I’m looking at the various articles on the very confused site LewRockwell.com, which alternates between intelligent reactionary and libertarian insight and… stuff that just doesn’t make any sense. Like this:Secularist Stupidity and Religious Wars by Patrick Buchanan
That demagogues and agitators are exploiting those cartoons of Mohammed to advance a war of civilizations and expel Europeans from the Middle East seems undeniable.
But that does not excuse the paralyzing stupidity of that Danish paper in running those cartoons – or the arrogant irresponsibility of European newspapers in plastering those cartoons all over their front pages.
Actually, nearly all European newspapers were too terrified of those barbarians to publish the cartoons. And they were right to be so, especially since Europe’s governments will not protect Europeans from Muslims, as has been demonstrated time and again.
Islamic countries have recalled ambassadors from Copenhagen. People have been injured and property destroyed in mob assaults as far away as Indonesia. Relations between the West and the Islamic world have been dealt another rupturing blow.
And for what? What was the purpose of this juvenile idiocy by the Europress? Is this what freedom of the press is all about – the freedom to insult the faith of a billion people and start a religious war?
Can Europeans be that ignorant of the power of the press to inflame when Bismarck’s editing of just a few words in the Ems telegram ignited the Franco-Prussian war? Did Europeans learn nothing from the Salman Rushdie episode? Or the firestorm that gripped the Islamic world when Christian ministers in the United States called Mohammed a “terrorist”?
Can Buchanan be that ignorant of the deranged irony of what he’s saying? Christians didn’t riot in the streets over “Piss Christ”. But when Muslims respond to being insulted (with accurate observations) with wanton murder, Buchanan figures that’s entirely reasonable. Well, I guess we can’t expect Arabs to exercise the same kind of self-control as white people.
Actually, we literally can’t. They don’t have the genes for it.
Right To Be Angry by Eric Margolis
Satirical, racist cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed originally published by a sensation-seeking Danish newspaper have produced an international storm of hysteria and racism.
Mobs of enraged Muslims have rioted from Morocco to Indonesia and burned Danish and Norwegian embassies. Editors of other European newspapers that ran the offensive cartoons piously insist they were defending free speech.
This writer detests any form of censorship, including so-called “hate laws” that are really modern forms of heresy and blasphemy statutes.
But free speech does not include the right to scream “fire” in a crowded movie theatre. And that’s just what the European newspapers did. They were trying to boost circulation and pander to anti-immigrant right-wingers by attacking Islam.
This whole ugly business is really about anti-Islamism – the modern version of 1930′s anti-Semitism.
Except that we never killed anybody or set fire to anything over Der Stürmer. Also, unlike the Danish cartoons, the caricatures in that publication weren’t pointing out that we were committing random murders, probably because we weren’t. He concludes his article by wagging his finger at Muslims for not expressing their justifiable anger without killing anyone. Tsk, tsk.
Buildup to World War III by Bill Sardi
Step #4: Provoke the people in target countries to respond with anger by humiliating them. Cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in Danish newspapers have provoked outrage and demonstrations throughout Middle-Eastern countries….
Somehow a vast cache of Danish flags have appeared in Muslim countries, to be publicly burned, while green and black Islamic flags were waved by demonstrators worldwide. The outrage is being well orchestrated.
First he blames the riots, not on the rioters, but on the one or two newspapers brave enough to point out universally known facts about Muslims. Then he insinuates that – what? That the CIA or whoever is orchestrating WWIII dropped Danish flags onto Muslim countries?
Thankfully, this Islamophilism is not common among those on the traditionalist side. But there’s enough of it that it’s very discouraging.
Note: I do think that we could have responded better to 9/11, but decades of anti-white, anti-Western propaganda made it impossible. If not for all the years promoting nonwhite immigration and white guilt, 9/11 could never have happened to begin with. There is no way that any administration could have done what really needed to be done, what would have been done in the unlikely event anyone had dared to attack us that way decades ago. Any president who’d tried would have been literally lynched by white-hating white Democrats.
As for what should have been done, racial profiling in airports, sending Muslim immigrants back where they came from and not letting new ones in are the most important components. If you thought people were mad at Dubya for fighting Muslims on their own turf, imagine how Democrats would have reacted if he’d tried to fight them on ours. Unfortunately, even most Republicans would have balked at the above. I’ve actually suggested the above to conservative friends, and while some agreed, others panicked at the thought.