Terror Works, until you laugh in its hysterical face

More good stuff from LatmaTV, creators of "We Con the World":

Sign the petition to classify IHH (the Gaza flotilla attactivists) as a terrorist entity under Canadian law

Sign here

Because standing up for the truth and against the most corrosive forces of the present global order is a good thing.

And because, notwithstanding the humanitarian work the IHH does, its Turkish members and supporters are Islamists who take an obvious pleasure in drawing Infidel blood and don't deny that they instigated the Gaza flotilla fight. The close ties of IHH to the present Turkish government that is turning that country away from modernity and liberal democracy, and deepening its alliance with the most tyrannical and regressive forces (Iran) in its quest for leadership of the Islamic Umma, in hopes of building another Turkish/Islamic empire, is all the more reason to sign.

(And even because it pisses off all the right people.)

B'nai Brith has proposed... the petition against the Turkish Islamist group that sent armed "martyrs" to attack Israel and die to serve the cause of a death cult and the blood libel of the Jews who, they allege, have no right to defend themselves.

Background on IHH here:

Though my DIIS paper made no mention of IHH's activities in Gaza or in support of suffering Palestinian refugees, some of those angered by the Israeli flotilla raid have instead turned their emotional animus on past critics of IHH, such as myself. While I certainly can't speak with any authority on what took place on the Gaza flotilla boats, I'm rather mystified why the flotilla killings--whether right or wrong--would have any bearing on the factual question of whether the IHH has engaged in illicit financing and episodic support to extremist groups. The evidence in this regard is fairly weighty, and much of it comes directly from the Turkish government -- not the United States, nor the Israelis.

and here:

In practice, besides its legitimate humanitarian activities, IHH supports radical Islamic terrorist networks. In recent years it has prominently supported Hamas (through the Union of Good). In addition, the ITIC has reliable information that in the past IHH provided logistical support and funding to global jihad networks.

Motivation:

Can someone explain to me what this guy is saying?

Commanded to terrorize South Park, an op ed in today's Vancouver Sun by lecturer Gordon Nickel is a head scratcher for me. I know our public or mainstream media discourse on Islam has become a game of unmentionables, innuendo, and false pieties. But really, I pity the UBC students who have to figure out what this prof. wants them to think or write about Islam. This guy is not obviously an enthusiast for dissimulation or cultural relativism and yet he seems so scared of appearing to say anything a little too declarative that he invents a whole new kind of pointing with eyebrows raised, while saying weird things about Jews. Either that, or he was terribly abused by some newpaper editor with the fear of Allah in mind.

Muslim terrorists take over Cambridge University, what's next?

The terrorism in academe continues; you can no longer say anything that offends Muslims at UK universities, whether true or not, or else. The totalitarian agenda could not be clearer (original source with more details on Islamic terrorism).

As Gil Bailie notes a propos of the Geert Wilders trial (now postponed for several months, as the court perhaps waits to see if Wilders might not be assasinated first) and free speech:

As René Girard argues, the real struggle in our world is not between violence and peace; it is between violence and truth. All attempts to avoid the former by silencing the latter will end in catastrophe.

I'm trying to decide whether it's worth juxtaposing something I just came across, the reaction to some "Jewish"/Anarchist violence in Russia/Ukraine in 1879:

Grigorrii Goldenberg, the assassin of Governor-General Kropotkin, was not so fortunate. He was transporting back some of the dynamite from Odessa, having learned of its location during another chance meeting with Kibalchich, when he raised the attention of some railroad porters who reported him to the police. They were waiting for him at Elisavetgrad Station down the line. He tried to run but was surrounded. He pulled out his pistol, cocked it and threatened to shoot, but numerous men from a crowd of waiting passengers jumped him and disarmed him. The policemen actually had to rescue him from a beating at the hands of the crowd when someone labeled him a "terrorist." They confiscated from him his suitcase, finding in it a pood (36 pounds) of dynamite.

Now that's how you deal with terrorists. But when it comes to those who terrorize Jews, the world seems to have forgotten. Those who would try to appease the Islamic mob will reap the whirlwind.

On the wrong kind of talking with Muslims...

FrontPage Magazine recently had a useful symposium attempting a psychological explanation of the horrific sexual mutilation of victims in the Mumbai massacre, an attempt to explain why mutilation was a necessary prelude to the murders the Jihadis carried out. I say it is a psychological explanation because the contributors focus on the relationship of scared young men, raised by humiliated mothers in an honour/shame culture, whose idea of intimacy is to engage their victims in a horrific blood cult. A wider, anthropological explanation would look on honour/shame culture as the legacy of a tribal ritualism, the earliest form of human culture, in which the roles people must play are far more important than the individual performers as persons, a ritual and mythological order that is however not completely devoid of freedom or self-awareness - for how else could the creation of the sacred things, signs, and stories that focus a tribal ritual have ever been created in the first place? - but is yet largely incapable of recognizing the individual person in anything like the light of the Judeo-Christian revelation.

I found one comment by Nancy Kobrin particularly interesting as we reflect on our own use of the internet as we presume to engage the various evils of the Global Intifada (and its backers among the legions of Westerners suffering from white guilt):

Now I will turn to prevention. One way that I have learned well from Lachkar is that when you are in such a hostile environment where the blaming and the threats are non-stop, boundaries maintain safety. Is this not too the ultimate function of war? Establishing a firm boundary. You have to draw a line in the sand and defend it. Hamas still needs to be brought to its knees as well as Hezbollah. The entire culture has to be rebuilt as Gutmann rightly suggests.

Chesler opens the next avenue which must be explored more systematically and that is the media – what to do with it and how should we counter a media that is now identified with the aggressor? What are our options? As Nacos has written, we have mass mediated terrorism. One might refer to this as covert terrorism. Terrorism that is implicit, so most people do not recognize its destructive nature. That is why scapegoating occurs so frequently.

We are now all connected and attached via its imagery. Lachkar points out though that there is a difference between what American news carries concerning images and Arab news channels. It seems that so much more needs to be understood. Indeed some would argue that our attachment to the internet and the media especially during a terrorist attack like Mumbai is addictive in nature and I would argue, expresses a kind of traumatic bonding concerning our mothers. This is the hidden realm of our own terrors, which we share in common with the terrorists. This is how the terrorists speak to us even though we may not know Arabic. They speak in a nonverbal language which I call Desperanto. We get hooked into their terrors as human beings.

As I have said before terrorists don’t have a normative sense of intimacy; their intimacy is violence, blood, mass murder, hysteria of suicide, threats, etc. While this region is foreboding to most, it is key to dismantling the blunt force of terrorism. It is also the "gift of terror" to expand upon the work of Gavin De Becker's Gift of Fear. We have the potential to turn the tables on the terrorists and to call their bluff, even though the work is deadly and serious.

There are some who think that drawing firm lines in the sand is what they want and what they don't want is some namby-pamby talking to Muslims. But, I'd argue you can only draw firm lines when you engage the enemy with a combination of words and directed actions.

President as extortionist?

I'm still praying for Obama, but for how long can Americans put up with a president who, instead of injecting some optimism, and/or sense of discipline, into the economy, is actively talking it down? What is he afraid of? Is he simply afraid that his "porkulus" bill to "stimulate" the economy through a trillion or so dollars of spending on leftist bureaucracies and unionized businesses might not pass without major changes? Or is his desire even more sinister? What is the narrative he is trying to create for future use with talk like this?

Obama Warns of 'Irreversible' Crisis: The Associated Press

ELKHART, Ind. (AP) - Making his case in the most dire terms, President Barack Obama said that if Congress does not quickly pass an economic stimulus package, the nation will slip into a crisis so deep that "we may be unable to reverse" it.

"We can't afford to wait. We can't wait to see and hope for the best," Obama said in Elkhart, Ind., a community reeling in job losses during the recession that has defined his young presidency. "We can't posture and bicker and resort to the same failed ideas that got us in into this mess in the first place."

Roger Scruton shows the universally-applicable strengths of Judeo-Christian anthropology

Here is a very important article by Roger Scruton, which I will hopefully have time to comment on in a further post: Forgiveness and Irony by Roger Scruton, City Journal Winter 2009

More proof India is a cutting-edge society

Headline: Now, a terror suspect who holds human rights degree (HT: Nicholas P. who is watching the latest in Russian imperialism closely.)

Al Gore talks tough on terrorism

...in 1992, that is.

Here's a fascinating video excerpt of al gore from way back in 1992, giving a speech in his capacity as vice presidential candidate on the democratic ticket. The subject: saddam hussein's obvious ties to terrorism.




For once, I have found common ground with al gore. If only he retained the courage of these convictions, what a decade the nineties could have been, and what a decade we could be living through today.

(Hat tip to Dan Sytman's blog Rhetorical Ammo. How I miss being able to start off my days listening to his morning talk radio show on KTTH, out of Seattle..!)

Is it only me?

Or has everyone else who has been reading many news stories on the British, er Muslim, doctors terrorist plot, not been told this salient point for which I had to turn to The London car-bomb plot was designed to kill women. - By Christopher Hitchens :

...Only at the tail end of the coverage was it admitted that a car bomb might have been parked outside a club in Piccadilly because it was "ladies night" and that this explosion might have been designed to lure people into to the street, the better to be burned and shredded by the succeeding explosion from the second car-borne cargo of gasoline and nails. Since we have known since 2004 that a near-identical attack on a club called the Ministry of Sound was proposed in just these terms, on the grounds that dead "slags" or "sluts" would be regretted by nobody, a certain amount of trouble might have been saved by assuming the obvious. The murderers did not just want body parts in general but female body parts in particular.

I suppose that some people might want to shy away from this conclusion for whatever reason, but they cannot have been among the viewers of British Channel 4's recent Undercover Mosque, or among those who watched Sunday's report from Christiane Amanpour on CNN's Special Investigations Unit. On these shows, the British Muslim fanatics came right out with their program. Straight into the camera, leading figures like Anjem Choudary spoke of their love for Osama Bin Laden and their explicit rejection of any definition of Islam as a religion of peace. On tape or in person, mullahs in prominent British mosques called for the killing of Indians and Jews.

Liberal reluctance to confront this sheer horror is the result, I think, of a deep reticence about some furtive concept of "race." It is subconsciously assumed that a critique of political Islam is an attack on people with brown skins. One notes in passing that any such concession implicitly denies or negates Islam's claim to be a universal religion. Indeed, some of its own exponents certainly do speak as if they think of it as a tribal property. And, at any rate, in practice, so it is. The fascistic subculture that has taken root in Britain and that lives by violence and hatred is composed of two main elements. One is a refugee phenomenon, made up of shady exiles from the Middle East and Asia who are exploiting London's traditional hospitality, and one is the projection of an immigrant group that has its origins in a particularly backward and reactionary part of Pakistan.

To the shame-faced white-liberal refusal to confront these facts, one might counterpose a few observations. The first is that we were warned for years of the danger, by Britons also of Asian descent such as Hanif Kureishi, Monica Ali, and Salman Rushdie. They knew what the village mullahs looked like and sounded like, and they said as much. Not long ago, I was introduced to Nadeem Aslam, whose book Maps for Lost Lovers is highly recommended.

He understands the awful price of arranged marriages, dowry, veiling, and the other means by which the feudal arrangements of rural Pakistan have been transplanted to parts of London and Yorkshire. "In some families in my street," he writes to me, "the grandparents, parents, and the children are all first cousins—it's been going on for generations and so the effects of the inbreeding are quite pronounced by now." By his estimate and others, a minority of no more than 11 percent is responsible for more than 70 percent of the birth defects in Yorkshire. When a leading socialist member of Parliament, Ann Cryer, drew attention to this appalling state of affairs in her own constituency, she was promptly accused of—well, you can guess what she was accused of. The dumb word Islamophobia, uncritically employed by Christiane Amanpour in her otherwise powerful documentary, was the least of it. Meanwhile, an extreme self-destructive clannishness, which is itself "phobic" in respect to all outsiders, becomes the constituency for the preachings of a cult of death. I mention this because, if there is an "ethnic" dimension to the Islamist question, then in this case at least it is the responsibility of the Islamists themselves.

The most noticeable thing about all theocracies is their sexual repression and their directly related determination to exert absolute control over women. In Britain, in the 21st century, there are now honor killings, forced marriages, clerically mandated wife-beatings, incest in all but name, and the adoption of apparel for females that one cannot be sure is chosen by them but which is claimed as an issue of (of all things) free expression. This would be bad enough on its own and if it were confined to the Muslim "community" alone. But, of course, such a toxin cannot be confined, and the votaries of theocracy now claim the God-given right to slaughter females at random for nothing more than their perceived immodesty. The least we can do, confronted by such radical evil, is to look it in the eye (something it strives to avoid) and call it by its right name.

I think what Hitchens is trying to say, though even he will not name it, is that this terrorism is part of not just a religious or ideological war, but also a racial war, a war to control the Other's women, which is no doubt what many Muslims think we are trying to do when we criticize things like full hijab. Somewhere, there, is another insight into what motivated these doctors in their various, body management and bombing for Allah, careers. The modern liberal West denies the significance of both race and religion as fundamental motivators of human behaviour, especially of trained medical men; it seems certain Muslims are trying to tell us otherwise.

Race consciousness is a product of sexual, or marriage partner, selection and exchange, and of all the cultural and genetic traits that go with it; and this is not (not least among those who deny it) a random or ethically neutral business. Islamic apologists like to tell us that within Islam all races are equal, united in the Umma. If that's so, why the cousin marriages? How many Pakistanis in Britain have Arab wives, or vice versa? I imagine more of each have white wives. As we see everyday in the tribal killings of Iraq, the battle for both sectarian and racial leadership of the Umma remains open in the new global order.

Buying the Montrealistan book online

This is a follow-up to a point I raised at last week’s Covenant Zone meeting, and in the comments section of our initial post on Fabrice de Pierrebourg’s new book, Montrealistan.

With all the notice the book was receiving in the press, I thought it was strange that there did not seem to be any way to actually buy the book online.
Well, I finally found an online bookseller that is carrying the French Montrealistan book, and from whom it can be purchased: The Librarie Renaud-Bray.

According to the site, this is the description on the book’s dust jacket: [my translation]

A few years ago, London’s status as a sanctuary for islamic terrorism earned it the nickname "Londonistan". In observing the scope of Montreal’s islamist network and its deep anchorage, it is undoubtedly no exaggeration today to speak of Montrealistan. Has a famous Montreal islamist terror cell from the 1990s survived the arrest and incarceration of its most symbolic members? What happened to them? Why is the city an ideal hideout for activists of every side, whether they be organizers, simple "soldiers" or financiers? How many veterans of al-qaeda’s afghan camps have been identified? How many Montrealers considered as threats to national security are under permanent surveillance? Leaning on numerous secret and exclusive documents, on meetings with different intelligence and military[? "lutte", in original] agencies, as well as testimonies from several persons involved, mistakenly or for good reason, in terrorist files, Fabrice de Pierrebourg answers these questions. Realist without being alarmist, he exposes troubling facts that demonstrate that Montreal, mirroring Canada, has lost nothing of its attraction for jihadi militants, even if they make themselves more discrete. Yet, awaiting the case where Canada, and Quebec in particular, will one day become the target of this extremist elements, it will be the whole muslim community and the foundation of our multiculturalism that will inexorably pay the price.

The listed price is $24.95 cdn.
And its ISBN number (in case anyone else starts carrying the title)....
ISBN: 9782760410404 (2760410404)

At this writing, the book is not available through Amazon.ca, or through Chapters.ca. Is there another possible canadian book source that I am overlooking here..?

Meanwhile the actual publisher, Les Éditions Stanké, doesn't have an operational website, so they are not publicizing this hot title. Hot, judging by how many people are searching for more information about it over the internet! I hope they have plans to publish an english edition.