The Closed Minds of Today's Intellectuals

Political Correctness, the certified truth rooted in the abomination of Cultural Marxism.

What are today's intellectuals under those spell one can ask one self, PC Fascism would be a fitting description.

By David Warren, Real Clear Politics.

Over the last fortnight I have been writing much about threats to freedom of speech and press in Canada, without mentioning the rest of the world. "Human rights" commissions or the like -- kangaroo courts and star chambers designed to silence the politically incorrect, without any of the inherited checks of a legitimate legal system -- are hardly restricted to Canada. More broadly, the witch-hunting spirit of "political correctness" is at large in university campuses across the western world; is sympathetically received in news and entertainment media; and has become an intrinsic part of the "progressive" ideology of bureaucratic elites in every western country, including the good old U.S.A.

This is a huge issue that can only be discussed in one tiny aspect at a time, but must be discussed, increasingly, under the noses of the commissars, and in spite of their heavy breathing.

The components of political correctness -- radical feminism, the gay agenda, multiculturalism and collective rights, extreme environmentalism, health fascism, Darwinist scientism and materialism, and lately and most incongruously, Islamism -- do not constitute a coherent worldview. Each agenda contradicts each other. The various interests are however united, not by what they affirm, but by what they deny or oppose, and are dedicated to destroying. Their common enemy is the Christian heritage of the West, or what is often called the "Judaeo-Christian tradition."

I was quite struck, this last week, by one tiny aspect of this issue on display in Rome. Pope Benedict was invited to speak at a commencement of La Sapienza -- the famous science university, founded by Pope Boniface VIII in 1303. He had chosen to speak on the actual (as opposed to mythic) history of the case of Galileo. This was enough to inspire large demonstrations, organized by the left, at the university and elsewhere. The Pope cancelled his appearance, after it became clear that his address would be interrupted by mobs of students and professors acting like howler monkeys.

A sensible move: for the Pope is now publishing the text of his address, and everyone still capable of reading with attention may do so in the quiet of his home. Moreover, thanks to the negative publicity, more people will now read it.

On contemporary censorship generally, I was further struck by one remark, quoted in a Reuters dispatch on the event:

"I think the Pope's visit is not a good thing because science doesn't need religion. The university is open to every form of thought but religion isn't," said Andrea Sterbini, a computer-science professor who was one of 67 academic signatories of a document protesting the pope's visit.

In those two sentences my reader may see exposed the grounding assumption of every politically correct proposition in the postmodern, so-called liberal mind. The speaker assumes there is an official "open-minded" position that must be protected by law or force. He then insists on banning any deviation from this official "open-minded" position.

George Orwell made it his life's work to expound the way in which the plain meaning of any English word could be inverted in minds contaminated by ideology. The "open mind" becomes indistinguishable from the closed one. "Human rights" means the withdrawal of the inherited rights of each individual human being. The need for "diversity" means the suppression of variety. "Tolerance" means intolerance of dissent. "Peace" means war. "Freedom" means slavery. Ignorance is strength.

I was finally struck by a remark made by Frank Furedi, author of Politics of Fear, Therapy Culture, and assorted other books with nice titles. In the middle of a gallant defence of the Pope's right to speak, he dropped this, probably unconsidered, line:

"Historically, science emerged through a struggle with religious dogma."

This statement is not merely untrue, it is the opposite of the truth, and I believe that any intelligent and literate person with a genuinely open mind and the patience to study history will discover that it is the opposite of the truth. Moreover, the question is extremely important, to science as well as to religion, because science lapses into scientism when it makes claims for itself that cannot be sustained.

As the pope was going to say before he was so rudely interrupted, a key to understanding the modern relationship between science and religion comes from studying the case of Galileo calmly, and then beginning to comprehend its background in a world where modern science had already been growing, for several centuries, under the direct patronage of the Roman Catholic Church.

Kosovo: "The Repetition of History"

We are repeating history as we speak, it is all around us and it is only the eyes which refuse to see, the rising of the 21rst century's 'Nazism' in disguise of Political Correctness with it's thought crime policing certified truth prevents us to deal with the reality and the resulting horrors which are the more sinister constructs of the Political Correctness dogma.

Mr Karakostas illustrates how we are repeating history from a Greek Orthodox point of view and with an eye-opening insight into the former historical consequences and conflicts in the Balkans and Asia Minor.

by Theodore G. Karakostas in Gates Of Vienna.

In November 1979, Iranian militants seized the American embassy and took hostages for 444 days. Throughout the 1980’s, the Iranians launched a variety of attacks on American targets (as in Lebanon) and sponsored terrorism. During the 1990’s Al Qaeda attacked the United States in Somalia, Saudi Arabia, and bombed the American embassies in Africa. On September 11, 2001, Al Qaeda attacked the United States on its own soil.

The reaction of the United States has been to destroy Yugoslavia. Osama Bin Laden, Ayman Al Zawahri, and Al Qaeda remain at large. Al Qaeda in fact, according to Youssef Bodansky, terrorism expert and biographer of Osama Bin Laden established bases in Kosovo and Bosnia. In 2006, Muslims from Kosovo were implicated in the plot to bomb Fort Dix in New Jersey. The reaction of the United States is to ignore the very spirit of the alleged war on terror and to approve the establishment of a terrorist Islamic State in the Balkans at the expense of the Serbs who were allies of the United States in both World Wars.

When did the United States become the Islamic Republic of America? My own idea is that the United States drifted toward pro-Islamic sympathies when it became involved with the Turkish nationalists between 1919 and 1922. Today, many of the Western backers of independence for Kosovo were also those States who armed and supported Mustafa Kemal and the Turkish nationalists in Asia Minor. Italy, France, and Great Britain have extended immediate recognition to Kosovo.

In 1919, the Italians were the first European power to arm Mustafa Kemal in Asia Minor. According to Marjorie Housepian Dobkin in her brilliantly researched “Smyrna 1922 the Destruction of a City” the Greek Army might have destroyed Mustafa Kemal’s Army had it not been for the intervention of the Italians and the British who according to Dobkin, rescued Kemal from destruction. The connection between the betrayal of the Greek cause in Asia Minor, and the betrayal of the Serbs today reflects the continuing evolution of Western policy which is in effect pro-Islamic.

The Greek-Serbian alliance in the Balkan Wars drove the Ottoman Empire out of the Balkans. These achievements are being systematically undermined today. Kosovo was liberated during the Balkan Wars, and now the change of borders there challenges the outcome for Greek achievements as well. The Ottomans who were defeated by the Greeks and the Serbs get the last laugh! The Ottomanization of the Balkans is under way.

Turkey’s recognition of Kosovo was to be expected. The Turks are reestablishing links with their former Muslim subjects and expanding their influence in the region at the expense of Greece and Serbia. In 1922, in the aftermath of the Genocide and mass slaughter of Greeks at the City of Smyrna, the Greeks wanted to make a last stand in Eastern Thrace, and pondered the possibility of entering Constantinople. The Greeks were told in no uncertain terms by the three European Powers that if they entered Constantinople, they would not be permitted to remain there. Ultimately, over 1,000,000 Greek Orthodox Christians were ethnically cleansed from Asia Minor with the full cooperation of the Americans and the three European Powers.

During the 1990’s, the Serbs were ethnically cleansed from Krajinna by the Nazi armies of Croatia and from Bosnia. They have also been ethnically cleansed from Kosovo since 1999 with their Churches and Monasteries being destroyed. In both Asia Minor and Yugoslavia, the Western powers were present when the Christians were slaughtered by the Muslims. Today, NATO and the European Union talk of protecting the rights of Serbs in Kosovo, and of maintaining “peacekeepers” even while Serbs have been lynched, murdered, beaten, and terrorized into leaving under the auspices of the “peacekeepers”.

During the fall of 2007, a resolution in the House of Representatives was introduced which would have recognized the Armenian Genocide. The Bush administration lobbied against it, and intimidated many of the Democrats who supported it, into withdrawing their support. The extermination of a Christian people by an Islamic government was not recognized in order to placate the Islamic successors of the Genocidal regime! One would think that Islamists were dictating American policies.

Over two million Christians in the Sudan have been slaughtered by the Islamists. The Coptic Christians of Egypt have suffered relentless discrimination and persecution by Islamic extremists. Saudi Arabia prohibits the practice of Christianity. While Monasteries in Kosovo are being destroyed, the Saudis are subsidizing the construction of Mosques in Kosovo, which fly the Saudi flag. In the struggle between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, the West is backing the Muslims.

Then there are the benefits of European multiculturalism. The European Constitution does not mention Christianity (a fact which outraged the Orthodox Church of Greece). Various feminists in the European Parliament have suggested that the Monastic Republic of Mount Athos should be compelled to lift its prohibition on the entry of women onto its hallowed grounds. This Orthodox Monastic community established on the Holy Mountain of Athos which is dedicated to the Theotokos (Mother of God) does not allow women in order to specifically honor the Theotokos. The Orthodox Church of Greece has bitterly resisted the attempts by the European Union to undermine Greek traditions and to impose secularism on Greek society.

Contrast these radical anti-Christian stances with the recent statement of the Archbishop of Canterbury who suggested that Sharia law should be allowed to coexist with Civil laws in Great Britain. It is not ironic that the capitals of Europe are being thoroughly Islamicized, or that they are being held hostages (the riots in France 2005) by extremists, considering the extent to which Eastern Christians have been sacrificed throughout the twentieth century. Gone are the days of the Austro-Hungarian Empire which saved Europe from the Ottoman Empire in 1539 and 1683.

A Rock Concert in Croatia recently received a great deal of publicity because the band in question proceeded to give the Nazi salute. The wars that were waged against the Serbs during the 1990’s were waged by a government of Nazi sympathizers on the one hand, and two Islamic governments in league with Al Qaeda on the other. The 800,000 Serbs that were slaughtered by the pro-Nazi Croats and Muslims during the Second World War were entirely ignored by western media.

The Republic of Cyprus is another Christian country struggling to survive. Over 500 Greek Orthodox Churches have been destroyed or converted into Mosques. From Cyprus to Kosovo, Christianity is being eradicated and the destroyers in both cases are being embraced by Europe and the United States. The Greek Orthodox in Constantinople are on the verge of extinction. The betrayal of the Greek Christians of Constantinople since the 1940’s represents another heartbreaking tragedy in the history of the Orthodox Church during the twentieth century.

Turkey today is notoriously anti-American. Islamic fundamentalism is faring quite well despite the assurance of American and European officials that Turkey is a “secular, democratic” country. Ordinary Turks have become enraged by American policies toward Iraq and the Palestinians out of Islamic solidarity, but Ankara’s public relations people have successfully convinced many Americans that Turkish-American relations were fine until Nancy Pelosi introduced the Armenian Genocide Resolution in Congress. When the Iraq war was launched in 2003, Turks cursed the United States for attacking a Muslim country long before the Armenian Genocide Resolution was introduced.

Western sacrifices of Christians preceded the pro-Turkish policies undertaken between 1919 and 1922. During the nineteenth century, Tsarist Russia took up the cause of the Christians of the Ottoman Empire. In 1853, Great Britain and France occupied Greece to prevent Athens from aligning with Moscow in the Crimean War. In 1878, the Russians had Constantinople in their sights, but the Ottomans were protected by London and Paris.

During the 1870’s, the slaughter of the Bulgarians by the Ottoman Turks was widely publicized. As the nineteenth century concluded, the Armenians, Assyrians, and Asia Minor Greeks came under extreme persecution by the Ottomans. International conferences were convened by the three great powers of Great Britain, France, and Russia. Only the Russians were interested in protecting the Christians, as in Kosovo today. The strategic interest in the Ottoman Empire by London and Paris prevented the Russians from interfering.

This essay is a response to the events being undertaken in Kosovo and the Balkans today. It is extremely difficult to believe that in the age of Al Qaeda, the Great Powers maintain an irrational hatred of the Serbs and the Russians. The essay began by noting the various terrorist attacks on the United States. The Serbs have done nothing to the United States or the Europeans, and have found themselves being mercilessly deprived of their ancestral homelands and holy places.

The Western governments have chosen to restore the heritage of the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans. Several years ago, then Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz praised Turkey for its treatment of minorities! In 1204, the Knights of the Fourth Crusade destroyed Constantinople and opened the door for the Ottomans. What the Crusaders did physically to the Christian East, the Western powers are doing intellectually by suppressing and rewriting the history of the Christian East.

During the Seventh Century, the Emperor Constantine V of Constantinople successfully defended his Capital from the onslaught of Muslim invaders. He successfully defended the West as well as his own Empire. During the tenth century, Emperor Nikephoras Phokas took the offensive against the Arabs after three hundred and thirty years of being on the defensive and liberated most of Syria! In 1453, Emperor Constantinos Palaiologos died in battle defending his City against the Ottomans.

How tragic that the legacy of Christian Byzantium whose Emperors took up the fight against the forerunners of Osama Bin Laden has been cast aside as the model for the Balkans in favor of the Ottoman Turks who were the perpetrators of terrorism and Genocide. This is exactly what the sacrifice of Orthodox Serbia represents. In our own day, the Russians again represent the aspirations of Orthodox Christians, and it is to be hoped they will help save Kosovo and the Balkans.

Kosovo: Rewarding Islamic Separatists Will Haunt the West

The acceptance of a muslims state ridden with terrorism and wahhabist propaganda, mosque buildings and terror funding will effectively give the islamic supremacists an insurgency base with political influence in the EU.

===

By David Warren from Real Clear Politics.

Readers with exceptionally tenacious memories will recall that this pundit was opposed to the NATO intervention in Kosovo nine years ago. This may come as a surprise to readers without tenacious memories, since it is widely believed that I never saw a war I didn't like. Yet, believe it or not, I was opposed not only to the wanton bombing of Serbia, but also to the whole "inevitable" project of carving a new European Muslim state out of the flesh of that Orthodox Christian country.

I was not without sympathy for the "plight of the Kosovars," however. Like virtually all journalists at that time, not of Serbian ethnicity, I fell for a great deal of typically Balkan propagandist rubbish that has since been quietly withdrawn.

My rule of thumb, on wars, is to fight them with your enemies, when absolutely necessary; but never with your friends, and in particular, never in order to create new enemies. True, as we all know from personal experience, sometimes your friends are more irritating than your enemies, and the temptation to bomb them is always there. It is a temptation that must be resisted, however.

This temptation was surely in play with the Serbians, under the late Slobodan Milosevic, who seemed determined to inspire loathing and distrust, and suspicion that he was doing in Kosovo precisely what his nationalist allies had done in Bosnia: "ethnic cleansing," also known as the massacre of innocents. Although not nearly as monstrous as, say, Saddam Hussein, nor anything like Saddam's threat to the West, Milosevic missed as many opportunities to come clean with his diplomatic interrogators. The Serbs, who allowed this vicious old Communist, turned nationalist demagogue, to remain in power, showed very poor judgment.

But the fact that Kosovo had a significant ethnic majority of Albanian Muslims over Serbian Christians was not, in itself, sufficient argument to detach it from Serbia by main force. For if that is the argument, the state system which provides the only order the planet currently enjoys will tend to disintegrate.

Strange to say, I am with Vladimir Putin on this one, and against George W. Bush. Mr. Putin's remarks on the inspiration that Kosovo's independence has given to violent separatists in Chechnya, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and elsewhere, are entirely to the point.

Indeed, driving the Serbian government and Serbian people into the protective embrace of ex-Soviet Russia, and ultimately her ex-KGB strongman, was among several counter-productive dimensions in the war that Madeleine Albright organized, along with other ruinous Clinton interventions in areas of peripheral interest to the U.S. (Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia).

The NATO action in Kosovo brought Mr. Putin -- the hammer of the Chechens -- to power, by demonstrating that force and force alone will decide secession struggles, East or West. It restored anti-Americanism to its place in the Russian national security consensus, indirectly bringing an end to the Yeltsin reform era.

It was an incredibly stupid war to wage, and the product was on display in Brussels yesterday where the Russian ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogovin, actually threatened the use of force to prevent Kosovo's declaration of independence from going any farther.

President Bush, who was prompted to recognize the self-declared Kosovar state (together with most European powers), feels obliged to accept the fait accompli he inherited from the preceding administration. He, or his successor, will then try to resist the next stage of demands, for a Greater Albania in which Kosovo attempts to merge with Albania, and the Muslim majorities in adjoining districts of Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, and Greece begin insurrections to join them. By recognizing Kosovo, Bush et al. have validated exactly that: a deadly new round of Balkan troubles, ripe for Islamicization.

We cannot afford to validate the principle of armed insurrection, whether in Kosovo or Chechnya or Palestine or Kashmir or northern Sri Lanka or southern Thailand or the southern Philippines or in any of the many other places where terrorism demands to be rewarded with an independent state. And, within Europe, a coupleof thousand EU policemen (about to be installed without United Nations cover, and in defiance of agreements with Serbia) cannot guarantee order in a territory that is already a European refuge for radical Islamist cells, and threatens to become Europe's terrorist safe house.

There is a deeper history here, for the understanding of which we would have to review the rest of the legacy of Ottoman imperialism in the Balkans. But that is, alas, something the Serbs understand a lot better than we do.

Political Correctness - The Tyrannical Evil

Political Correctness - The thing I loathe the most, it feels like an insult to your own intellect and moral compass.

Fight it, reject it, refuse it, break it down.

Political Correctness
by Philip Atkinson

^{What Is Political Correctness?}
Political Correctness (PC) is the communal tyranny that erupted in the 1980s. It was a spontaneous declaration that particular ideas, expressions and behaviour, which were then legal, should be forbidden by law, and people who transgressed should be punished. (see Newspeak) It started with a few voices but grew in popularity until it became unwritten and written law within the community. With those who were publicly declared as being not politically correct becoming the object of persecution by the mob, if not prosecution by the state.

^{The Odious Nature Of Political Correctness}
To attempt to point out the odious nature of Political Correctness is to restate the crucial importance of plain speaking, freedom of choice and freedom of speech; these are the community's safe-guards against the imposition of tyranny, indeed their absence is tyranny (see "On Liberty", Chapter II, by J.S. Mill). Which is why any such restrictions on expression such as those invoked by the laws of libel, slander and public decency, are grave matters to be decided by common law methodology; not by the dictates of the mob.

^{Clear Inspiration For Political Correctness}
The declared rational of this tyranny is to prevent people being offended; to compel everyone to avoid using words or behaviour that may upset homosexuals, women, non-whites, the crippled, the stupid, the fat or the ugly. This reveals not only its absurdity but its inspiration. The set of values that are detested are those held by the previous generation (those who fought the Second World War), which is why the terms niggers, coons, dagos, wogs, poofs, spastics and sheilas, have become heresy, for, in an act of infantile rebellion, their subject have become revered by the new generation. Political Correctness is merely the resentment of spoilt children directed against their parent's values.

^{The Origins Of Political Correctness}
A community declines when the majority of its citizens become selfish, and under this influence it slowly dismantles all the restraints upon self-indulgence established by manners, customs, beliefs and law: tradition. (See the law of reverse civilization) As each subsequent generation of selfish citizens inherits control of the community, it takes its opportunity to abandon more of the irksome restraints that genius and wisdom had installed. The proponents of this social demolition achieve their irrational purpose by publicly embracing absurdity through slogans while vilifying any who do not support their stance. The purpose of the slogan is to enshrine irrational fears, or fancies, as truth through the use of presumptuous words, so public pronouncement:

• Dissembles the real nature of the claim
• Identifies any dissenters as enemies of the truth
• Acts as an excuse for any crimes committed in its name

For example the slogan Australia is Multicultural is a claim that:

• Different cultures are compatible.
• People who contradict this claim are blinded by prejudice against other cultures.
• People who contradict this claim are trouble-making bigots, which makes them enemies of the community, if not humanity, and deserving persecution.

All of which is an attack upon truth, clear thinking and plain speaking.

^{From Bourgeois To Racist}
Naturally as the restraints shrink the rebellion grows ever more extreme in nature. When the author of Animal Farm wrote an article in 1946 about the pleasures of a rose garden, he was criticised for being bourgeois. George Orwell mentions this in his essay A Good Word For The Vicar Of Bray, published in the Tribune, 1946. The term bourgeois was then a popular slogan meaning having humdrum middle class ideas— The Oxford English Dictionary 3^rd Edition, 1938 — which is just a blatant attack upon tradition.

^{Outright Assault Upon Tradition}
Now, in the late 1990s, the results of being bourgeois (retaining traditional notions), is being labelled racist, sexist etc. and risk losing your job, your reputation, being jostled in the street, being subject to judicial penalty and death threats. And it is this very extremity of reaction that has won media attention and the name Political Correctness, though the reaction will become even more unpleasant with the next generation.

^{Parental Values Always Attacked}
The inevitable scapegoat for people impatient of restraint must always be parents, because these are society's agents for teaching private restraint. So the cherished notions of the parents are always subject to attack by their maturing offspring. This resentment of tradition was observed in his own civilization by Polybius (c. 200-118 BC), the Greek historian, who said:

"For every democracy which has enjoyed prosperity for a considerable period first develops through its nature an attitude of discontent towards the existing order,.."

^{Tyranny Grows}
Once a community embraces tyranny the penalties can only grow in severity. This gradual increase is easily seen by the example of Toastmasters. As the members of the club became more concerned about the delights of socializing and less concerned about the disciplines of public speaking, they became more intolerant of citizens who were earnest about learning the art of rhetoric. Once those members who did their duty by truthfully pointing out the shortcomings in another member's performance were just labeled as negative or discouraging; later this became a risk of being socially ostracized. Now (since 1998) unpopularity can result in being permanently ejected from the club by a majority vote.

^{Australian Experience Of PC Tyranny}
In my country the tyranny erupted with the persecution of public figures such as Arthur Tunstall for uttering truths that had become unpopular, either directly in a speech, or indirectly by telling jokes. The maiden speech of the Federal Member of Parliament for Ipswich contained so many disliked truths that the rabble escalated the ferocity of their attack and extended them to her supporters, introducing terror into Australian politics. Anyone who watched the TV coverage (1997/8) of Pauline Hanson's political campaign will have seen the nature of her opponents; a throng who looked and behaved more like barbarians than citizens of a civilized community. And any mob that chants "Burn the witch" (when she spoke outside an Ipswich hall after she had been refused entry) leaves no doubt as to their intent or character.

^{Widespread Throughout The Community}
Revealing the extent of the mob's support, their sentiments (suitably refined) were enthusiastically echoed by the media and the administration. And in an unprecedented act of cooperation, all the political parties conspired to eject Ms Hanson from the federal parliament in the election of October 3rd 1998. This was revealed by the how-to-vote cards of the parties contesting the seat of Blaire, which all placed Ms Hanson last. This was a public admission by both the major parties that they would rather risk losing the election than allow this forthright woman to keep her seat in parliament.

^{International Experience Of PC Tyranny}
And it is not just in Australia but in every western democratic country popular demands have been made for restrictions on expression. Bowing to the clamour of the electorate, politicians in these countries have enacted absurd laws. The Australian community wide declaration of irrational hatred displayed by the persecution of Pauline Hanson, paralleled the Canadian experience of Paul Fromm, director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc., and the examples of the national soccer coach of England and a prominent public servant in Washington, USA confirm that the hysteria is everywhere.

^{The Inevitable Result Of Political Correctness}
By using the excuse of not upsetting anyone, the politically correct are demanding that people behave like the fool who would please everyone; that everyone must become such a fool! All must accept the notions of the Politically Correct as truth, or else! This is the same mentality that inspired the Inquisition and forced Galileo to recant; the same mentality that inspired the Nazis and obtained the Holocaust. Once expression gets placed in a straitjacket of official truth, then the madness that occurs in all totalitarian states is obtained. Life, in private and public, becomes a meaningless charade where delusion thrives and terror rules.

^{Examples Of Denying Freedom Of Speech}
Evidence of this effect is amply demonstrated by the Soviets, who embraced Political Correctness with the Communist Revolution. The lumbering, pompous, impoverished, humourless monster this Nation became is now History. And it should be remembered that in 1914 Tsarist Russia was considered by Edmund Cars, a French economist who then published a book about the subject, to be an economic giant set to overshadow Europe. The SBS television program "What Ever Happened To Russia", which was broadcast at 8.30 pm on 25th August 1994, detailed the terrible effect the Bolshevik's oppression had on their empire. And SBS further detailed the terrible crimes inflicted upon the Russians by their leader Stalin, in the series "Blood On The Snow" broadcast in March 1999.

^{An Old Witness}
Helen, a member of Parramatta writers club in 1992, was a citizen of Kiev during the Red Terror, and described living with official truth and the constant threat of arrest. Knowing the content of the latest party newspaper was critical to avoiding internment, as public contradiction, either directly or indirectly, meant denouncement to the KGB. If you complained about being hungry when food shortages were not officially recognized, then you became an enemy of the state. If you failed to praise a Soviet hero, or praised an ex-hero, then again your fate was sealed. The need to be politically correct dominated all conversation and behaviour, as failure meant drastic penalty. Uncertainty and fear pervaded everything, nobody could be sure that an official request to visit Party headquarters meant imprisonment, torture, death, public reward or nothing important.

Living with such a terrible handicap naturally destroyed all spontaneity of thought or action, rendering the whole community mad. The awful effect this had upon Helen's sanity was made clear when she escaped to Australia. Here she encountered the free press, which had an unpleasant impact upon her. One day she read The Australian newspaper which happened to carry two separate articles about Patrick White, one praising, the other denigrating, this well known writer. Poor Helen found herself turning from one to the other, which was she to repeat as correct? She nearly had a nervous breakdown.

^{Political Correctness Is Social Dementia}
Unless plain speaking is allowed, clear thinking is denied. There can be no good reason for denying freedom of expression, there is no case to rebut, only the empty slogans of people inspired by selfishness and unrestrained by morality. The proponents of this nonsense neither understand the implications of what they say, nor why they are saying it: they are insane.

^{Social Decline Grows Worse With Each Generation}
Political Correctness is part of the social decline that generation by generation makes public behaviour less restrained and less rational.

Declaration Against Genocide

An initiative from the 'Terrorism Awareness Project'.

The truth is all around us and still we refuse to see - Sign the declaration against genocide.

Declaration Against Genocide

Whereas genocide – the murder, or plan to murder, an entire people – is a crime against all humanity;

Whereas genocide is a crime that has metastasized in the modern era, leading to the murders of millions of Armenians, Cambodians, Tutsis, Sudanese, Bosnian Muslims and others;

Whereas the largest and most devastating genocide on record is the Holocaust of European Jews;

Whereas a new genocide of the Jews is being called for by Islamic leaders in the Middle East;

Whereas global forces are being mobilized by the Iranian regime to eliminate the Jewish state;

Whereas the genocide of the Jews is called for in texts understood by some Muslims as authoritative and echoes through sermons in some mosques today, and is proclaimed by certain leaders of the Islamic religion;

Whereas Catholicism and other Christian denominations have condemned the Holocaust and repudiated anti-Jewish pronouncements that have stained their religious past;

We call on all Student Governments and campus Muslim groups to:

1. Condemn and repudiate the Hadith which reads: "The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time [of judgment] will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!" Sahih Muslim book 41, no. 6985
2. Condemn and repudiate the Hamas Charter which says: “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it”
3. Condemn Ahmadinejad who has said “The accomplishment of a world without America and Israel is both possible and feasible."
4. Condemn Hezbollah and its leader Hassan Nasrallah who has said:

   "The Jews are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment."

   "There is no solution to the conflict except with the disappearance of Israel."

   “If they all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.”

5. Affirm:
   • The right of all people to live in freedom and dignity
   • The freedom of the individual conscience: to change religions or have no religion at all
   • The equal dignity of women and men
   • The right of all people to live free from violence, intimidation, and coercion

We call upon all campus political, cultural, ethnic and religious groups to stand with us in opposing all forms of religious supremacism, violence and intimidation.

Bishop of Rochester reasserts 'no-go' claim

I find it ironic but also revealing that the Bishop of Rochester is of Pakistani origin and the Bishop of Canterbury is a Native Brit - This clearly illustrates that ideology, ethics, positive morality and values are in sharp contrast and superior to the arguments of multiculturalism which is the reason for the resulting naivists such as the dhimmidummy from canterbury.

Bishop of Rochester reasserts 'no-go' claim

His claim that Islamic extremism has turned some parts of Britain into "no-go" areas for non-Muslims led to fierce rows between political and religious leaders over the impact of multiculturalism on this country.
Those comments were followed soon after by the Archbishop of Canterbury's suggestion that the adoption of aspects of sharia law in Britain was "unavoidable".
The bishops' views in The Sunday Telegraph sparked a storm of criticism and raised questions over the role of the Church in society but, most seriously for Dr Nazir-Ali, led to threats that he and his family would be harmed.

Yet, in his first interview since the sinister calls were made to his home, the Bishop of Rochester remains steadfastly defiant. He will not be silenced. "I believe people should not be prevented from speaking out," he says. "The issue had to be raised. There are times when Christian leaders have to speak out."

He arrived in Britain in the 1980s and seems to have taken up the mantle for defending the country's values he fears are being threatened by a loss of its Christian heritage.
Dressed casually in a roll-neck jumper and sports jacket, he seems relaxed now as he walks around his study in Bishopscourt, but it has clearly been a stressful time.
Threats were made warning that he would not "live long" and would be "sorted out" if he continued to criticise Islam.
"If you disagree, that must be met by counter-arguments, not by trying to silence people. It was a threat not just to me, but to my family. I took it seriously, so did the police. It gave me sleepless nights."
However, it's not the first time that his life has been endangered.

Shortly after being made a bishop in Pakistan - at 35 he was the youngest in the Anglican Church - he was forced to flee to Britain to seek refuge from Muslims who wanted to kill him.
He says that he never expected to suffer the same treatment in Britain and expresses concerns over recent social developments.
"The real danger to Britain today is the spiritual and moral vacuum that has occurred for the last 40 or 50 years. When you have such a vacuum something will fill it.
"If people are not given a fresh way of understanding what it means to be a Christian and what it means to be a Christian-based society then something else may well take the place of all that we're used to and that could be Islam."

A highly-respected academic - he studied at Cambridge and Oxford - he speaks calmly and with a measured deliberation.

"There are extremist movements in this country whose agenda is far from integration, we must be aware of this," he says. "It is not only a threat to security but to integration. They are significant enough to influence sections of young people."
Just over a year ago Abu Izzadeen, an Islamic radical, heckled John Reid, the former home secretary, as he tried to deliver a speech on targeting potential extremists. "How dare you come to a Muslim area," Izzadeen screamed.
There was widespread dismay at the outburst, but nobody had dared to try to suggest that these views were entrenched across the country until the bishop spoke last month.

In warning of attempts to impose an Islamic character on certain areas, for example by amplifying the call to prayer from mosques, he seems to have tapped into the fears of a large section of society.
To many, he has become a champion of traditional Christianity and its importance to Britain at the same time as the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has been attacked for suggesting the adoption of aspects of sharia law is "unavoidable" in this country.

While the archbishop received widespread support from within the Church, Dr Nazir-Ali found himself isolated from his colleagues.
"I don't court popularity. If I say something it's because I think it's important enough to say it. What I said was based on evidence, and that has been strengthened as a result of overwhelming correspondence."
He wishes the Church would be more vocal on issues of multiculturalism and sharia law, but refuses to criticise his colleagues, although it is clear he is baffled by their silence.
"I can't guess why they haven't talked on the issue. I'm not responsible for other people's consciences." Is it due to cowardice? "You'd have to ask them."

He agrees with Dr Williams in supporting the right of Muslims to observe their religious freedom, but is strongly opposed to any idea of Islamic law being recognised within the British legal system.
"People of every faith should be free within the law to follow what their spiritual leaders direct them to, but that's very different from saying their structures should replace that of the English legal system because there would be huge conflicts." In particular, he points to polygamy, women's rights and freedom of belief as areas in sharia law that would undermine equality.
There is a danger that the archbishop's remarks could become a reality unless Britain quickly regains a sense of its Christian heritage.

"Do the British people really want to lose that rooting in the Christian faith that has given them everything they cherish - art, literature, architecture, institutions, the monarchy, their value system, their laws?"
As a Pakistani-born immigrant who has suffered racist abuse - he was called a "Paki papist" by Anglican clergy - he has gained an army of admirers who appear grateful to have someone brave enough to address controversial topics. He has vowed the latest threats will not change how he and his family live.
"The recovery of Christian discourse in the public life of this nation is so important. It's that discourse that will allow us in a genuine way to be hospitable to those who come here from different cultures and religions."

In quotes
"We all know that in virtually every big city there are places where different kinds of people feel uncomfortable. The Bishop of Rochester was right to raise this."
Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission
"I don't believe in multiculturalism. When people come to this country they have to obey the laws of the land."
Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales
"There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law."
Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury
"In the name of multiculturalism, we have created monocultural ghettoes."
Ed Husain, author of The Islamist and a former activist in the extremist Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir

I have a plan to destroy America…

Saw this article on The New Zonka Blog and it is definitely worth a reminder.
Multiculturalism - The Political correct dogma of cultural Marxism as the tool of social engineering to break up the social and cultural cohesion of the masses.
Today the multiculturalism is serving the same purpose in a new social engineering, in order to embrace multiculturalism you need to destroy the host culture and social fabric replacing it with the new social engineering - The Supranational totalitarianism in form of the EU - The only similar way of dealing with multiculturalism has been the Soviet Union under the totalitarian iron fist of Communism which rendered the nation states inutile or at best, carbon copies of Communism with little influence beyond regional 'loyal' dictatorships.
I have a plan to destroy America - Chillingly similar what we are watching sliding through the current day, and still we refuse to see it coming - Ultimately it wil lead to conflict and a Balkanization.

I have a plan to destroy America

By Richard D. Lamm (former Colorado Governor and Democrat)

I have a secret plan to destroy America. If you believe, as many do, that America is too smug, too white bread, too self-satisfied, too rich, let’s destroy America. It is not that hard to do. History shows that nations are more fragile than their citizens think. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and they all fall, and that “an autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.” Here is my plan:

1. We must first make America a bilingual-bicultural country. History shows, in my opinion, that no nation can survive the tension, conflict and antagonism of two competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. One scholar, Seymour Martin Lipset, put it this way: "The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon ? all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with its Basques, Bretons and Corsicans."
2. I would then invent "multiculturalism" and encourage immigrants to maintain their own culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal: that there are no cultural differences that are important. I would declare it an article of faith that the black and Hispanic dropout rate is only due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out-of-bounds.
3. We can make the United States a "Hispanic Quebec" without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently, "The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved, not by tolerance, but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically, and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together." I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with a salad bowl metaphor. It is important to insure that we have various cultural sub-groups living in America reinforcing their differences, rather than Americans emphasizing their similarities.
4. Having done all this, I would make our fastest-growing demographic group the least educated ? I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50 percent dropout rate from school.
5. I would then get the big foundations and big business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of victimology. I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was all the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.
6. I would establish dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would "celebrate diversity." "Diversity" is a wonderfully seductive word. It stresses differences rather than commonalities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other ? that is, when they are not killing each other. A "diverse," peaceful or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together, and we can take advantage of this myopia.

   Look at the ancient Greeks. Dorf's "World History" tells us: "The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshiped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic Games in honor of Zeus, and all Greeks venerated the shrine of Apollo at Delphi. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet, all of these bonds together were not strong enough to overcome two factors ... (local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions ...)" If we can put the emphasis on the "pluribus," instead of the "unum," we can balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.

7. Then I would place all these subjects off-limits ? make it taboo to talk about. I would find a word similar to "heretic" in the 16th century ? that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like "racist", "xenophobe" halt argument and conversation. Having made America a bilingual-bicultural country, having established multiculturalism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of "victimology," I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra ? "because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good." I would make every individual immigrant sympatric and ignore the cumulative impact.
8. Lastly, I would censor Victor Davis Hanson's book "Mexifornia" ? this book is dangerous; it exposes my plan to destroy America. So please, please ? if you feel that America deserves to be destroyed ? please, please ? don't buy this book! This guy is on to my plan.
   

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." Noam Chomsky, American linguist and U.S. media and foreign policy critic.

Last quote from Here.

Stuck Mojo - A Tribute To The 'Salman Rushdie' Of Kurdistan

Amazing music.

Enjoy 'Open Season'


From 'The Is-Ought Solution' blog:

The first music video to include the entire contents of a suppressed book.

Remix and extended version of the music video for the Stuck Mojo song "Open Season," dedicated to Mariwan Halabjaee,* "the Salman Rushdie of Iraqi-Kurdistan." Mr. Halabjaee is the author of the book Sex, Sharia and Women in the History of Islam. Mr. Halabjaee was forced to flee Iraqi-Kurdistan and obtain political asylum in Norway because the Islamic League of Kurdistan issued a fatwa to kill him, and the Kurdistan Regional Government refused to offer him protection or to arrest those who threatened his life.

For more information regarding Mr. Halabjaee and his book, see:
Sex, Sharia and Women in the History of Islam

The song "Open Season" is on the latest Stuck Mojo album, "Southern Born Killers."

"Open Season" lyrics:

"I speak peace when peace is spoken, But I speak war when your hate is provoking, The season is open 24-7-365, Man up yo time to ride, No need to hide behind slogans of deceit, Claiming that you're a religion of peace, We just don't believe you, We can clearly see through, The madness that you're feeding your people, Jihad the cry of your unholy war, Using the willing, the weak and poor, From birth drowning in propaganda, rhetoric and slander, All we can say is damn ya

My forefathers fought and died for this here
I'm stronger than your war of fear
Are we clear?
If you step in my hood
It's understood
It's open season

I don't need a faith that's blind, Where death and hate bring me peace of mind, With views that are stuck deep in the seventh century, So much sand in your eyes to blind to see, The venom that you leaders preach, Is the path to your own destruction, Your own demise, You might say that I don't understand but your disgust for me is what I realize, Surprise!
Your homicidal ways has got the whole world watching, Whole world scoping, So if you bring it to my home base, Best believe it, The season's open

I see you, Hell yeah I see you, Motherfucker naw, I don't wanna be you, If you come to my place, I'll drop more than just some bass, Yo you'll get a taste of a, Sick motherfucker from the Dirty, I ain't worrying not a fucking bit, I'm telescoping like Hubble, Yo you in trouble, Yo on the double, I'm wild with mine, Bring that style with mine, Fuck with my family I'll end your life, Just the way it is, Just the way it be, Do you understand? No matter if you're woman or man, or child, My profile is crazy, That shit you do doesn't amaze me, I'm ready to blaze thee

I don't give a damn what god you claim, I've seen the innocent that you've slain, On my streets you're just fair game, Like a pig walk to your slaughter, The heat here is so much hotter, And my views won't teeter totter or fluctuate, Step to me you just met your fate, And I'll annihilate, With the skill of a Shogun assassin, Slicing and dicing precise with a passion, In any shape form or fashion, Bring it to my home, Welcome to the danger zone, Cause your attitude's the reason, The triggers keep squeezing, The hunt is on and it's open season

It's Open Season"

These lyrics say the same thing as philosopher Karl Popper did in his book The Open Society and Its Enemies:

"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

-- Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. I, Chapt. 7, n.4, at 265.

Stuck Mojo websites:
http://stuckmojo.us/
http://www.StuckMojoMedia.com
http://www.myspace.com/stuckinthemojo
http://www.stuckmojo.de/
http://www.dukerocks.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=2
http://www.stuckmojo.net/

* Mariwan Halabjaee (sp. Marywan / Halabjay, Halabjayee, Halabjaye, Halabjayi)

Chicken Run in the EU Parliament (20.02.2008)

The European Union has effectively and decisively taken the road of Totalitarianism and has removed the electorate from the decision makers thus turned away from Democracy embracing Supranationalism.

Watch it - The European future is dire indeed...

The Kosovo Precedent By Arieh Eldad

Arieh Eldad, member of Knesset, is running for the next Presidency in Israel and definitely my favorite for the election - Eldad unbowed and incorruptible certainly know his stuff:

The Moslem Republic of Kosovo declared its independence this week. The United States and several European countries have already recognized it. News reports that the Israeli Foreign Ministry was urging swift Israeli recognition were denied, and reporters were told that Israel does not want to be the first to jump, but once the list of countries recognizing Kosovo is longer, Israel will be one of them.

If Israel does recognize Kosovo, this will certainly be the result of a decision made by the prime minister and foreign minister. Such a decision will be indubitable proof of the foolishness and malignant shortsightedness from which they suffer. If their willingness to establish an Arab terrorist state in the heart of our own country can be explained by their having internalized the Peace Now ideology concerning what they call the “occupation” and the demographic problem – there can be no such explanation for Israel’s giving support to Islamic imperialism in Europe.

The fear of the spread of Islam is expressed today in increasing support for conservative parties in Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, and Germany. These are not extreme right or neo-Nazi parties but rather mainstream conservative parties. They view Israel as a frontline fortress of Western culture facing jihad, and they fear that this fortress may fall under Arab pressure and because of the weakness of Israel’s leaders. Such Europeans fear the separatist trends among millions of Moslem immigrants in Western Europe, the demands to apply Islamic Sharia law in those countries, and the ideological and financial support the immigrants are getting from Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Al Quaida. They are worriedly counting the thousands of mosques being built in Western Europe, and they are made anxious by their understanding of how Moslems have exploited Europeans’ collective guilt feelings over the destruction of the Jews to win surrender to Moslem demands for collective rights, free immigration, and multi-culturalism – all so that the Europeans will not be accused of racism. Millions of Moslem immigrants in Europe supported by billions of Saudi dollars are garnering more and more “rights” and influence.

Islamic proliferation in Europe took in a new country this week. The Moslem minority in Serbia in the Kosovo region bordering the Islamic state of Albania declared its independence. Serbia is a sovereign country, a member of the United Nations, with an ethnic minority. Based on the standards being used for Kosovian independence, the Basques should now be able to set up an independent state in Spain. Such states may also be established in Russia, Slovakia, Greece, and Cyprus. The flag of Kosovo is that of Islamic proliferation and a source of serious anxiety to Europe. Those European countries recognizing Kosovo are doing so under economic pressure from oil-rich Arab countries, the markets of Islamic countries, and internal pressure by millions of Moslem voters in Europe.

Expressing complete political blindness towards the nature of the conflict between Moslems and the rest of the world, Olmert and Tzippi Livni are convinced that establishing an Arab state in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza is in Israel’s political interests. Only someone who doesn’t understand that the conflict has nothing to do with a parituclar boundary can think that drawing such a boundary line along the 1967 borders will solve anything. Only someone who doesn’t understand what the Moslems in Europe want can think that the establishment of an independent Kosovo will resolve the conflict in the Balkans. If Israel joins in recognizing Kosovo, there will be no political, legal, or moral claim it can make to oppose establishing an Arab state in the Galilee and Northern Negev. For what is the difference? An ethnic minority with territorial contiguity to neighboring enemy states demands, following a bloody war, to tear pieces from a sovereign country, and proclaim its independence. This is or will be exactly the demand of the Arabs after the first stage in the “strategy of stages,” the establishment of an independent Palestinian state is, Heaven forbid, attained. And we cannot forget that Arabs and the haters of Israel in Europe portray Israel in colors no less cruel than those used to portray the Serbs, and accusations of genocide are thrown at us just as they were thrown at them. When the day comes when the Arabs in the Galilee declare independence, Israel will have no way to oppose it, assuming it today recognizes a country formed on exactly the same basis.

I have heard commentators explaining that neither we nor Europe should fear Kosovo because the Kosovians are “moderate Moslems.” It was from these moderate Moslems that Haj Amin el-Husseini gathered tens of thousands of volunteers for the 13th SS Division (“Handschar”) and 21st SS Division (“Skanderbeg”). On them he built his dream of marching with Hitler’s armies into Palestine and destroying the Jews of Eretz Israel. Today Israel, together with its European partners, must present a solid front to stop the spread of Islam in Europe, for as long as the Moslem strength there increases, the tendency of European countries to prefer the Arabs over Israel will also increase.

Universal Islamic 'Blasphemy' Law ?

Excellent article from the American Thinker about the global implications concerning the cartoons, the political Islam and motivations - Sheikh al-Qaradawi spoke yesterday on Al Jazeera and urged to boycott of Danish products, the OIC, the worlds most covert terrorist organisation and EU lobbyist comes with demands of blasphemy laws.

By Andrew Bostom:

Almost two weeks ago, "three men with a Muslim background" were arrested by Danish police on anti-terrorism charges, suspected of having plotted to murder Kurt Westergaard, a cartoonist for Jyllands-Posten. Westergaard is one of the 12 cartoonists who on September 30, 2005 published cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammad to protest the tacit enforcement in Danish society of Islam's taboo on depictions of Muhammad, no matter how banal, or inoffensive, through intimidation -- a clear violation of Western freedom of expression.

Upon learning of the arrests, Westergaard (noted for this cartoon) commented aptly,

"I think...that the impact of the insane response to my cartoon will last for the rest of my life. It is sad indeed, but it has become a fact of my life."

And within 3 days, by February 15, 2008, confirming the pervasive fear of violent Muslim reprisal that apparently grips Danish society, Westergaard was ejected from his police-protected hotel room having been deemed, "too much of a security risk." Now the 73-year-old cartoonist and his wife are homeless.

Not surprisingly, when newspapers in Denmark, and across Europe re-published the 12 original cartoons in solidarity with the threatened cartoonist, violent protests ensued by Danish Muslims (including burnings, and perhaps a bombing). Other violent demonstrations took place in Muslim communities across the Middle East and Asia.

Yet scant attention has been paid to a remarkable -- and remarkably chilling -- statement that was issued on Friday February 15, 2008 by Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Turkish Secretary General of the Jeddah-based Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the world's unique pan-Islamic political body, comprised of 57 members, including secular Turkey. Conveniently ignoring that the re-publication in Denmark of 12 banal cartoons depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammad was an urgent, sane protest of the disrupted plot by Muslims to murder one of the original Danish cartoonists, Kurt Westergaard, and oblivious to the immoral equivalence he was making, Ihsanoglu stated,

By reprinting these cartoons we are heading toward a bigger conflict and that shows that both sides will be hostages of their radicals.

Continuing, Ihsanoglu further demonstrated both the complete absence of self-criticism, and triumphalism of the Islamic worldview that seeks to impose its Shari'a-based conceptions -- antithetical to true freedom of conscience and expression -- on all of humanity. And he concluded with a thinly veiled threat of violence:

It is not a way of improving your rights and exercising your freedoms when you use these rights for insulting the most sacred values and symbols of others and inciting hatred...This is a very wrong, provocative path -- unacceptable.

Two years earlier, on 1/18/06, in response to the initial printing of the Danish cartoons, Ihsanoglu had denounced, "...the publication of blasphemous and insulting caricatures of Prophet Muhammad." He concluded that this "Islamophobic" act of "sacrilege" somehow contravened, "...international principles, values, and ethics enshrined in the various resolutions and declarations of the United Nations." These sentiments of Ihsanoglu (and the OIC he represents) were reiterated more brazenly by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi during a sermon which aired February 3, 2006. Qaradawi demanded action from the United Nations in accord with purely Islamic, Shari'a-based conceptions of "blasphemy":

...the governments [of the world] must be pressured to demand that the U.N. adopt a clear resolution or law that categorically prohibits affronts to prophets -- to the prophets of the Lord and his Messengers, to His holy books, and to the religious holy places.

But the unctuous Ishanoglu, in stark contrast to his sharp attacks on the Danish cartoonists, has never issued a statement condemning the sermons of authoritative, hugely popular Muslim clerics such as Yusuf al-Qaradawi, for example, who elsewhere, has openly proclaimed Muhammad as the prototype jihadist.

Sheikh al-Qaradawi, one of the most influential contemporary Muslim thinkers, spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, and head of the European Fatwa Council, reaches an enormous audience during his regular appearances on Al- Jazeera, and other Arabic television outlets. Qaradawi's inflammatory February 3, 2006 sermon, which addressed the original publication of the Danish cartoons depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammad, opens with seething, self-righteous anger, segues into Qaradawi's now standard, pro-forma Jew hatred, and closes, most disturbingly, with thinly veiled threats of terrorism to "...Westerners, the Americans, and Europeans."

But the sheer, blatant hypocrisy of these statements decrying the cartoon portrayals of Muhammad can only be appreciated when viewed in the larger overall context of his pious jihadism, most notably Qaradawi's prior characterization of "Muhammad as a jihad model":

The prophets that Allah sent prior to Muhammad were sent for a limited time ...and to a specific people. ... Allah established in the life of the Prophet Muhammad general, eternal, and all inclusive characteristics, and he gave every human being the possibility to imitate him and take his life as a model...The Christian is incapable of imitating Jesus regarding war and conciliation since Jesus never fought or made peace.

Allah has also made the prophet Muhammad into an epitome for religious warriors [Mujahideen] since he ordered Muhammed to fight for religion.

Previously, Qaradawi elaborated both the targets and allowable "tactics" for those contemporary Muslims whom he encourages to wage jihad. Jews, and their allies, figure prominently in these statements. For example, at the July 2003 meeting (in Stockholm) of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, Qaradawi emphasized the orthodox Islamic basis for human homicide bomb "martyrdom operations" to be directed against all Israeli citizens, whom he further described as classic "harbis", licit targets in the Dar al Harb.

Although neither Qaradawi's admonitions for all out jihad against Israeli Jews, nor his constant Jew baiting, are surprising, he has also called for jihad martyrdom operations against American forces in Iraq, and more ominously, Qaradawi has made unabashed appeals for Muslims to wage a "jihad re-conquest" of Europe. His public fatwa on December 2, 2002 stated,

"Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror and a victor after being expelled from it twice -- once from the south, from Andalusia, and a second time, from the east, when it knocked several times on the doors of Athens."

Qaradawi's fatwa ruled, in addition, that Muslims should re-conquer, "...former Islamic colonies to Andalus[ia] (Spain), southern Italy, Sicily, the Balkans and the Mediterranean islands."

And even in that purely mythical paragon of Islamic ecumenism -- "Andalusia," Muslim Spain during the Middle Ages (which not only Qaradawi, but legions of "moderate" Muslims openly profess they would like to restore) -- Islamic supremacism, as codified in Islamic Law, engendered the same deep-seated, sacralized intolerance that has always predominated under Muslim rule. Already by the end of the eighth century, the rulers of Andalusia (and North Africa) had established rigorous Malikism as the dominant Islamic school of jurisprudence, rendering the Muslim Andalusian state, as noted in historian Evariste Levi-Provencal's seminal Histoire de l'Espagne musulmane,

"...the defender and champion of a jealous orthodoxy, more and more ossified in a blind respect for a rigid doctrine, suspecting and condemning in advance the least effort of rational speculation."

Consistent with this historical reality, Charles Emmanuel Dufourcq, a pre-eminent scholar of Muslim Spain, observed that the myriad religious and legal discriminations suffered by non-Muslim dhimmis (i.e., the non-Muslim Iberian populations vanquished by jihad, and governed by Islamic law, Shari'a), included lethal punishments for "blaspheming" the Muslim prophet, or the Koran:

[For] having insulted the Prophet or blasphemed against the Word of God (i.e., The Koran)-dhimmis were executed.

A millennium later, Islam's draconian punishment for infidels accused of blaspheming the Muslim prophet Muhammad persisted, with uncompromising ferocity. French painter Alfred Dehodencq's striking "Execution of a Moroccan Jewess" is based upon the actual blasphemy execution of a Jewess from Tangier, Morocco, Sol Hachuel, believed to have occurred in 1834. A detailed, near contemporary account of Sol Hachuel's heroic martyrdom -- based upon eyewitness interviews -- was published in 1837 by Eugenio Maria Romero.

Accused, falsely, of having become a Muslim, and then "blaspheming" Muhammad, upon adamantly and steadfastly maintaining her Jewish faith ("A Jewess I was born, a Jewess I wish to die"), the 17 year-old Sol was beheaded publicly for both this contrived "apostasy" from Islam, and "blasphemy." Among the narrative details Romero provides of the young victim's execution day in Fez is this depiction of how the Muslim masses reacted to the charge of "blasphemy" against her:

...the streets were crowded with Moors [Muslims] of all ages and sexes, who made the air resound with their discordant cries. "here comes," said they, "she who blasphemed the Prophet -- death! death! to the impious wretch!"

Abundant contemporary evidence demonstrates that Islamic law and mores regarding blasphemy, today, remain distressingly incompatible with modern conceptions of religious freedom, and human rights. Thus writing in the early 1990s, the esteemed Pakistani scholar Muhammad Asrar, whose opinion was accepted by Pakistan's Shari'a Court, defined "blasphemy", focusing on the Muslim prophet, as:

Reviling or insulting the Prophet (pbuh) in writing or speech; speaking profanely or contemptuously about him or his family; attacking the Prophet's dignity and honor in an abusive manner; vilifying him or making an ugly face when his named is mentioned; showing enmity or hatred towards him, his family, his companions, and the Muslims; accusing, or slandering the Prophet and his family, including spreading evil reports about him or his family; defaming the Prophet; refusing the Prophet's jurisdiction or judgment in any manner; rejecting the Sunnah; showing disrespect, contempt for or rejection of the rights of Allah and His Prophet or rebelling against Allah and His Prophet.

And in accord with classical Islamic jurisprudence (for example, The Risala of al-Qayrawani [d. 996]), Madani argues that anyone who defames Muhammad -- Muslim or non-Muslim -- must be put to death. Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo has documented how this orthodox Islamic doctrine -- incorporated into the Pakistani legal code (Section 295-C, "defiling the name of Muhammad") -- has wreaked havoc, particularly among Pakistan's small Christian minority community:

...the blasphemy law is felt to be a sword of Damocles and has developed a huge symbolic significance which contributes substantially to the atmosphere of intimidation of Christians. The detrimental effect of the law...is most dramatically illustrated by the incident at Shanti Nagar in February 1997 in which tens of thousands of rioting Muslims destroyed hundreds of Christian homes, and other Christian property, following an accusation of blasphemy. Furthermore the blasphemy has engendered a wave of private violence. Equating blasphemy with apostasy and influenced by the tradition of direct violent action and self-help which goes back to the earliest times of Islam, some Muslims feel they are entitled to enforce the death penalty themselves.

After at least four such murders, and the "blasphemy" case of Ayub Masih (who had been incarcerated in solitary confinement since October 14, 1996 and sentenced to death on April 27, 1998 by Sessions Court Judge Rana Abdul Ghaffar), Bishop John Joseph of Faisalbad committed suicide on May 6 1998, to protest the continued application of Pakistan's blasphemy laws.

And incidents which have occurred within just the past 2-months illustrate that what prevails in Pakistan is hardly unique, but rather emblematic. Pervez Kambakhsh, a 23 year-old Afghan journalist was recently convicted (January 2008) of "blasphemy" -- consistent with classical Islamic Law -- for downloading and distributing an article "insulting" Islam, including the "blasphemous" allegation that "...Muhammad had ignored the rights of women.." Subsequently the Afghan Senate issued a statement on the case -- signed by its leader, Sibghatullah Mojaddedi, a reputed ally of President Hamid Karzai -- approving the death sentence conferred on Mr Kambakhsh, also in full accord with the Shari'a, by a city court in Mazar-e-Sharif.

Within days, the Afghan Senate bowed to international pressure, and apparently reversed itself, withdrawing the confirmation of Kambakhsh's death sentence for blasphemy. However, although not universal, commonplace public sentiments in support of this Shari'a ruling were expressed by Afghans across the age spectrum. Abdul Wasi Tokhi, an 18-year-old student at the American University in Kabul, argued for a swift execution, stating:

"The guy should be hanged. He was making fun of Islam's rules and regulations. He was making fun of the Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him. You cannot criticize any principles which have been approved by sharia. It is the words of the Prophet."

And Qari Imam Bakhsh, a Muslim cleric, concurred, maintaining:

"I think he is not a Muslim. A Muslim would not make this kind of mistake. He should be punished so that others can learn from him."

This January, 2008, as well, in Iraqi Kurdistan -- upheld as a successful model of regional Islamic moderation, even secularization -- more evidence of oppressive, re-emergent Shari'a was on display. A court in Halabja (where Saddam Hussein's minions gassed thousands of Kurdish civilians in 1988, 15 years prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom), sentenced a Kurdish author in absentia to six months in prison for blasphemy. The author, Mariwan Halabjaee, was accused of writing in a book that Mohammed had 19 wives, married a 9-year-old when he was 54, and took part in murder and rape -- all of which can confirmed from the "sira," the authoritative, earliest pious Muslim biographies of his life (like this one by Ibn Ishaq/Ibn Hisham). From his asylum in Norway, Mr. Halabjee maintained that a fatwa calling for his death unless he pleads for forgiveness, has also been issued.

Intrepid historian David Littman has been chronicling, nearly alone, for almost two decades, the concerted efforts of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to Islamize international human rights instruments, and apply the Shari'a "standard" for blasphemy -- pace the current Kambakhsh and Halabjee travesties -- to all nations. Littman warned, for example, about the development of the Shari'a-based 1990 Cairo Declaration (i.e., the so-called Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam), to which all member states of the OIC are signatories, publicizing the immediate objections of a brave Senegalese jurist, Adama Dieng. Dieng, a Muslim, who subsequently became a United Nations special rapporteur, then serving as secretary-general to the International Commission of Jurists, declared forthrightly in February 1992 that the Cairo Declaration, under the rubric of the Shari'a,

...gravely threatens the inter-cultural consensus on which the international human rights instruments are based; introduces, in the name of the defense of human rights, an intolerable discrimination against both non-Muslims and women; reveals a deliberately restrictive character in regard to certain fundamental rights and freedoms..; [and] confirms the legitimacy of practices, such as corporal punishment, that attack the integrity and dignity of the human being.

K.S. Lal, the late Indian Professor of Islam, noted this difficult, if not intractable conundrum:

Muhammad could not change the revelation; he could only explain and interpret it. There are liberal Muslims and conservative Muslims; there are Muslims learned in theology and Muslims devoid of learning. They discuss, they interpret, they rationalize -- but all by going round and round within the closed circle of Islam. There is no possibility of getting out of the fundamentals of Islam; there is no provision of introducing any innovation.

Confirmation of Lal's observations at the macro level of international relations is manifested by the ceaseless, and increasingly successful campaign of the OIC to enforce universal application of a Shari'a standard, in complete opposition to bedrock principles of modern human rights, such a freedom of expression, and conscience.

More than a decade ago, Samuel Huntington observed appositely, and with a candor that is now exceedingly rare,

The underlying problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture...

During his recent debate with the cultural jihadist Tariq Ramadan, Ibn Warraq elucidated what is at stake should such Islamic supremacism prevail:

The great ideas of the West -- rationalism, self-criticism, the disinterested search for truth, the separation of church and state, the rule of law and equality under the law, freedom of thought and expression, human rights, and liberal democracy -- are superior to any others devised by humankind. It was the West that took steps to abolish slavery; the calls for abolition did not resonate even in Africa, where rival tribes sold black prisoners into slavery. The West has secured freedoms for women and racial and other minorities to an extent unimaginable 60 years ago. The West recognizes and defends the rights of the individual: we are free to think what we want, to read what we want, to practice our religion, to live lives of our choosing.

...Nor does the West need lectures on the superior virtue of societies in which women are kept in subjection under sharia, endure genital mutilation, are stoned to death for alleged adultery, and are married off against their will at the age of nine; societies that deny the rights of supposedly lower castes; societies that execute homosexuals and apostates. The West has no use for sanctimonious homilies from societies that cannot provide clean drinking water or sewage systems, that make no provisions for the handicapped, and that leave 40 to 50 percent of their citizens illiterate.