The 3 R's Of Revolutionary Candor (Part 1)

It Takes All Kinds

Summarizing history to a few words is not an easy task, but we would like to postulate something called the [Modern] 3 R's of Revolutionary Candor as defined here at the Scenewash Project and The Two-Fisted Quorum are Race, Religion, and Riches. This trinity must be greeted by first understanding the the origins of the first two world wars, and so that we can then recognize the third which is upon us. The tensions that led to World War I were exceedingly secular and nationalistic in nature, and PRIMARILY economic. Below is a critical essay co-authored by three grad students in he late 1990s—Suzanne Karpilovsky, Maria Fogel, and Olivia Kobelt—detailing the causes of the First World War, and suffices brilliantly to fulfill our notion that the war which was launched with word of a royal assassination in Europe in 1914 at the height of the Industrial Revolution was primarily driven by RICHES.

World War I was the result of leaders' aggression towards other countries which was supported by the rising nationalism of the European nations. Economic and imperial competition and fear of war prompted military alliances and an arms race, which further escalated the tension contributing to the outbreak of war.

At the settlement of the Congress of Vienna in 1815, the principle of nationalism was ignored in favor of preserving the peace. Germany and Italy were left as divided states, but strong nationalist movements and revolutions led to the unification of Italy in 1861 and that of Germany in 1871. Another result of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71 was that France was left seething over the loss of Alsace-Lorraine to Germany, and Revanche was a major goal of the French. Nationalism posed a problem for Austria-Hungary and the Balkans, areas comprised of many conflicting national groups. The ardent Panslavism of Serbia and Russia's willingness to support its Slavic brother conflicted with Austria-Hungary's Pan-Germanism.

Another factor which contributed to the increase in rivalry in Europe was imperialism. Great Britain, Germany and France needed foreign markets after the increase in manufacturing caused by the Industrial Revolution. These countries competed for economic expansion in Africa. Although Britain and France resolved their differences in Africa, several crises foreshadowing the war involved the clash of Germany against Britain and France in North Africa. In the Middle East, the crumbling Ottoman Empire was alluring to Austria-Hungary, the Balkans and Russia.

Bismarck and Alliances
World War I was caused in part by the two opposing alliances developed by Bismarckian diplomacy after the Franco-Prussian War. In order to diplomatically isolate France, Bismarck formed the Three Emperor's League in 1872, an alliance between Germany, Russia and Austria-Hungary. When the French occupied Tunisia, Bismarck took advantage of Italian resentment towards France and created the Triple Alliance between Germany, Italy and Austria- Hungary in 1882. In exchange for Italy's agreement to stay neutral if war broke out between Austria-Hungary and Russia, Germany and Austria-Hungary would protect Italy from France. Russia and Austria-Hungary grew suspicious of each other over conflicts in the Balkans in 1887, but Bismarck repaired the damage to his alliances with a Reinsurance Treaty with Russia, allowing both powers to stay neutral if the other was at war.

Collapse of Bismarckian Alliances
However, after Bismarck was fired by Kaiser William II in 1890, the traditional dislike of Slavs kept Bismarck's successors from renewing the understanding with Russia. France took advantage of this opportunity to get an ally, and the Franco- Russian Entente was formed in 1891, which became a formal alliance in 1894. The Kruger telegram William II sent to congratulate the leader of the Boers for defeating the British in 1896, his instructions to the German soldiers to behave like Huns in China during the Boxer Rebellion, and particularly the large- scale navy he was building all contributed to British distrust of Germany.

As a result, Britain and France overlooked all major imperialistic conflict between them and formed the Entente Cordiale in 1904. Russia formed an Entente with Britain in 1907 after they had reached an understanding with Britain's ally Japan and William II had further alienated Russia by supporting Austrian ambitions in the Balkans. The Triple Entente, an informal coalition between Great Britain, France and Russia, now countered the Triple Alliance. International tension was greatly increased by the division of Europe into two armed camps.

Arms Race
The menace of the hostile division led to an arms race, another cause of World War I. Acknowledging that Germany was the leader in military organization and efficiency, the great powers of Europe copied the universal conscription, large reserves and detailed planning of the Prussian system. Technological and organizational developments led to the formation of general staffs with precise plans for mobilization and attack that often could not be reversed once they were begun. The German von Schlieffen Plan to attack France before Russia in the event of war with Russia was one such complicated plan that drew more countries into war than necessary.

Armies and navies were greatly expanded. The standing armies of France and Germany doubled in size between 1870 and 1914. Naval expansion was also extremely competitive, particularly between Germany and Great Britain. By 1889, the British had established the principle that in order to maintain naval superiority in the event of war they would have to have a navy two and a half times as large as the second-largest navy. This motivated the British to launch the Dreadnought, invented by Admiral Sir John Fisher, in 1906. The Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 had demonstrated how effective these battleships were. As Britain increased their output of battleships, Germany correspondingly stepped up their naval production, including the Dreadnought. Although efforts for worldwide disarmament were made at the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907, international rivalry caused the arms race to continue to feed on itself.

Crises in Africa
The friction of an armed and divided Europe escalated into several crises in Morocco and the Balkans which nearly ended in war. In 1905, Germany announced its support of independence for Morocco, the African colony which Britain had given France in 1904. The British defended the French, and war was avoided by a international conference in Algeciras in 1906 which allowed France to make Morocco a French protectorate.

Bosnian Crisis of 1908
Another conflict was incited by the Austria-Hungarian annexation of the former Turkish province of Bosnia in 1908. The Greater Serbian movement had as an object the acquisition of Slavic Bosnia, so Serbia threatened war on Austria-Hungary. Russia had pledged their support to Serbia, so they began to mobilize, which caused Germany, allied with Austria-Hungary, to threaten war on Russia. The beginning of World War I was postponed when Russia backed down, but relations between Austria- Hungary and Serbia were greatly strained.

Morocco II
A second Moroccan crisis occurred in 1911 when Germany sent a warship to Agadir in protest of French supremacy in Morocco, claiming the French had violated the agreement at Algeciras. Britain again rose to France's defense and gave the Germans stern warnings. Germany agreed to allow France a free hand in Morocco in exchange for part of the French Congo. In the Balkan Wars of 1912-13, the Balkan States drove the Turks back to Constantinople and fought among themselves over territory. Tensions between Serbia and Austria-Hungary increased when Austria-Hungary forced Serbia to abandon some of its gains.

Assassination in Sarajevo
Europe had reached its breaking point when on June 28, 1914, Archduke Francis Ferdinand, heir to the Austria-Hungarian throne, was assassinated in Sarajevo, Bosnia, by a Serbian nationalist belonging to an organization known as the Black Hand (Narodna Obrana). Immediately following the assassination Germany pledged its full support (blank check) to Austria-Hungary, pressuring them to declare war on Serbia, while France strengthened its backing of Russia. Convinced that the Serbian government had conspired against them, Austria-Hungary issued Serbia an unacceptable ultimatum, to which Serbia consented almost entirely.

Falling Dominoes
Unsatisfied, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia on July 28, 1914. On July 29, Russia ordered a partial mobilization only against Austria-Hungary in support of Serbia, which escalated into a general mobilization. The Germans threatened war on July 31 if the Russians did not demobilize. Upon being asked by Germany what it would do in the event of a Russo-German War, France responded that it would act in its own interests and mobilized. On August 1, Germany declared war on Russia, and two days later, on France. The German invasion of Belgium to attack France, which violated Belgium's official neutrality, prompted Britain to declare war on Germany. World War I had begun.

By: Suzanne Karpilovsky (IB Diploma 1996), Maria Fogel (IB Diploma 1996), Olivia Kobelt (Class of 1996)

An Ethical Basis For War Against Political Islam

Saudi Funds
Saudi-American Duplicity
An Ethical Basis for War Against Political Islam: Part 4, Jihad

The dualistic ethical system of the Islamic Trilogy prepares the foundation of jihad with one set of ethics for Muslims and another set of ethics for the kafirs. So, there are two ways to deal with the kafirs. One is to think of them as inferiors but act in a kindly way. The other is jihad.

Jihad is a unique word. Its actual meaning is struggle or effort. Islam speaks of two types-the lesser jihad and the greater jihad. The greater jihad is spiritual effort or internal struggle, to stop smoking, for example, or control one's greed. Only 3% of the Hadith Bukhari recorded about jihad refer to the greater jihad. The rest, 97%, of the Hadith about jihad are about war.

The Fundamentals of Jihad

Ihe following hadith summarizes all the key elements of jihad. (Notice that only the fourth item, the Day of Resurrection, is purely religious in nature). It tells us that the whole world must submit to Islam; kafirs are the enemy simply by not being Muslims. To achieve this dominance, Islam may use terror and violence. It may use psychological warfare, fear, and theft. It may take the spoils of war from kafirs. Violence and terror are made sacred by the Koran. Peace comes only with submission to Islam.

Bukhari 1,7,331 Mohammed: "I have been given five things which were not given to any one else before me:

"Allah made me victorious by awe, by His frightening my enemies for a distance of one month's journey. The earth has been made for me and for my followers a place for praying and a place to perform rituals; therefore, anyone of my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due. The spoils of war has been made lawful for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me. I have been given the right of intercession on the Day of Resurrection. Every prophet used to be sent to his nation only but I have been sent to all mankind."

The story of the Trilogy culminates in the dominance of political Islam. The Trilogy teaches that Islam is the perfect political system and is destined to rule the entire world. The governments and constitutions of the world must all submit to political Islam. If the political systems of the kafirs do not submit, then force, jihad, may be used. All jihad is defensive, since refusing to submit to Islam is an offense against Allah. All Muslims must support the political action of jihad. This may take several forms-fighting, proselytizing or contributing money.

The Trilogy lays out the complete strategy, tactics, and vision of political Islam and jihad. Much of the Trilogy is about how Mohammed dealt with those people who disagreed with him. Violent political action with a religious motivation was taken against kafirs. Under Islam, their only political freedom was to submit. This legal inferiority is sacred, eternal and universal.

Duality of ethics was the basis for Mohammed's greatest single innovation-jihad. Jihad is dual ethics with sacred violence. The key religious element of the dual ethics is that Allah sanctifies violence for complete domination. The kafirs must submit to Islam.

In Mecca, Mohammed demonstrated the initial practice of jihad when Islam was weak: persuasion and conversion. When he moved to Medina, he demonstrated how jihad worked when Islam was strong: using immigration against inhabitants, creating political power by struggling against the host, dominating other religions, using violence, sowing division among the tribes, and establishing a government.

Jihad is civilizational war for two reasons. First, jihad uses every aspect of civilization as an element of war. Violence, education, fear, psychology, sociology, sex, population, immigration, public relations, corruption and religion are all used in jihad. Military force and terror are the smallest aspects of jihad. The second reason that jihad is civilizational war is that the purpose of jihad is to annihilate every aspect of the non-Islamic civilization. Art, history, law, dress, manners, names, education, customs, government, foreign policy, economics, and every other detail must become Islamic.

The greatest error in understanding jihad is to think of military force and terror. Jihad does not have to fit the Geneva Convention's rules. A jihadist is a civilian in the army of Allah and can move back and forth from soldier to citizen. Giving money to an Islamic "charity" is jihad. Writing a letter to the editor about how well Islam treats women is jihad. Having eight children is jihad.

The Koran could not be more clear-every Muslim is to be a jihadist. Jihad is laid out in all three of the Trilogy texts. There is no Islam without jihad.

Islam has been waging civilizational war for centuries. Before the Muslims arrived, Egypt and North Africa and the southern coast of the Mediterranean were Christian. There was a Buddhist monastery in Alexandria Egypt. Turkey was Buddhist and Christian. Persia-now Iran-was Zoroastrian. The Hindu culture covered an area of the world twice as large as it is now. Languages disappeared to be replaced by Arabic.

When Napoleon invaded Egypt, he discovered that the Muslim population knew nothing about the pyramids or temples. The 5,000 year old culture of the Pharaohs had been annihilated. There is no longer a population of Buddhists in Afghanistan. Baghdad was once home to the oldest community of Jews in the world, brought there as Babylonian captives, today it is estimated that there are no more than a few dozen old, sick and infirm Jews left in Iraq. All cultures living within the borders of Islam are annihilated. [Whole] Peoples either leave, convert or die out. There are no exceptions.

Once jihad has conquered a civilization, there is never another revolution. Even if the form of government changes, it remains Muslim. The only time Islam has left an occupied territory has been because it was forced out by military might.

Rape as Warfare

Mohammed encouraged the rape of female captives after battles. This is reported in the Sira and Hadith and approved in the Koran. In jihad it is not considered rape to have forced sex with a woman as long as she is a kafir captive or slave. This is true even if she is married. In the Muslim world, the act is only rape when committed against a Muslim. Again, the dual ethics of Islam prevail.

Bukhari 3,34,431 One of the captives was a beautiful Jewess, Safiya. Dihya had her first, but she was given to Mohammed next.

4:24 Also forbidden to you are married women unless they are your slaves or captives.

Rape was one of Mohammed's tactics of conquest because it worked. Forced sex with women whose protectors had been killed was considered supreme domination. It was also a humiliation to the women's male relatives and husbands who had not been killed. If a woman is captured, raped and absorbed into the captor's environment, her helplessness renders her totally compliant and her submission is complete. To protect her children from slavery, many widows and rape victims readily agreed to conversion and their children were raised as Muslims.

Forced sex is far more than rape in political Islam. It is a method of war, a tactical strike which is not a crime because it is jihad. It is not a sin. It is practiced against the kafir and is sanctioned in the Trilogy of the Koran, the Sira, and the Hadith.

Bill Warner

Wake Up Little Darlings, Wake Up

Wake up little darlings, wake up! Here's an excellent article written by Bruce Bawer, author of the essential While Europe Slept. Published by City Journal, "An Anatomy of Surrender" is a comprehensive detail of the ongoing voluntary submission of the West to Islamist attitudes and laws which over time will effectively destroy us.


ISLAM DIVIDES the world into two parts. The part governed by sharia, or Islamic law, is called the Dar al-Islam, or House of Submission. Everything else is the Dar al-Harb, or House of War, so called because it will take war—holy war, jihad—to bring it into the House of Submission. Over the centuries, this jihad has taken a variety of forms. Two centuries ago, for instance, Muslim pirates from North Africa captured ships and enslaved their crews, leading the U.S. to fight the Barbary Wars of 1801–05 and 1815. In recent decades, the jihadists’ weapon of choice has usually been the terrorist’s bomb; the use of planes as missiles on 9/11 was a variant of this method.

What has not been widely recognized is that the Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1989 fatwa against Satanic Verses author Salman Rushdie introduced a new kind of jihad. Instead of assaulting Western ships or buildings, Kho meini took aim at a fundamental Western freedom: freedom of speech. In recent years, other Islamists have joined this crusade, seeking to undermine Western societies’ basic liberties and extend sharia within those societies.

The cultural jihadists have enjoyed disturbing success. Two events in particular—the 2004 assassination in Amsterdam of Theo van Gogh in retaliation for his film about Islam’s oppression of women, and the global wave of riots, murders, and vandalism that followed a Danish newspaper’s 2005 publication of cartoons satirizing Mohammed—have had a massive ripple effect throughout the West.

Motivated variously, and doubtless sometimes simultaneously, by fear, misguided sympathy, and multicultural ideology—which teaches us to belittle our freedoms and to genuflect to non-Western cultures, however repressive—people at every level of Western society, but especially elites, have allowed concerns about what fundamentalist Muslims will feel, think, or do to influence their actions and expressions. These Westerners have begun, in other words, to internalize the strictures of sharia, and thus implicitly to accept the deferential status of dhimmis—infidels living in Muslim societies.

Call it a cultural surrender. The House of War is slowly—or not so slowly, in Europe’s case—being absorbed into the House of Submission.

The Western media are in the driver’s seat on this road to sharia. Often their approach is to argue that we’re the bad guys. After the late Dutch sociologist-turned-politician Pim Fortuyn sounded the alarm about the danger that Europe’s Islamization posed to democracy, elite journalists labeled him a threat. A New York Times headline described him as marching the Dutch to the right. Dutch newspapers Het Parool and De Volkskrant compared him with Mussolini; Trouw likened him to Hitler. The man (a multiculturalist, not a Muslim) who murdered him in May 2002 seemed to echo such verdicts when explaining his motive: Fortuyn’s views on Islam, the killer insisted, were “dangerous.”

Perhaps no Western media outlet has exhibited this habit of moral inversion more regularly than the BBC. In 2006, to take a typical example, Manchester’s top imam told psychotherapist John Casson that he supported the death penalty for homosexuality. Casson expressed shock—and the BBC, in a dispatch headlined imam accused of “gay death” slur, spun the controversy as an effort by Casson to discredit Islam. The BBC concluded its story with comments from an Islamic Human Rights Commission spokesman, who equated Muslim attitudes toward homosexuality with those of “other orthodox religions, such as Catholicism” and complained that focusing on the issue was “part of demonizing Muslims.”

Nn June 2005, the BBC aired the documentary Don’t Panic, I’m Islamic, which sought to portray concerns about Islamic radicalism as overblown. This “stunning whitewash of radical Islam,” as Little Green Footballs blogger Charles Johnson put it, “helped keep the British public fast asleep, a few weeks before the bombs went off in London subways and buses” in July 2005. In December 2007, it emerged that five of the documentary’s subjects, served up on the show as examples of innocuous Muslims-next-door, had been charged in those terrorist attacks—and that BBC producers, though aware of their involvement after the attacks took place, had not reported important information about them to the police.

Press acquiescence to Muslim demands and threats is endemic. When the Mohammed cartoons—published in September 2005 by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten to defy rising self-censorship after van Gogh’s murder—were answered by worldwide violence, only one major American newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, joined such European dailies as Die Welt and El País in reprinting them as a gesture of free-speech solidarity. Editors who refused to run the images claimed that their motive was multicultural respect for Islam.

Critic Christopher Hitchens believed otherwise, writing that he “knew quite a number of the editors concerned and can say for a certainty that the chief motive for ‘restraint’ was simple fear.” Exemplifying the new dhimmitude, whatever its motivation, was Norway’s leading cartoonist, Finn Graff, who had often depicted Israelis as Nazis, but who now vowed not to draw anything that might provoke Muslim wrath. (On a positive note, this February, over a dozen Danish newspapers, joined by a number of other papers around the world, reprinted one of the original cartoons as a free-speech gesture after the arrest of three people accused of plotting to kill the artist.)

Last year brought another cartoon crisis—this time over Swedish artist Lars Vilks’s drawings of Mohammed as a dog, which ambassadors from Muslim countries used as an excuse to demand speech limits in Sweden. CNN reporter Paula Newton suggested that perhaps “Vilks should have known better” because of the Jyllands-Posten incident—as if people who make art should naturally take their marching orders from people who make death threats. Meanwhile, The Economist depicted Vilks as an eccentric who shouldn’t be taken “too seriously” and noted approvingly that Sweden’s prime minister, unlike Denmark’s, invited the ambassadors “in for a chat.”

The elite media regularly underreport fundamentalist Muslim misbehavior or obfuscate its true nature. After the knighting of Rushdie in 2007 unleashed yet another wave of international Islamist mayhem, Tim Rutten wrote in the Los Angeles Times: “If you’re wondering why you haven’t been able to follow all the columns and editorials in the American press denouncing all this homicidal nonsense, it’s because there haven’t been any.” Or consider the riots that gripped immigrant suburbs in France in the autumn of 2005. These uprisings were largely assertions of Muslim authority over Muslim neighborhoods, and thus clearly jihadist in character. Yet weeks passed before many American press outlets mentioned them—and when they did, they de-emphasized the rioters’ Muslim identity (few cited the cries of “Allahu akbar,” for instance). Instead, they described the violence as an outburst of frustration over economic injustice.

When polls and studies of Muslims appear, the media often spin the results absurdly or drop them down the memory hole after a single news cycle. Journalists celebrated the results of a 2007 Pew poll showing that 80 percent of American Muslims aged 18 to 29 said that they opposed suicide bombing—even though the flip side, and the real story, was that a double-digit percentage of young American Muslims admitted that they supported it. US muslims assimilated, opposed to extremism, the Washington Post rejoiced, echoing USA Today’s American Muslims reject extremes. A 2006 Daily Telegraph survey showed that 40 percent of British Muslims wanted sharia in Britain—yet British reporters often write as though only a minuscule minority embraced such views.

After each major terrorist act since 9/11, the press has dutifully published stories about Western Muslims fearing an “anti-Muslim backlash”—thus neatly shifting the focus from Islamists’ real acts of violence to non-Muslims’ imaginary ones. (These backlashes, of course, never materialize.) While books by Islam experts like Bat Ye’or and Robert Spencer, who tell difficult truths about jihad and sharia, go unreviewed in newspapers like the New York Times, the elite press legitimizes thinkers like Karen Armstrong and John Esposito, whose sugarcoated representations of Islam should have been discredited for all time by 9/11.

Mainstream outlets have also served up anodyne portraits of fundamentalist Muslim life. Witness Andrea Elliott’s affectionate three-part profile of a Brooklyn imam, which appeared in the New York Times in March 2006. Elliott and the Times sought to portray Reda Shata as a heroic bridge builder between two cultures, leaving readers with the comforting belief that the growth of Islam in America was not only harmless but positive, even beautiful.

Though it emerged in passing that Shata didn’t speak English, refused to shake women’s hands, wanted to forbid music, and supported Hamas and suicide bombing, Elliott did her best to downplay such unpleasant details; instead, she focused on sympathetic personal particulars. “Islam came to him softly, in the rhythms of his grandmother’s voice”; “Mr. Shata discovered love 15 years ago. . . . ‘She entered my heart,‘ said the imam.” Elliott’s saccharine piece won a Pulitzer Prize. When Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes pointed out that Shata was obviously an Islamist, a writer for the Columbia Journalism Review dismissed Pipes as “right-wing” and insisted that Shata was “very moderate.”

So it goes in this upside-down, not-so-brave new media world: those who, if given the power, would subjugate infidels, oppress women, and execute apostates and homosexuals are “moderate” (a moderate, these days, apparently being anybody who doesn’t have explosives strapped to his body), while those who dare to call a spade a spade are “Islamophobes.”

The entertainment industry has been nearly as appalling. During World War II, Hollywood churned out scores of films that served the war effort, but today’s movies and TV shows, with very few exceptions, either tiptoe around Islam or whitewash it. In the whitewash category were two sitcoms that debuted in 2007, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s "Little Mosque on the Prairie" and CW’s "Aliens in America." Both shows are about Muslims confronting anti-Muslim bigotry; both take it for granted that there’s no fundamentalist Islam problem in the West, but only an anti-Islam problem.

Muslim pressure groups have actively tried to keep movies and TV shows from portraying Islam as anything but a Religion of Peace. For example, the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) successfully lobbied Paramount Pictures to change the bad guys in The Sum of All Fears (2002) from Islamist terrorists to neo-Nazis, while Fox’s popular series 24, after Muslims complained about a story line depicting Islamic terrorists, ran cringe-worthy public-service announcements emphasizing how nonviolent Islam was. Earlier this year, Iranian-Danish actor Farshad Kholghi noted that, despite the cartoon controversy’s overwhelming impact on Denmark, “not a single movie has been made about the crisis, not a single play, not a single stand-up monologue.” Which, of course, is exactly what the cartoon jihadists wanted.

In April 2006, an episode of the animated series South Park admirably mocked the wave of self-censorship that followed the Jyllands-Posten crisis but Comedy Central censored it, replacing an image of Mohammed with a black screen and an explanatory notice. According to series producer Anne Garefino, network executives frankly admitted that they were acting out of fear. “We were happy,” she told an interviewer, “that they didn’t try to claim that it was because of religious tolerance.”

Then there’s the art world. Postmodern artists who have always striven to shock and offend now maintain piously that Islam deserves “respect.” Museums and galleries have quietly taken down paintings that might upset Muslims and have put into storage manuscripts featuring images of Mohammed. London’s Whitechapel Art Gallery removed life-size nude dolls by surrealist artist Hans Bellmer from a 2006 exhibit just before its opening; the official excuse was “space constraints,” but the curator admitted that the real reason was fear that the nudity might offend the gallery’s Muslim neighbors.

Last November, after the cancellation of a show in The Hague of artworks depicting gay men in Mohammed masks, the artist, Sooreh Hera, charged the museum with giving in to Muslim threats. Tim Marlow of London’s White Cube Gallery notes that such self-censorship by artists and museums is now common, though “very few people have explicitly admitted” it. British artist Grayson Perry, whose work has mercilessly mocked Christianity, is one who has—and his reluctance isn’t about multicultural sensitivity. “The reason I haven’t gone all out attacking Islamism in my art,” he told the Times of London, “is because I feel real fear that someone will slit my throat.”

Leading liberal intellectuals and academics have shown a striking willingness to betray liberal values when it comes to pacifying Muslims. Back in 2001, Unni Wikan, a distinguished Norwegian cultural anthropologist and Islam expert, responded to the high rate of Muslim-on-infidel rape in Oslo by exhorting women to “realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.”

The Times described Armstrong’s hagiography of Mohammed as “a good place to start” learning about Islam; in July 2007, the Washington Post headlined a piece by Esposito "Want to understand Islam? Start here."

There's lots more to this essay. We encourage you to read it all.

British Police Practice Dhimmitude in 2008, Not in 2010

LONDON, ENGLAND—Islam4UK Spokesman Anjem Choudary leaves a press conference in Millbank Studios on January 12, 2010 in London, England. The radical Islamic group had planned to stage a march through Wootton Bassett to honour Muslims who have been killed in the conflict in Afghanistan, but have been prevented from doing so, under counter-terrorism laws. (Photo by Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

Nhe absurdity of Western dhimmitude continues to wash in from the Isles. A British citizen who converted to Christianity from Islam and then complained to police when locals threatened to burn his house down was told by officers to “stop being a crusader” according to a new report.

Nissar Hussein, 43, from Bradford, West Yorkshire, who was born and raised in Britain, converted from Islam to Christianity with his wife, Qubra, in 1996. The report says that he was subjected to a number of attacks and, after being told that his house would be burnt down if he did not repent and return to Islam, reported the threat to the police. It says he was told that such threats were rarely carried out and the police officer told him to “stop being a crusader and move to another place”.

A few days later the unoccupied house next door was set on fire. Christian Solidarity Worldwide, a British human rights organization whose president is the former Cabinet minister Jonathan Aitken, is calling on the UN and the international community to take action against nations and communities that punish apostasy.

Its report, No Place to Call Home, claims that apostates from Islam are subject to “gross and wideranging human rights abuses”. It adds that in countries such as Britain, with large Muslim populations in a Westernized culture, the demand to maintain a Muslim identity is intense. “When identities are precarious, their enforcement will take an aggressive form.”

Is It Time Again For National Rationing?

Pent Up Military

Well, I was not yet born, but I know my American history better than a good portion of those living in the nation today. And history speaks of the time when one just could not stroll into the market to buy certain items whenever one wished. There was a "no excuses" policy called food and gasoline rationing in place. Pearl Harbor changed the pace and purpose of every American. Almost overnight the economy shifted to war production. Consumer goods now took a back seat to military production as nationwide rationing began almost immediately.

The word on the street was, "There's a war on, you know."

Everyone understood, and most dealt with the new restrictions with patriotic fervor and civic pride.

The news today is grim. Food shortages worldwide, an obese population nationally. Spiraling gasoline prices. The falling dollar. An unstable stock market. Global warming. A public bored with consumer habits, itching for a defining spirit of purpose, a purpose greater than oneself, one favoring the nation (or as some might put it, the world) rather than the individual. Could it be that the Bush administration made his critical error in winning American hearts and minds in suggesting that "business as usual" was the tact to take while he conducted his war on terror.

There's no answer to that question, but rationing could again be on America's plate. China, Russia, Iran, Al-Qeada. All in the news, and seemingly wanted our national head on a platter. Our enemies are great and persistent. Perhaps we should all reacquire a sense of political humility. Perhaps, despite the initial pain and rebrokering of a system already teetering on the brink of collapse, our financial leadership should be seriously considering how a well-regulated regimen of product rationing would help steer this country back to the mindset that will prepare us for what is certainly in store.

Such a tactic would certainly put a heavy spray of starch into the britches of both the grubby control-freaked Leftists and the grab-grubby Rightists. That would be fun to watch. Now what was I just writing about F.A Hayek?

Rush Limbaugh Nails This Issue

Rush Limbaugh
by Rush Limba​ugh

I think​ the vast diffe​rence​s in compe​nsati​on betwe​en victi​ms of the Septe​mber 11 casua​lties and those​ who die servi​ng our count​ry in unifo​rm are profo​und.

No one is reall​y talki​ng about​ it eithe​r,​ becau​se you just don'​t criti​cize anyth​ing havin​g to do with Septe​mber 11.​ Well,​ I can'​t let the nu​mbers​ pass by becau​se it says somet​hing reall​y distu​rbing​ about​ the entit​lemen​t menta​lity of this count​ry.​ If you lost a famil​y membe​r in the Septe​mber 11 attac​k,​ you'​re going​ to get an avera​ge of $​1,​185,​000.​The range​ is a minim​um guara​ntee of $​250,​000 all the way up to $4.7 milli​on.​

if you are a survi​ving famil​y membe​r of an Ameri​can soldi​er kille​d in actio​n,​ the first​ check​ you get is a $​6,​000 direc​t death​ benef​it,​ half of which​ is taxable.

Next,​ you get $​1,​750 for buria​l costs​.​ If you are the survi​ving spous​e,​ you get $833 a month​ until​ you remar​ry.​ And there​'​s a payme​nt of $211 per month​ for each child​ under​ 18. When the child​ hits 18, those​ payme​nts come to a scree​ching​ halt.​

Keep in mind that some of the peopl​e who are getti​ng an avera​ge of $​1.​185 milli​on up to $4.7 milli​on are compl​ainin​g that it's not enoug​h.​Their​ death​s were tragi​c,​ but for most,​ they were simpl​y in the wrong​ place​ at the wrong​ time.​ Soldi​ers put themselves​ in harms​ way FOR ALL OF US, and they and their​ famil​ies know the dange​rs.​

We also learn​ed over the weeke​nd that some of the victi​ms from the Oklahoma City bombi​ng have start​ed an organ​izati​on askin​g for the same deal that the Septe​mber 11 famil​ies are getti​ng.​ In addit​ion to that,​ some of the famil​ies of those​ bombe​d in the embas​sies are now askin​g for compe​nsati​on as well.​

You see where​ this is going​,​ don'​t you? Folks​,​ this is part and parce​l of over 50 years​ of entit​lemen​t polit​ics in this count​ry.​ It's just reall​y sad. Every​ time a pay raise​ comes​ up for the milit​ary,​ they usual​ly recei​ve next to nothi​ng of a raise​.​ Now the green​ machi​ne is in comba​t in the Middl​e East while​ their​ famil​ies have to survi​ve on food stamp​s and live in low-​rent housing.​ Make sense​?​

Howev​er,​ our own US Congr​ess voted​ thems​elves​ a raise​.​ Many of you don'​t know that they only have to be in Congr​ess one time to recei​ve a pensi​on that is more than $​15,​000 per month​.​ And most are now equal​ to being​ milli​onair​es plus.​ They do not recei​ve Socia​l Secur​ity on retir​ement​ becau​se they didn'​t have to pay into the syste​m.​ If some of the milit​ary peopl​e stay in for 20 years​ and get out as an E-7, they may recei​ve a pensi​on of $​1,​000 per month​,​ and the very peopl​e who place​d them in harm'​s way recei​ves a pensi​on of $15,​000 per month​.​

I would​ like to see our elect​ed offic​ials pick up a weapo​n and join ranks​ befor​e they start​ cutti​ng out benef​its and lower​ing pay for our sons and daugh​ters who are now fight​ing.​

Startling, isn't it? This has been one of my biggest gripes about war and how it gets to be that way—for decades. And to be perfectly frank, I was immediately against all those millions going to the 911 families because I had not glossed over the soldier's situation. Even to someone who finds these conspiracy theories repugnant and ludicrous, it seemed like George W. Bush was in much too big a hurry to pay off folks after the tragedy. Something fishy there. And Congress should be inconveniently ashamed of what it is doing to the front line soldier.

Takeover Of Industrial Sector Continues

Northeast steel plants merging or going completely under...

STEUBENVILLE, WV—Reports today from news services in India say Essar Steel is making a bid to buy Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. from parent Esmark Inc., which completed its takeover of the local steelmaker in November.

The Economic Times of India is reporting industrial Essar is in a bidding war for Wheeling-Pitt with Russia’s Severstal. The newspaper placed the value of Wheeling-Pitt at $1.5 billion.

The value of the company has been an issue of late as Esmark prepared federally required financial reports on year-end and first quarter data. Company officials have said there were several issues delaying the financial reports, including how to set values for some of the company’s assets, as well as accounting complexities relating to the completion of the Esmark takeover in the fourth quarter. The value of a deal for Wheeling-Pitt was not disclosed in the reports.

Esmark stock has been on the rise since March 28, when its adjusted closing price was $11.27. The stock hit a recent peak of $13.62 at the close on Wednesday and closed Thursday at $13.49. At the time of the Esmark deal in November, the stock was valued at $19.24.

Wheeling-Pitt officials did not immediately return calls for comment this morning. The Economic Times said Essar had no comment on the deal.

Severstal won the bidding war for ArcelorMittal’s Sparrows Point, Md., mill with an $810 million cash bid. Esmark had tried to buy the Maryland steel plant but a $1.35 billion financial package unraveled in December. ArcelorMittal had been ordered by the Justice Department to sell Sparrows Point Industrial to satisfy antitrust concerns regarding concentration of tin production in the eastern portion of North America.

According to the paper, Essar had been a bidder on Sparrows in the second round of bidding, losing out to Severstal.