

I can obviously see what will happens after the release of this film: riots and poisoning of relations between europe and islam. I guess this is what the makers of the films are actually seeking.

They know very well these consequences but of course when it actually happens, they will raise thheir eye brows in innocence and claim they DID NOT HAVE ANY IDEA there film will provoke anyone, and move to offer "sincere" apologies.

Posted by: Goldberg at January 29, 2008 1:05 AM


The Muslim poster at 1:05 a.m. above who posts as "Goldberg" --his email address is allynoorj@yahoo.com....


Posted by: Hugh at January 29, 2008 1:31 AM


Never again will I suggest that Hugh is prolix.
****

I'm inserting hot links here. I can't do better than the original poster, but please try to do so to keep me from having to repost things like this.

The links come from the commentator Green Views, below.

In Dutch and English
http://rupeenews.com/2008/01/29/geert-wilders-nv-inaugerating-energie-efficiente-ovens-voor-moslims-de-oudere-nazi-modelleert-niet-milieu-vriendelijk-nieuwe-modellen-hebben-een-afzonderlijk-compartiment-voor-het-verbranden-van-bo/

Read all about it in Dutch and English on http://www.rupeenews.com

In English only
http://rupeenews.com/2008/01/29/geert-wilders-inc-inaugerating-more-energy-efficient-ovens-for-muslims-older-nazi-models-not-environmentally-friendly-new-models-have-a-separate-compartment-for-burning-books-interview-with-herr-r/

What Price Free Speech?

Canada. The question here is of censorship: Is it good or is it bad? The question is for a small minority who even care at all. Most not only don't care about the question, they don't even realize it's being asked seriously in this country in our courts and in our daily practical lives. Most people, if forced to say, will say what they think their friends and neighbors would say, having no real idea at all of the nature of the debate. Such is the nature of democracy. It does truly suck but it's better than any alternative to it.

The following quotation by haliburton Jan 05 2008 5:42 PM, comes from a George Jonas column in the National Post Newspaper.

Dean Steacy is an INTERNET "investigator" for the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Barbara Kulaszka, a lawyer representing a website owner)

MS. KULASZKA: " Mr. Steacy, you were talking before about context and how important it is when you do your investigation. What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate one of these complaints?"

MR. STEACY: "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value."

MS. KULASZKA: "Okay. That was a clear answer."

MR. STEACY: "It's not my job to give value to an American concept."

****

Here's a bit more, by Tristan Emmanual, from World Net Daily:

It's not that Steacy rejects "freedom of speech." He simply doesn't believe in the concept of a pluralistic democracy where people actually have a constitutional guarantee that the government won't be able to silence them just because someone like Steacy says so. And the reason he rejects the concept of democracy is because in his world, and in the world of his cadre of "hate-crusaders," it is only his definitions that matter, not ours.

Crusaders such as Steacy are working to "cleanse" the Internet of critical opinions, ideas, and speech they don't like. And unfortunately for Canadians, they have the authority to assess fines of up to $50,000 and incarcerate would-be "haters."

****

There has to be some record of this dialogue actually taking place, right? I won't just accept someone's word for it, even if it's on the Internet. Should I take Mark Steyn's word for it? No, not just because.. Here is what he writes on January 06, 2008 at NRO Weekend:

At the National Review/Thomas More College event in New Hampshire last night, several NR readers were kind enough to enquire about my prospects of "victory" against Canada's "Human Rights" commissars. I think they're best summed up by this exchange from the Warman vs Lemire hearing before the Canadian Human Rights Commission (page 4793). [pdf] Dean Steacy is the principal "anti-hate" investigator of the HRC....

****

Page 4,793. Just in case you didn't down-load the pdf and didn't read the page in question, you might well wonder who Mark Steyn is and why I would trust his reference. Let's see:

[Steyn is] a vile little piece of work that writes for Maclean's under the name Mark Steyn. Steyn is yet another of the "chickenhawk" crowd - pro war, pro American aggression, and desperately phobic of the "brown-skinned menace" that he predicts will overrun Europe in a few generations. (I won't go into the details of Steyn's bird cage liner book - if you really want to read it, find it in the library or a used book store ... or at the bottom of a parrot cage)

Apparently, Mr. Steyn finds himself subject of a human rights complaint....

****

Oh well. We should all be thankful we have the Canadian Human Rights Commission to save us from ourselves. We are not worthy. They do it for us anyway. How lovely.

Because very few people care about the question of free speech and democracy in general we end up with abuse by neo-fascists from the Left, not different really from neo-fascists from the Right. Some concerns end up in the middle, such as the one below.

Should we enable our determined violent enemies to organize themselves using our technology? We have a lot to think through. We won't make any serious moves til the majority of people are in some kind of agreement about whatever we do. It might take years before the people in general in the West conclude that Islam is a serious danger that must be confronted seriously. We in the meantime can look at what we think about our own positions. This piece is a concerned person's questioning. We can all do so of that to our advantage. Then we'll act in some way.

Geert Wilders' Film Release Date

Comments from JihadWatch tell us that perhaps Geert Wilders' film will be delayed for a few more weeks. Regardless of the release time we will expect the apres cine to be of great viewing interest.

On the topic of movies, Dutch filmmaker Paul Verhoeven took a shot at making a movie based very loosely on Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers. The American version is about people doing good by being in the military, while the Dutch version of the story is one of Humans being worse than invading space bugs. Gotta wonder how the Netherlands ended up where it is today. Verhoeven depicts the bugs as perhaps morally superior to Humans. Just an off-topic thought. Here are a couple of comments from JihadWatch readers on Geert Wilders' new movie upcoming:

All those video trailers, and there are many, are all a bunch of hoaxes.

Geert Wilders did not release any material, no trailers, no previews, nothing. Wilders only declared that the movie will show how fascist the Koran is. Thus if Ayaan Hirsi Ali refers to this as "to provocative" she only can refer to this declaration but not to the movie it self.

Also the release date is still unknown. But Geert Wilders has recently declared that his 15 minute movie is still not finished and that he needs at least three more weeks.

Posted by: Ferdy at January 24, 2008 6:34 AM

Ferdy, Wilders did indeed release the trailer. I've posted it at EuropeNews.

Another 3 weeks to finish it sounds reasonable.

I think Ayaan Hirsi Ali would do well in giving Wilders 'the benefit of doubt' that what he does is meaningful. No need to pass premature judgement on a project she hasn't seen. Funny. She's plenty provocative herself.

Posted by: Henrik at January 24, 2008 6:47 AM

****

See you at the movies.

Drawing upon each other

It might be easy to forget, easier still not ever to think about, forces beyond the walls of Western academies. For the dedicated Leftist who controls our pubic opinion for the most part, spreading the multi-culti mould across the world as if we should all like it and appreciate the efforts of our betters, there is a danger: there is actually another world out there, unexamined, not attended to, dismissed as colorful and exotic and "authentic" but not deserving of critical attention. That other world ignored or not even known of in any genuine sense, is the world outside the walls of the Academies. No, not suburban Kansas. Not exactly so. There is a world of people who work and struggle and live without acknowledgment of their problems in their communities seemingly and simply because their problems cannot be laid at the feet of America or Israel or Globalism. If the West's Left can't find a way to promote its own agenda by leeching from a mass of people they can deem exploited by the Modernist enemy, then those others don't count for the Left. How many Leftists are battling with Hindus against Islam in India? Having settled that, let's move on, as it were.

One man's terrorist, according to the general Left cliche, is another man's freedom-fighter. Well, no. One man who commits acts of terrorism is not a freedom-fighter at all, he is a terrorist. One would assume that to be so obvious and simple that even a Leftard could get it without having to be shown. The thing is, the current Left cares nothing for reality. People? Just a noise. It's not about people or freedom, it's all about being seen to be cool among ones friends. Today, among the Left, it means to be a Jew-hater and an anti-American. Being a Leftist today is a social activity among friends in public. But not everyone is impressed by the coolness of college kids and Muslims. Not impressed? How about, according to Moorthy Muthuswami, 850 million Hindus? Did you forget or did you even ever think about them? Cafe intellectuals in Amsterdam might gripe about American imperialism in the Third World or about islamophobia in the West, but they might take a closer look at people outside the Euro-bubble. Among Hindus, one man's terrorist kills people in crowded marketplaces, and it's not a matter for cool debate between joints and lattes on the patio. No, it's a matter of blood and burning and stabbing people and smashing them with clubs. Hippies can show you pictures and get themselves all excited about it when they tell you that they've read that it's a bad thing and it's the fault of Americans and Jews. OK; but some people are serious, and some of them are 850 million Hindus. Some of them are increasingly pissed off. Some of them are killing Christians. Some of them are fighting for principles most of us would term fascist. Those who don't like what they do will write them off as terrorists. I tend to think of them, so far, as freedom-fighters: India's RSS.
****

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) was founded in 1925 by Keshav Baliram Hedgewar. Until 1928 a member of the Congress with radical nationalist political leanings, Hedgewar had grown increasingly disenchanted with the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi. Hedgewar was particularly critical of Gandhi's emphasis on nonviolence and civil disobedience, which he felt discouraged the forceful political action necessary to gain independence. He established the RSS as an organization that would provide training in martial arts and spiritual matters to rejuvenate the spiritual life of the Hindu community and build its unity.

The RSS was banned in 1948 after Nathuram Godse, a former RSS member, assassinated Mahatma Gandhi.
http://www.indianchild.com/bharatiya_janata_party.htm
****

I just heard another Lefty shriek. One of those people killed Gandhi? Gandhi the icon of the world's Death Hippies? I shrug. Let's look a little more into the Christian-killing, Hindu, fascist RSS.

A bit of Background on the RSS and BJP from: "Former ruling party, Hindu fundamentalists blamed for anti-Christian violence in India," by Peter B Beita, India Correspondent, Christian Today; January 17, 2008.

Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is an Indian nationalist party who led the previous National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government with like-minded parties. It is often described as a political outfit of the Hindu nationalist organization Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). BJP has always received support from Hindu organisations like VHP, Bajrang Dal and others.

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/former.ruling.party.hindu.fundamentalists.blamed.for.antichristian.violence.in.india/16270.htm
****

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh English: National Volunteers' Organisation. Also known as the Sangh or the RSS, is a Hindu nationalist organization in India. It was founded in 1925 by Dr.K.B. Hedgewar. The RSS is active throughout India and abroad as the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh.

They have participated actively in the political process through the Bharatiya Janata Party.

The RSS continues to be viewed as controversial due to its often violent commitment to stop conversions of Hindus and to "organise" Hindu society, and by what some academics and commentators have called its "Fascist" tendencies.

After Mahatma Gandhi's assassination in 1948 by a former member of RSS, Nathuram Godse, there were reports of celebrations by some RSS members by distributing sweets. As a precaution, Gowalkar and some othe RSS members were jailed. The RSS was suspected of involvement in or incitement towards Gandhi's assassination and was banned on February 4, 1948.

The RSS believes all non-Hindus in India should adopt a stance of religious tolerance towards the native religions, or otherwise they should face intolerance in return. This lines up with the RSS's belief that all religions should have the same rights and responsibilities in terms of laws. Regarding non-Hindus in India, Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar, an RSS leader in the past, had also stated (in the 1940s) that:

"The non-Hindu peoples in Hindustan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence the Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but those of glorification of Hindu race and culture, i.e., they must not only give up their attitude intolerance and ungratefulness towards this land and its age-old traditions but must also cultivate the positive attitude of love and devotion instead-in a word they must cease to be foreigners, or may stay in this country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privilege, far less any preferential treatment-not even citizens' rights."

With regards to claims of having an anti-Muslim stance, RSS spokesperson Ram Madhav has stated that such claims are a "distortion of RSS ideology". He asserts that the RSS "believes in the oneness of our culture and the country", and that "any opposition to this view could lead to disintegration as it in fact happened with the Partition. This accent against divisiveness should therefore not be seen as hatred towards any particular religion.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh
****

Moorthy Muthuswami makes some interesting points in The Art of War on Terror, (2007):

"As a matter of survival in a nation where the rule of law is not supreme, India's population has shown a willingness to engage in a "dirty war" with Islamists. In other words, political Islamic thuggery can find its match in the form of India.... In a nutshell, this is about leveraging the collective will of 850 Million cornered Indians to take the war to the jihadists and their sponsoring states." (p. 185.)

Of course, it's far safer to attack Christians than it is to unintentionally insult a Muslim. One can kill Christians by the bushel, but to insult a Muslim means one might actually get hurt for it. Muslims attack Hindus in India? Well, attack some Christians to make it even. Let the Leftists chatter at each other about how it's America that is the great killer in the world today, and yah-yah. But somewhere in there Muthuswami has a point worth thinking about: those 850 million Hindus no one gives much thought to. They are out there, somewhere beyond the walls of Western academies, somewhere out there in the real world.

Geert Wilders and the Politic of Confrontation

Abigail Esman writing at World Defense Review says there is a strong possibility that Geert Wilders' film will show on Friday, Jan.25, 2008. Holland is on High Alert.

What are we to think of this... stunt?

Wilders is making an obviously provocative statement to the Muslim community in the Netherlands, daring them to cause a violent scene. People will die. Is Wilders' within his rights to go forth with this provocation of proven deadly fanatics?

Here in Canada we see people, well-respected and deservedly so, such as Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant facing charges and trials for hate-speech. Those hearings and trials take place within a Star Chamber of utter Left phantasy, but are harmful nonetheless, not only to those directly involved as defendants but those of us who reside in this nut-house nation. Levant is pressed by Muslims and Leftists who object o him republishing the Danish Cartoons. Steyn is up against the wall for quoting Mullah Krekar, a well-known jihadi residing in Norway. They did nothing like what Wilders is planning. Here Wilders would very likely end up in prison for what he's planning. Too bad for those who live in Canada. But what about those who live in the Netherlands? Will some of them be killed over this? Does Wilders have a right to put their lives on the line?

In his "politic of confrontation" Wilders has made it plain that one must now, no choice in it, put up or shut up. Wilders is spitting in the faces of Muslims everywhere, but he is directly pitting in the faces of the jihadis in the Netherlands. Even if they wanted to, the jihadis in the Netherlands can't back down now. They'd lose face beyond any recovery. So here it comes, presuming the film is shown at all. The Dutch now have no choice but to see the nature of "offended" Muslims. There can't be any pretending that Muslims are rioting over economic conditions or racism or the American invasion of Iraq or because of the Zionist conspiracy to make Muslims miserable. It will be clear for all to see and for none to ignore that Muslims riot, if they do, strictly because they are primitives. And in the Netherlands they are many. Wilders is making impossible the nation's so-far determined refusal to acknowledge and confront the plain.

If Wilders' film is shown in public, people will die as a result of Muslim posturing. Wilders knows it, I know it, you likely know it too. Does Wilders have the right to do this?

I think it will take this and more than this to shake the Europeans out of their cowardice. I think it will take much more than Wilders' current provocation. I think that if Wilders is martyred in some way he must be replaced by another willing to be martyred too. If this goes through, then the world will change for all of us, and for the better, in my opinion. Let the Muslims do as they must. Then we will deal with ourselves as we must too. This is like a Greek tragedy unfolding before our eyes. Will it deus ex machina turn into comedy? Stay tuned.

Bravo, Geert Wilders

" 'It is difficult to anticipate the content of the film, but freedom of expression doesn't mean the right to offend,' said Maxime Verhagen, the Netherlands Foreign Minister."
http://poligazette.com/2008/01/21/anti-islam-movie-cause-for-great-concern/

A marginal Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, is close to releasing for the world's viewing a ten minute movie about the Qur'an. So what.

"During a visit to the European Parliament in Strasbourg last week, Ahmad Badr al-Din Hassoun, the Grand Mufti of Syria, said that, were Wilders was seen to tear up or burn a Koran in his film, 'this will simply mean he is inciting wars and bloodshed ... It is the responsibility of the Dutch people to stop him.' "
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2243805,00.html

Well, how about 'what' being that the Grand Mufti of Syria is making death threats in the statement above? He's free to threaten the Western world, and we're free to ignore him. However, it'll be damned hard to ignore dead bodies and burning buildings and whatever else Muslims have in store if Wilders' film hits the aether. So whadda ya do? Do you stop Wilder's from provoking the collective insanity that is the Muslim ummah? Where do you stop? Do you ever stop? Will we in the world at large be forced to become Muslims ourselves from fear of risk of offense to Muslims if our very kuffar nature offends them? We've already allowed ourselves to be placed unwittingly in a state of high dhimmitude by our politicians and intelligentsia. Many of our fellow citizens through natural conformity to the prevailing norms of sociable conduct perpetuate the dhimmitude. So, where does it end? Does it end?

There is a rush recently to silence anyone who criticizes Islam, notably in the case of Ezra Levant, Maclean's Magazine, Mark Steyn, and many more, including the Dutch politician Aayan Hirsi Ali, co-maker of the Dutch film Submission, the showing of which got Theo Van Gogh killed by a Muslim. Now Wilders is on the verge of showing a film of his own, one the Mulsims are already protesting, one the Grand Muffy of Syria is threatening violence over.

What do the Dutch say? Here's a fine piece of analysis from the national broadcasting corporation:

Wilders and the Dutch image

Dutch woman in Bahrain fears film's repercussions

By Conny van den Bor*

22-01-2008

It has been bothering Marjo Rashid-Stals for weeks. It has been giving her stomach aches. And now that Geert Wilders' anti-Qu'ran film is about to come out she's had enough.

So she has written a letter to the Dutch government pointing out that as a Dutch citizen in Bahrain she is afraid of the repercussions the film could have for her. She is also afraid of the Netherlands' image. This is part of the letter she has written to the Dutch government:

"I'm deeply ashamed. Will I soon have to apologise for an entire country?

.
..my heart fills with fear when I think of what will happen after the release of Geert Wilders' film. What will happen with the so-called dialogue between the West and the East? What will become of our image in the Islamic world?"

Marjo feels powerless. She has been living with Arab people for years.

How should I react towards people who feel insulted by Wilders' film? How can I defend myself if I am deeply ashamed? I can only offer my excuses and attempt to explain that not all Dutch people are like Wilders. But should I have to apologise for an entire country?"

"Is there anyone left who still believes in something? I beg the government to do something before it is too late."
http://www.radionetherlands.nl/thestatewerein/otherstates/080122-wilders-dutch-image

The whole piece is sentimental, a phoniness permeating its every line; and it is a call to cowardice and self-pity. The official narrator chides the reader for not doing enough to stop Wilders from being a bad person. That's the official Dutch line. If this, dear reader, is what you want from life, to be forever treated by your government like a kindergaartener, then do nothing while the government slowly but silently smothers you in blankets that will keep you immobile till the end. It is a velvet fascism. It is a fascism nonetheless. If you don't resist it, you will become enveloped in it. You might not like it.

Free speech doesn't give one the right to offend anyone. Friend, what do you make of a government that comes up with a position like that?

There is certainly a lot of free speeech going on in the Arab world, at least concerning Geert Wilders: [T]he populist MP can claim 66,000 hits on the Arabic-language version of Google, most of them concerning his controversial statements about Muslims and the Qu'ran.
http://www.expatica.com/nl/articles/news/RNW-Press-Review-_-Tuesday-22-January-2008.html

Me? I'm going to watch some video.

Sort of like Velvet Fascism

Here's a book I'm looking forward to reading, it being right along the lines of the main thrusts of this blog:

Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning (Hardcover)
by Jonah Goldberg.

Amazon books leads off with this:

Liberal Fascism offers a startling new perspective on the theories and practices that define fascist politics. Replacing conveniently manufactured myths with surprising and enlightening research, Jonah Goldberg reminds us that the original fascists were really on the left, and that liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler's National Socialism and Mussolini's Fascism.

Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term "National socialism"). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.

Do these striking parallels mean that today's liberals are genocidal maniacs, intent on conquering the world and imposing a new racial order? Not at all. Yet it is hard to deny that modern progressivism and classical fascism shared the same intellectual roots. We often forget, for example, that Mussolini and Hitler had many admirers in the United States. W.E.B. Du Bois was inspired by Hitler's Germany, and Irving Berlin praised Mussolini in song. Many fascist tenets were espoused by American progressives like John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson, and FDR incorporated fascist policies in the New Deal.

Fascism was an international movement that appeared in different forms in different countries, depending on the vagaries of national culture and temperament. In Germany, fascism appeared as genocidal racist nationalism. In America, it took a "friendlier," more liberal form. The modern heirs of this "friendly fascist" tradition include the New York Times, the Democratic Party, the Ivy League professoriate, and the liberals of Hollywood. The quintessential Liberal Fascist isn't an SS storm trooper; it is a female grade school teacher with an education degree from Brown or Swarthmore.

These assertions may sound strange to modern ears, but that is because we have forgotten what fascism is. In this angry, funny, smart, contentious book, Jonah Goldberg turns our preconceptions inside out and shows us the true meaning of Liberal Fascism.
http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841

Then we find a whole lot of reviews: ( 80 customer reviews) . The book gets 37 five star ratings and 24 one star ratings out of 80.

This, By David McCune "self-deprecating and proud of it" , sums it up pretty well: It was inevitable that the review section for Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" would degenerate into the Mother of all Flame Wars. The advance dislike for this book simmered for months, and now the floodgates for negative reviews are open. I'd advise all potential readers of this book to bear in mind how few of the negative reviews appear to reflect a reading of the book.

Or maybe one would feel more attuned to Frank:

By	Frank Tanner

This book is poorly written, idiotic, and will only convince the most extreme right-wing person who already has a persecution complex. It's as crazy and irresponsible as all the talk about the liberal media at a moment when cartoonish right-wingers like Bill O'Reilly and Pat Buchanan can get lucrative gigs as pundits despite spewing hateful views and misinformation. What really makes me mad is that when I was searching for an exercise video that the amazon search engine could not find, they asked me if I wanted to buy this book or the new Tom Cruise bio instead. Why is Amazon promoting this extreme right-wing book in this way and why would they think anyone with a brain would want to buy it? I read it afterwards and was stunned by what a horrible writer, weak thinker, and sad propagandist this author is.
****

So long as the likes of Warren Kinsella and Sid Ryan don't prevent me I look forward to reading this book. The one is a self-confessed censor, the latter a Muslim terrorist panderer. With people like them leading our intelligentsia I just might have lots of time in jail to catch up on my reading. Maybe I'll see you there. No doubt we'll receive counseling between veggie burger meals and Vanessa Redgrave hate-videos. Oh Canada.