Is it Lars or Not Lars. The question that won’t be answered.

I saw a news feed on the excellent blog Gates of Vienna which read pretty much…

“A 17-year-old Swedish student was injured when a homemade bomb he was allegedly working on exploded in a hotel kitchen, authorities said.

Police said the student, who was attending school at the Aviation College of Sweden in Vasteras, was experimenting Tuesday when an explosion rocked the hotel, which houses students of the upper-level high school, the Swedish news agency TT reported.

TT said the student was hospitalized with serious burns to his arms and that his hearing appeared to be affected by the explosion.”

I checked over a dozen news sources and they all pretty much repeated that press release. Not one of them had the persons name. The thing with political correctness is, it’s not just about trying to make a ‘better’ world, its about forcing the impression on us that we already have one by withholding, distorting and manufacturing information.

One thing we can feel certain of. Had the flight student amateur bomb maker’s name been lars, it would have been included in the article. As no name was given we can guess with good odds the name Mohamed was at least one of the names of the ‘student’ first last or middle.

This common tendency in the west now to protect certain ‘minorities’ by not publishing the names of perpetrators does more harm than good to all however. It allows the rest of us to assign the group membership of the person which only adds fuel to the fire as well as prevents us from knowing the facts for certain, and therefore unable to act or support policies that might actually mitigate the problems.

Once again we see that leftism and political correctness is the greater evil. Islam is a problem that could b fixed in a year in the west if the irrational left wasnt so determined to destroy our ability to act in our own interests.

Phyllis Chesler. ‘How Afghanistan shaped my feminism’

This is an older essay by Chesler but truly excellent. I meant to post it many months ago and thought I did but here it is again. From ME Quarterly

How Afghan Captivity Shaped My Feminism

by Phyllis Chesler
Middle East Quarterly
Winter 2006, pp. 3-10

Print Send RSS

On December 21, 1961, when I returned from Afghanistan, I kissed the ground at New York City’s Idlewild Airport. I weighed 90 pounds and had hepatitis. Although I would soon become active in the American civil rights, anti-Vietnam war, and feminist movements, what I had learned in Kabul rendered me immune to the Third World romanticism that infected so many American radicals. As a young bride in Afghanistan, I was an eyewitness to just how badly women are treated in the Muslim world. I was mistreated, too, but I survived. My “Western” feminism was forged in that most beautiful and treacherous of countries.

In 1962, when I returned to Bard College, I tried to tell my classmates how important it was that America had so many free libraries, so many movie theatres, bookstores, universities, unveiled women, freedom of movement on the streets, freedom to leave our families of origin if we so chose, freedom from arranged marriages—and from polygamy, too. This meant that as imperfect as America may be, it was still the land of opportunity and of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

My friends, future journalists, artists, physicians, lawyers, and intellectuals, wanted only to hear fancy Hollywood fairy tales, not reality. They wanted to know how many servants I had and whether I ever met the king. I had no way of communicating the horror, and the truth. My American friends could not or did not want to understand. As with my young college friends so long ago, today’s leftists and progressives want to remain ignorant.

Continue Reading →

CKCU cancels talk radio program for ‘improper tone’

Ottawa talk show hosts for Right or Wrong radio had their one hour weekly radio program canceled for ‘improper tone’

James Cohen and Emrys Graefe who did a conservative talk show on CKCU and dealt with contravercial issues such as Islam and its implications to liberal democracy discovered that one is not allowed to discuss the history of Mohamed and his life unless one is a practicing Muslim.

I suppose that means CKCU would not allow somoene to discuss the life of Adolf Hitler unless one was in the Waffen SS

Follow the link and read the email exchange between CKCU management and the Right or Wrong radio boys

Wait, What’s a felony? Flushing Koran carries a year in jail?

I found this gem on Free Canuckistan. I’d like to know more of the legal details. If this is true I suggest we all get a Koran rip it up and flush it and demand to be arrested for it. This kind of a law must not be allowed to stand without exposure for what it is. Dhimitude.

Once again we are reminded of how much more important freedom from religion is, than freedom of religion.

This from hyscience.com

(This must be followed closely. This is no ordinary utter outrage which we have become numb to as the western world abandons its cherished freedoms and liberal values. This is the kind of next level outrage we see maybe only twice a week. That to mistreat a book carries a potential sentence of a year in jail in the USA is mind scramming. Scramming as in a reactor melt down. The fact that the book is also a hate filled tome of genocidal mania and a demand for control of the earth based on the megalomania and sexual appetities of a seventh century warlord is actually not the issue but adds a certain insult to injury. Its that the mere idea that mistreatement of some paper cardboard and ink can lead to the ruination of ones life. Eeyore for Vlad)

You Can Burn Our Flag And Piss On Christ, But You Can’t Mistreat The Koran

Topics: Dhimmitude

Sharia.jpg (Image: Sharia – the Wahabbist version, the friends of CAIR)Pace University is marching in lockstep with CAIR’s domination agenda and creeping sharia law!

If you haven’t been following the Koran in a toilet story at Pace University, you need to start now. If you have been following it, you need to fix your eyes on the Islamists’ objective: Creeping Sharia …

Continue Reading →

Toronto closes part of Holocaust exibit as possebly inflamatory to Muslims? National Post.

Thanks Grace. Toronto’s collective voice must be 2 octaves higher now. Even though this is from September, its an important illustration of how political correctness trumps truth and important facts in Canada.

City bans part of Holocaust exhibition

Links Iran, Hitler

Melissa Leong, National Post Published: Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies want the city of Toronto to reconsider its decision to prohibit an “inflammatory” exhibition that compares Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Adolf Hitler.

The Making of a War Criminal was to be one of four travelling educational exhibitions being shown in schools and on city-owned property. It features an image of Hitler saluting and a photo of Mr. Ahmadinejad with a burning devil over his shoulder.

“[Mr. Ahmadinejad’s] threat to wipe Israel off the map — if that’s not a call for genocide or another Holocaust, I don’t know what is,” said Avi Benlolo, chief executive in the Canadian branch of the Los Angeles-based human rights organization.

“We did this exhibit to press this case. It needs to be seen in public spaces,” Mr. Benlolo said.

City officials rejected the exhibit because it may “stereotype or promote views and ideas which are likely to promote discrimination, contempt or hatred for any persons,” as stated in the city’s display policy.

Continue Reading →

Intellectual slight of hand, political correctness and the hijacking of once meaningful terms.

I link to this article as just today’s example of the issues I have discussed with ‘Akhter’, the commenter on the Indian bombings post which I invite you all to read. I mentioned that there is a vast difference between having ones choices respected and forcing those choices on others and expecting that people will see them as the same thing. Political correctness is actually to blame for encouraging and propagating this intellectual slight of hand.

A Canadian example of this from several years ago and perhaps the precedent setting example for Canada was the ludicrous notion that people of the Sikh faith had a ‘right’ to wear their turbans and be members of the Royal Canadian mounted police. I said at the time this was obscene and a slippery slope and it clearly and most certainly was.

The idea that a person has a right to whatever beliefs and behaviors he wants and can then change institutions of state is preposterous. A democracy will tolerate peoples beliefs and allow them to practice them so long as they do not violate secular laws but is under no obligation to adjust it’s symbols and institutions to accommodate them. The point of a democracy is that you get the CHOICE of either giving up your beliefs and superstitions and be part of the secular culture or you may continue to pursue them and be free of persecution by the state.

This is a fantastic situation historically speaking. Religious Jews for instance where thrilled that they could if they chose, continue to dress in traditional manners and set schedules which was not in sync with the rest of Western nations and yet be free of state harassment. However at no time did Jews demand that uniforms be changed to accommodate them or that kitchens in secular organizations not serve non kosher products. The jews and rightly so where pleased to have the choice to either participate or not in institutions which may conflict with their rituals and beliefs. They did not however demand the ‘right’ to be hired for a position merely because they where Jewish and then demand that the organization that hired them transform itself into a yeshiva. This speaks to the core of the term ‘sacrifice’. That one may inconvenience oneself in order to maintain practices which are not the general ones of the land. We all do this to one degree or another. It builds character and is generally a net positive thing. We may for example not drink as much alcohol as our friends or as the law allows or may not drink at all but we do not force institutions private or public not to serve alcohol as it may offend us to have it in our presence and doubly so in a place we chose to be.

The notion that our own sacrifices become an obligation to others is the card trick of the politically correct. That tolerance, once meaning put up with things we don’t like in others so that they may put up with us, now becomes that we must dumb down to the least tolerant group within us. The UK seems to have news about this each and every day recently as I linked at the top. A Muslim who applied for and received a job as a Chef is suing his employer for insufficient guarantees that he will not have to handle pork. It’s not that he wishes not to touch it, gloves where offered, its that he insists it not be an option on the menu in an organization where pork is a staple of the traditional menu there.

In effect this is the imposition of Sharia law. The mistaken notion that to violate any sensitivity or irrational belief of Muslims is itself a crime is indistinguishable from Sharia itself. In my previous post “What if they gave a war and only one side came” I give several examples of how this has occurred in the UK and elsewhere as well as how large multinational corporations have caved in to mere whims by individual Muslims who took umbrage on some minor and historically unsubstantiated symbolic issue.

To return briefly to the issue of the RCMP and the replacement of the traditional police cap with a sikh turban for a moment, I need to make it more clear why this is an issue.

Around the world ideological groups are at war for a variety of reasons. each group typically has symbols it feels very strongly about. When Canada allows the federal police, the actual arm of legal force of the state and nation of Canada to include these symbols in its uniform those from places at war with those groups cannot feel that they are dealing with the secular and unbiased representitvies of Canada. This is in fact a very reasonable way to feel.

To use an example the left will appreciate, should a Palestinian Canadian get a visit from the RCMP sporting an Israeli flag armband he may have misgivings about our due process. Conversely a Jewish or Israeli expatriate living in Canada is visited by a troop of RCMP sporting Hamas flags or a Hizbolah one.

The Canadian rush to put an ‘ethnic’ face on Canada by allowing Sikh’s to alter the uniform of the Mounted Police most certainly was the barn door to other groups with far more seditious and invasive beliefs to make demands about how they must be accommodated.

Ultimately it boils down the the intellectual slight of hand and hijacking of the term ‘tolerance’. You have the right to live and think as you want. The rest of us are under no obligation to change anything to spare offense to you. More than no obligation, any attempt to change secular democracy must result in conflicts which range from the highly comical, such as the British partially transsexual male driving instructor who had a certificate from the UK Government stating that he was legally a woman being sent to the home of a British Muslim who demanded that his wife get a female instructor for her lessons, to the outright suicidal where British city councils are informed they may not eat during meetings on Ramadam. Or British school children being given detention for refusing to pray to Allah, Either are fairly benign examples compared to dozens of others from Scandinavia in particular.

Opinionator: On the attacks on an art gallery in the UK.

The Opinionator offers the article posted below with several links to events which have occurred in the UK. Many of these events where reported here on Vlad and elsewhere. Each as isolated incidents range from a minor ‘Hey Martha!’ to an ‘I can’t believe this is actually happening’ but taken together there is no excuse for not recognizing it for what it is. Policy.

The leftists and Islam operate on levels from tacit collusion to overt alliance to crush dissent, to end debate and to establish clear rules of what is permissible to say and by extension to think. It’s past the point where I worry about whether or not what I am saying is over the top or exaggerated. I’m no longer sure that it’s even possible to exaggerate the kinds of changes taking place in the western democracies when you hear the likely next president of the United States say publicly “five days from now we will fundamentally change America” and people do not find this a worrying statement.

As Australia enacts internet restrictions for ostensibly noble goals one should know that its inevitable that these restrictions will be applied to political thought and most likely disguised as restrictions on hate speech. The EU like the UN is frantically drafting legislation that will allow them to act against anyone who challenges their attempt at hegemony and again they will use the language of political correctness to make it appear benign while they strip away rights of protest and perhaps most importantly rights to individualism.

What does all this have to do with the article below?

Multiculturalism and the ‘new-speak’ concepts of tolerance and political correctness all have this as a lowest common denominator…

The most intolerant group sets the rules for the rest of us. This most intolerant group, is clearly Islam.

Eeyore for Vlad.

UK CULTURAL JIHADISTS TARGET ARTIST GALLERY WITH A CAMPAIGN OF VIOLENCE

A UK artist is the victim of a muslim campaign of violence against her, her artwork, and the gallery displaying her art. October 31,2008 UPDATE – Sarah Maple is now receiving death threats.

“Windows and doors at the SaLon Gallery in west London were smashed after a series of abusive, anonymous phone calls and angry protests about the images from Muslims. The gallery has complained to police……..Staff had to call police last week after an angry woman came in to complain. “She was in a full burqa and was irate and upset. Her behaviour was quite threatening,” added the spokeswoman.” LINK to this article HERE

Continue Reading →

More on Bart Debie in Belgium, the police officer jailed for ‘racism’

Thursday, October 30, 2008

A Report from Bart Debie

by Baron Bodissey

I just received the following email from Bart Debie, the member of Vlaams Belang who was recently convicted of “racism” and briefly incarcerated. He gave me permission to post his account, so here’s the story in his own words:

Thank you so much for your support, articles, and email.

Yesterday I went to the “Vorst” prison at about 9:00am. When I arrived I immediately discovered that hardly anyone spoke any Dutch. French was clearly the language to know.

After I handed over my gevangenisbriefje — that is the official name, and means roughly “little prison letter”— I had to translate the reason for my conviction into the French language myself, as the clerk was not able to understand Dutch. Can you imagine this? An official letter from the Ministry of Justice and I have to translate it myself!

As I’m not all that familiar with the French judicial terminology, I had a problem. Luckily a police officer was bringing in another client who could do the translation for me; if not, I would have had to wait till the change of shift when a Dutch-speaking person could “enroll” me!

After that they locked me up in a small prison cell. I think it was about two by three meters [six by ten feet]. There was no window, it had an open toilet (which was disgusting), and it was very warm in there.

I was allowed to keep my book I brought with me — I am reading an interesting book about the relationship between crime and the media. After a few minutes the prison guard — a Belgian man who clearly had Moroccan roots — saw that I was reading and he switched of the lights. There I was, sitting for more than three hours in the total dark. I banged on the door two times but nobody came.

– – – – – – – – – Continue Reading →

Possible solution to cultural conflict in Canada. Halaloween!

As various Canadian agencies work hard to disintegrate all Canadian traditions culture and common bonds in the name of tolerance and diversity an idea occurred to me. Why not make it inclusive instead of exclusive. Lets create Halaloween. Women can walk the streets in their burkhas (with their husbands brothers or fathers of course) Threatening people who try and give them candies.

Kids can go as suicide bombers and knock on doors with the traditional cry of Alahu snackbar or ‘death to the infidels.’ If there are any pork products in any of the candies they can pull the cord.

Women preparing for Halaloween

Women out for Hallaloween

Since we can’t seem to get any international agencies to condemn the abuse of children prevalent in the Islamic world by forcing children to become human bombs lets integrate it into a long honored Canadian tradition!
Are these candies Halal?

Are these candies Halal?

As Toronto school boards have seen fit to rename Halloween ‘Black and Orange day’ an alternative might be to create a special day for Canadian culture. We can call it ‘black and blue day’.
We all hide in our homes and do Christmas Chonuka Halloween and other related rituals and have the kids watch out for the police.

Halloween. The new target for the intolerant.

Below I post a National post article on the current attacks on Canadian secular culture. Let me be as clear as huanly posseble here please. This is intolerance being marketed as multiculturalism and sensitivity. It is pure unbridled hate of Canada, its customs and its traditions.

Tolerance means that if you don’t like a thing or event you say something perhaps or perhaps not and you do not participate. It means if you do not like a thing you tolerate it. You don’t have to like it.

Intolerance means you find a way to destroy, make illegal or otherwise end the thing which offends you or contradicts some set of values you have and feel it must no longer exist in your field of influence. This explains nicely why the macabre marriage of western leftists and Islam has taken place. On this one point they are in goose step agreement.

Eeyore for Vlad

Comment by David Menzies

Forget about the War on Christmas. The mavens of political correctness have a new target in their crosshairs: Halloween.
A case in point: the Toronto District School Board has several “concerns” with respect to the imagery – and even the foodstuffs – associated with All Hallow’s Eve. In fact, some schools in Toronto and elsewhere now refer to Halloween as “Black and Orange Day,” fearing the H-word itself will be as potentially offensive to certain groups as Christmas may be for some non-Christians. The TDSB’s Halloween policy is outlined in its 2008 Teaching Resource for Dealing with Controversial and Sensitive Issues in Toronto District School Board Classrooms. This document, dripping with spine-tingling bureaucratese, outlines six reasons why Halloween isn’t as fun as you might think.
For instance:

Continue Reading →

Superb and overdue essay on race and human thought

From the blog, Gates of Vienna…

This is the latest in a series of guest-essays by El Inglés on controversial topics. In this installment he considers the politically charged issue of race, examining it in the context of heuristics.

We should all be grateful to him for coining an excellent new acronym, DIPC: Deeply Internalized Political Correctness.

Racists ’R’ Us
by El Inglés

Introduction

Given that the cry of “racist” is the most frequently-encountered obstacle to those who would oppose the Islamization of their countries, the spurious nature of this allegation must be laid bare. There is no one way of doing this but, prompted by the Baron’s recent forays in this area, I would like to offer my own two cents on the subject.

Heuristic Reasoning

In considering racism, let us first consider something else. A heuristic, insofar as I understand the general meaning of the term, is a cognitive device by means of which rules of thumb are applied to complex problems in which restrictions on information, time, or analytical capacity preclude the use of pure deductive reasoning or drastically reduce its utility. This definition might suggest that a heuristic is an esoteric and complex beast in its own right, but nothing could be further from the truth. On the contrary, human reasoning is fundamentally heuristic in nature, and non-heuristic reasoning is relatively uncommon, difficult, and unintuitive.

Why this should be the case becomes clear when one considers the nature of the problems facing human beings (or indeed any other cognitively advanced creatures) trying to survive and thrive in their natural environments. I mentioned above the three fundamental restrictions of information, time, and analytical capacity. Let us consider these restrictions in the context of a game that many of us will be familiar with. Chess is probably the archetypal, best-known game of analytical reasoning. Though other games such as Go and Shogi exceed it in complexity, they cannot approach it in popularity, so let us examine it here.

Chess is a game in which the rules are simple, and the moves available to each player easily determined in any given situation on the basis of those rules. However, the game is one of mind-boggling complexity due to the effectively infinite combinations of move sequences and therefore games. It is also played, at least under match conditions, with time restrictions which allow a certain total time for each player to make a certain number of moves within. We can therefore classify chess as a game in which all information is available (the rules are known), time is limited (the available time is much less than a player would use to formulate what they considered the optimal moves given the luxury of no time restrictions), and the analytical capacity of any normal human is woefully inadequate to the task of seeing more than the murkiest glance of what lies a few moves ahead (as anyone who has ever played will know).

It is humbling to note that even in a game as open to deductive reason as chess, heuristics have a hugely important role in playing it. To be sure, the better one is, the further one’s ‘sight’ into the future of the game can be extended, on the basis of one’s own goals and the goals of one’s opponent. The better the player, the less heuristic his play. However, a vast number of heuristics are very well-known by all serious chess players, and will be applied by players far better than rank beginners.

Build a strong interlocking pawn structure to dominate the centre of the board. Exchange a bishop (heuristically assigned 3 points in value) for a knight (also assigned 3 points) or vice versa, but neither for a rook (5 points), and certainly not for a queen (9 points). Knights are stronger in the early stages of the game, bishops stronger in the end game. Keep your king behind a shield of other pieces if possible, and so on and so forth.

In contrast, adding two three-digit numbers together is a task to which heuristics are not usefully applied, because the answer can so easily be obtained through deductive reasoning. This problem has no restrictions on information (given the well-understood rules of arithmetic), or time (under normal circumstances), and the analytical capacity required to solve it is possessed by all psychologically normal human beings (assuming they paid even a modicum of attention at school).

It will be clear upon a moment’s reflection that the subset of all analytical problems amenable to algorithmic solution in this manner is rather small in comparison to the full set. Indeed, human reasoning processes are overwhelmingly heuristic in nature due to the omnipresence of the above three restrictions, which sometimes force us to make decisions on issues of real importance with meagre information, on time-scales of no more than a second, and with analytical capacities simply not up to the task. Stuck in the middle of nowhere in the rain, I am offered a lift by a stranger. Do I accept? I will be more likely to if the stranger is a woman, because my heuristic reasoning processes tell me that women are less dangerous than men. I cannot deduce that any specific woman will not be dangerous, but applying fairly simple heuristics will allow me, on the whole, to make sensible decisions in this type of situation.

If it sounds like I am stereotyping women as being not physically dangerous, that is because stereotype is simply an unfairly derogatory word used to describe heuristic processes applied to subjects deemed politically sensitive. Virtually all human reasoning is heuristic and cannot be otherwise. This is not only true because of the significant limitations on deductive processes as applied to most problems. It is also true because these heuristic processes have, through the action of natural selection upon their results, been incorporated as the main building block of our reasoning processes, whether we like it or not. To be sure they are not, and could not be, perfect, but evolutionary principles and ongoing research by psychologists both suggest that they are an exceptionally powerful decision-making tool.

Anyone who doubts this conclusion can try going through life flipping a coin each time he needs to make a decision and see how he likes the results. Heuristics work well enough, and better than anything else available with respect to 99% of what human beings face.

For the rest, and I strongly recommend reading the rest of this way overdue essay and discussion please visit The Gates of Vienna

What if they gave a war and only one side came?

Back in the heady days of the 60s and even in the hangover years of the 70s there was a popular expression amongst the Vietnam weary and ideological youth. “What if they gave a war and no one came?”

They nearly had it right. But they didn’t ask the question that might matter a great deal more.

War has been declared on the west. Tragically, only one side is engaged – the most pernicious enemy of liberal values in history. We aren’t fighting back. Most refuse to admit that there is a war. Acknowledging the war, would be an admission that our perfect utopia is not loved by all. Instead of defending ourselves, we have large think tanks and even entire branches of governments and even in some ways entire governments looking to find ways to surrender.

While discussing Islam with my friend Fred, he made the following comment:
“I used to view big corporations as all powerful. Now I see them as weaker than a single Muslim complaining about some minor issue”

Sony was ready to release a new PS3 game. Within the game there were a couple of lines from the Koran intermixed with the music. A Muslim was offended and complained to Sony. On the surface, the issue appears to be a minor incident that gives all of us something to chuckle about. But, if one thinks about the continual erosion of our freedoms, in favor of Islam, the issue is of far greater importance

The costs to Sony are likely in the millions of dollars.

They would have had to recall the game, (this we know they did) re write the code, do a new promotion and advertising etc. For all we know they hired an Imam to make sure there is nothing offensive left in the game to Islam although I’m reasonably sure they can’t have done this as there seems to be little not offensive to the religion of peace.

While Sony’s concessions may have temporarily saved them from Islamic rage, they lost control of their company in the process. No doubt, Sony spent millions of dollars correcting the offense. Think about it – one Muslim complaint managed to bring an international corporation to its knees.

Sony is quite hypocritical on the matter of religious sensitivities as we see by their reaction to complaints by Christians. So we know this isnt a matter of Sony’s wishing not to offend; but of fear.

Sony’s submission to Islam is a profoundly important story. Yet, most are focused on the humor of the incident, rather then the broad sweeping consequences. When one follower of Islam can force a major corporation to delay the release of their product, and spend millions of dollars, it should be crystal clear, that we are in serious trouble. Governments and corporations continually submit to the irrational demands of Islamists. Our freedoms are willingly surrendered to tyrants who will never be satisfied, until they have complete control over every aspect of our lives.

This is far from an isolated incident. A few years ago, Burger King had to pull all its ice cream products as one Muslim claimed that the little squiggly symbol they used to represent soft serve ice cream resembled the little squiggly Arabic word for Allah. Clearly the Danish cartoon riots had their intended effect.

Lets try and get this in context shall we?

One man in the UK decided that a symbol on an ice cream cone looked kinda like a symbol he felt was sacred, the Muslim Council of Britain backed him on it and a major corporation had to take a large loss to not cause offense or more likely, not live in fear of having its facilities and personnel attacked.

A division of the Scottish police force had to apologize for an add they did featuring a puppy. Muslims you see, do not like dogs so an apology had to be issued and the add pulled right away. This of course within the UK.

Companies like Burger King and Sony would rather cave to Islamists, than face the inevitable violent repercussions that are inflicted upon any one who dares to offend Islam. These companies, and our governments, resort to quick fixes in an effort to quell Islamist rage. Every time Islamists are appeased and placated, they are emboldened. With their concessions to Islam, companies like Sony, enable our enemies to destroy our freedoms, and control us.

A single Muslim registers a complaint that something is offensive to him because of his faith and large institutions immediately take massive losses or at least take on massive expense to placate him as he is likely to get support from Muslim groups resulting in anything and everything from costly bad publicity to destruction of property and even death of personnel. Often these offenses are arbitrary with no basis even on their own scripture.

These complaints didn’t occur until the third wave of Jihad against the west began. Now every Muslim whim must be pacified. Riots over pictures of Mohamed didn’t occur prior to the Mohamed cartoons. Many Muslim books did include images of their war lord. The riots surrounding the Mohamed cartoons, was a strategy of war. They quickly established the supremacy of Islam over the infidel, instilled fear into our hearts, and provoked us to submit, rather then defend ourselves. Frankly, it was pure genius on their part, and has worked staggeringly well.

The Mohamed cartoon experience put terror into the hearts of our politicians, governments, corporations and ordinary citizens. Now the main criteria for decisions are, avoid offending Islamists at all costs, despite the financial, societal and personal loss. No one wants to risk Islamic violence, death and destruction of property. It is crucial, in order to keep the peace, that Islam is appeased. Concessions to Islamists, erode the fabric of our societies. We have thrown in the towel. We aren’t engaging our enemies to protect our values. Instead, we genuflect on bended knee, alter our way of life, and apologize. In true Dhimmi fashion, we submit.

All organizations, private or public, are under the absolute whim of any individual Muslim. Overt acts of terrorism aren’t necessary, because the desired affect brought about by the Mohamed cartoon incident, is a success. Instead of holding onto our values, or the control of our countries and corporations, we willingly submit even for minor, irrational complaints.

How does one distinguish between surrender to an enemy who wishes to destroy your culture values and rights, and submission to irrational demands of political correctness which demands we break our own laws of equality in favor of advantaging groups perceived to be discriminated against?

Is there any differentiation between surrender to an enemy, who wishes to destroy our culture, values and rights, and submission to political correctness?

Is there any difference between surrendering to an invading army that is determined to establish hegemony over us, and self-imposed restrictions that enable our enemies to impose their hegemony upon our lives, without resistance?

Twenty years ago, maybe a distinction could have been made. Today the irrevocable damage caused by either approach is identical.

The question arises yet again…

“When is a series of incidents actually acknowledged as policy?”

Muslim groups clearly recognize the benefits of making complaints for money, power, and the goal of forcing free societies to submit to Islam. Every time a company trivializes freedom, so as not to offend Islam, dangerous precedents are established and In fact are well entrenched at this point.

Our Governments set similar precedents when they make exceptions to our laws in order to accommodate one group. One example is Aly Hindy’s open admission, that he performed many polygamous marriage ceremonies in Ontario. To date, the Ontario Provincial Government, and the Federal Government continue to ignore his open violation of our polygamy laws. Hindy is free to break our laws, erode our country, and institute Sharia Law in Canada.

Acts of submission such as Sony’s, and the Canadian Government, will lead to more demands from Islamists. Until we draw a line in the sand, hold onto our systems, values and freedoms, and say enough, the demise of our countries will continue, until we find ourselves in the quagmire of the 7th century.

It is a futile exercise to continue questioning whether or not we are on a slippery slope towards our demise. There is more than sufficient evidence to prove that we are. As illustrated in this article, there are countless examples of our submission to Islamic political agendas. The important question is whether or not we can stop ourselves from any further submission to Islamists, and reverse the damage that has already occurred within our societies.

Either way, the message is out. The infidel will calculate cost benefits and adjust to the cheapest immediate solution. Fjordman is right (again) capitalism in this instance fails us. Governments (who should know better) and mighty corporations both fail to figure in to their cost benefit analysis the expense of Sharia law which they are helping to create faster than the Islamists could have hoped for.

Eeyore with lots of excellent help from friends

Addendum: The story of the Somali’s and the meat packing plant is a rather perfect example of Islamic use of politica correctness to subject us all to sharia law. This link contains the most recent developments such as CAIR law suits and links to the whole story since it began.

A few related stories of note.

This first link is from Ezra levants blog. The current story on it illustrates among other things, the dangers of selective enforcement. Canada’s HRC’s act with total impunity from real jurisprudence. Worse, they use highly ‘agendized’ interpretations of rules to selectively act against those with whom the HRC personnel disagree with politically.

I cannot overstate the importance of this for free and democratic societies. Government agencies MUST adhere to principles of fairness in law. It is one of the main things which distinguish western civilization from tyrannies and tin pot dictatorships.

Here is a story from Malaysia showing how Iran applied pressure to prevent a Nobel Peace Prize winner from speaking at an event about human rights within Iran. The double standard may be evident to readers of this blog but is the danger it represents?

This link shows fabricated hate crimes by the Muslim community to achieve political power and silence critics of Islam’s systemic actual hate crimes against pretty much all non Muslims as Koran obliges followers to do.

So we see a pattern here in all these links I hope. These are not exceptions or isolated cases. These are merely a few easily discovered events from recent news. Its crucial that people begin to understand the tactics being used to undermine free democratic and yes, classically liberal societies. Miracles of history. May we please not be victims of the success of them by forgetting who and what we had to fight to achieve them.

Denmark not USA may be the last man standing.

Some good news out of Denmark. Resistance to self destructive political correctness. This is wonderful to see. It does raise some questions though as I look at things. Is Denmark’s relatively new resistance to Islamofascism the consequence of the character of Danes as a people? Of unusually and perhaps unique leadership in the western world? Or is it because the cost of continued acquiescence to the demands of the irrational left and Islam became finally greater than the cost of fighting back. If this is true then there is hope for us all. Standard good old fashioned game theory may get us out of this one.

The problem with that remains the cost. If a nation waits till this is the case it usually means there is a real chance of losing it all. Actual defeat. While Denmark’s new attitude as shown by the article below is refreshing and inspires hope it as likely means that they are in such dire straights that it makes no difference. We shall see.

From The Gates of Vienna a superb blog and written by Baron Bodissey a lucid mind.

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Danish Ministers Reject PC-Speak

by Baron Bodissey

Some months ago the US government and the Pentagon adopted mandatory language guidelines which prohibit the use of words and phrases such as “jihad”, “Islamic terrorism”, “Islamofascism”, etc., when describing the goals and objectives of the “War on Terror”. To those of a conspiratorial mindset, this idiotic rule is yet more evidence of the successful penetration of the United States government by agents of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Evidently the same PC influences have been at work within Denmark’s Police Intelligence Service. In this case, however, the common sense of Danish government ministers has won out: they are insisting that a spade be called a spade.

From the Danish Parliament’s website (my translation):

Minister rejects PET’s special language requirements

Several of the government’s ideological profiles now openly reject recommendations from the Police Intelligence Service (PET) which would downplay the link between terrorism and Islam.

Neither Defense Minister Soren Gade (V), Welfare Minister Karen Jespersen (V) nor Education Minister Bertel Haarder (V) intend to follow the guidelines of “Terminology and Terrorism”, for which the head of the PET’s Center for Terror Analysis, Anja Dalgaard-Nielsen, is the standard-bearer.

Failed English method

“I call a spade a spade. The Islamist ideology has very negative consequences, and people are well able to tolerate hearing the truth,” said Defense Minister Soren Gade to Altinget.dk

“In England they use PC-speak — and experience shows that it solves nothing. If there were ever a place with rabid and fanatical Muslims, it is Britain. Political correctness just means that you abase yourself — and then they trample on you anyway. I do not intend to be the doormat,” adds Soren Gade.

Continue Reading →

U.N. and the end to free speech. What ever happened to actual human rights?

I have covered this before but I don’t think it can be overstated how dangerous the UN now that this unelected bloated bureaucracy has been pretty much bought off by the OIC (Organization of Islamic Councils) is to the essential freedoms that created the matrix around which our secular and liberal democracies where formed.

The fact that the UN and for that matter, the EU are passing, have passed and are feverishly working on laws that would make criticism of any irrational religious authority a crime is at best begging for a return to the worst parts of the middle ages and more likely utter cultural and even historical suicide. How can you commit historical suicide? watch the Muslims in Gaza and the west bank dig up relics of ancient Israel and destroy them so that any evidence that Jews lived there will be utterly erased and you will know.

Here is another gem on the matter of free speech, and the UN


United Nations Assaults Free Speech – Moves To Protect Islam

.July 31, 2008 – The United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) is an Islam-Marxist-dominated entity that is working to criminalize or suppress any public criticism of Islam around the world.

In a recently-concluded session, the Council ruled that any criticism of Islam in the Council proceedings was to be off limits. This decision resulted from the attempts by David Littman who testified on behalf of the Association for World Education and the International Human and Ethical Union.

Littman criticized the Islamic practices of female genital mutilation, stoning for adultery, and child marriages permitted under Islamic Shariah law. His attempts to talk were repeatedly interrupted by the representatives from Egyptian, Pakistan, and Iran. Videos of this debate were provided by U.N. Watch, a Geneva-based human rights group. A transcript is also available on the U.N. Watch site.

Islamists demanded that Littman not be permitted to speak – and the President of the Human Rights Council, Doru Romulus Costea of Romania, eventually ruled: “Statements should refrain from making judgments or evaluations of a particular religion. . . I can promise that at the next evaluation of a religious creed, law, or document, I will interrupt the speaker and we’ll go on to the next one.”

The Pakistani representative protested the statement by Littman. He told the Council:

Mr. President, the voices which we hear in this council and the issues they raise are not unfamiliar. There is an agenda behind it, and you have already given a ruling on the discussion of Shariah law in this council. We have strong objections on any discussion, any direct or indirect discussion, any out of context, selective discussion on the Shariah law in this council. I would request the president to exercise his judgment and authority and request the speaker not to touch the issues which have already been deemed barred from discussion in this council. Thank you very much.

Continue Reading →