No Retreat, No Surrend
German authorities closed an art exhibition organized by a Danish artists group named Surrend after "after threats believed to be from Muslims " unless they removed a poster depicting the Kaaba. "The director of the art gallery in Berlin said there had been threats of violence if the poster was not removed, so they had decided to shut for a while."
A poster on display showed the Kaaba - the black granite cube-shaped building in Mecca. The words "stupid stone" in German were superimposed on it. It is toward the Kaaba that Muslims must pray. ...
The art group Surrend says its mission is to make fun of the world's powerful men and crazy ideological conflicts, using stickers, posters and advertisements.
In 2006 Surrend took out an advertisement in an Iranian daily with a picture of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad expressing support for his fight against US President George Bush. It looked harmless, but the text was carefully arranged so that the letters at the start of every line spelled out the word "swine" when read vertically.
The imminent release of a film by Geert Wilders sending up the Koran has so terrified Dutch authorities that the Prime Minister has urged him not to release it. Both the Wilders and Surrend incidents are examples of a guerilla culture war between a radical Islam and secular activists in Europe fueled by the very system of political correctness that was supposed to prevent it in the first place. Surrend and Wilders have discovered that it is not necessary to threaten violence to get political attention. It is only necessary to raise a certain subject -- and that subject will supply the rest. Political correctness itself has empowered the guerilla culture war.
Surrend can now shut down an art gallery and and a Prime Minister will plead with a backbencher to prevent them from doing the most trivial things: displaying a poster or releasing a film about a book. Things you could do on a Saturday afternoon in former times without remarking on it yourself. It would be as if the President of the United States appeared at your front door one morning with the entire National Security Council in tow begging you not to mow your lawn.
A recently arrived observer from another Galaxy could be excused for thinking he was witnessing a comedy skit which never quite gets to the point. If told that publishing or reprinting a cartoon, showing a black cubic object or releasing an amateur film risked international peace in the 21st century, the alien might demand an explanation. The Catch-22 is that explaining the situation is also a provocation in itself.
The danger Wilders is being warned against theoretically doesn't exist. How could it? All faith traditions, with the possible exception of Evangelical Christians, 'filthy' Jews and the Scientologists -- certainly the Scientologists -- are religions of peace . Recent riots have been the work of disaffected 'youths', presumably comprised of the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and local glee clubs in equal proportions. There's no danger; no danger at all. For so long as we all keep quiet. And keep quiet about why we are keeping quiet.
But the enforcers of political correctness have failed to grasp is that things have already gone too far. It's no longer about dialogue, it's about a deadly ideological conflict. Yet when momentous issues pivot around hanging up a poster or releasing a home movie it's probably a sign that we are both in deep trouble and deep denial.
Wilders is no longer engaged in 'dialogue'. He's engaged in guerrila theater; gone outside of parliament to snipe from behind the cover of the very things his unnamed opponents shelter behind. It's not the art gallery that is temporarily shutting down but the cognitive processes of the politically correct mind. They're in an endless loop with no hope of escape until someone hits the reset button.
What the Dutch Government fears
Dutch News reveals details of the threats facing the Netherlands unless Wilders stops releasing his movie on the Koran.
The premier summed up examples of "critical signals" he received. "At a festival, a Dutch product was refused; the Taliban announced action towards Dutch soldiers; and stewardesses are afraid to fly to certain destinations. These are only the examples of one day. This is the reality we are in. (...) Mr. Wilders cannot ignore the sentiments that are already being expressed." (...) Economic sanctions, attacks, threats, great consequences. The one carrying the responsibility for that, is the one who is currently providing grounds for that."
And the men making the threats? But I digress.
CDA parliamentary leader Pieter van Geel also made a plea to Wilders, who is leader of the 'anti-Islamisation' Party for Freedom (PVV), to drop the film due to "the seriousness of the possible consequences".
The race to assume the onus for being offensive has already begun. Acts by Dutch citizens in the Netherlands are now subject to the veto of ... even that must remain unmentionable.
posted by wretchardthecat at 2/29/2008 12:06:00 PM
32 Comments:
Whatever the state or the culture rewards, it will get more of. Whatever it punishes, it will get less of. Whatever baser instinct it fails to punish, it will get more of.
The post-modern West rewards cowardice, and punishes courage and valor. Hence we get more of the former and less of the latter. And since there are inherently more of the fomer by default, since courage and valor are hard, cowards as a bloc have an interest in continuing to reward cowardice, and a decided mental interest in punishing valor.
But I'm sure civilization will go along just fine.
Yeah.
I have pretty much given up on the Europeans who can find a way to steal $1.2 billion from Microsoft but don't have the spunk to push back the barbarians on the most basic issue of freedom of speech.
And then again there's Harry. As privileged a youth as there could be - and without even the good sense to join the Royal Navy. Maybe there's enough left in the Brits to learn from Harry that there are indeed some folks who need killing out there and a good, swift kick in the ass back here.
David Warren has a new article that reverberates my feelings about the immediate future. Of course, this too shall pass but it seems so unnecessary that so many will have to endure until it does.
Take the logical conclusion. Someone does something that upsets Muslims worldwide. It might be a play, a book, an internet film, a painting, a poem, anything.
Pakistan or Iran gives a nuke to a terrorist group, Hezbollah or Al Qaeda, and BOOM! there goes a Western City. Maybe it's Copenhagen or maybe it's NYC.
THEN what happens. President Obama apologizes and grovels. Begs for mercy. President McCain nukes someone. Europeans grovel, panic, and someone in the military sees an opportunity. To be Napoleon. Or Cromwell, Lord Protector. Perhaps even on a Continental level. THEY might seize power and nuke someone. After all, if Pakistan can make nukes a nation even a small one like Denmark certainly can. France definitely has them and can make more. Lots more.
No need for messy wars. Like Morrissey sang, "it's the bomb that will bring us together."
I would suggest that for every incident that generates threats from Muslims, at least two more should be generated. The pyramid effect will then proliferate and overshadow any further threats or backlash. The goal is to make it the norm and change the thinking in the Muslim-Western paradigm.
The reset button involves high explosives and mass casualties and politically incorrect, culturally insensitive ethnic and ideological cleansing by uncomfortably unprogressive vigilantes.
I would suggest that for every incident that generates threats from Muslims, at least two more should be generated. The pyramid effect will then proliferate and overshadow any further threats or backlash.
The rules of political correctness have crated a situation where anyone with paintbrush, video camera or sculptor's chisel can create the equivalent of an IED.
Suppose someone claimed a blasphemous image of Mohammed had been created but hidden somewhere in Oslo. Would they search house to house? Or suppose you simply spread the rumor that a popular Korean shrimp cracker snack had characters which were really derogatory to Islam if read upside down.
Nobody could actually dismiss the possibility that such rumors, however improbable, could actually fuel riots. Once we give the imprimature to displays of irrationality, then rage becomes its own fuse, primer and main charge. It's a self-generating bomb.
Things don't have to be true to be taken as fact. The Indian Mutiny was fueled in part by rumors the British were using cow fat to grease the cartridges issued to Hindu troops.
By relentlessly pandering to the any and all demands political correctness we eventually arrive at the place where the absurd must be taken seriously. How long did it take to figure out that Ward Churchill wasn't an native American? Some still haven't. The most bizarre claims can now be put forward, so long as it is done with sufficient sanctimony. The vocabulary of the madhouse has become legitimate political discourse. Only when Geert Wilders finally picks up the dialect do we notice how jarring it is to the ear.
This is all deadly serious, but it has its funny aspects. One of these is the way in which, spluttering in the face of a social change it triggered but can't deal with and doesn't want to recognize, the European multicultural left of today has come to resemble the French aristocracy under Louis XVI, i.e. the very people it displaced.
The modern 'we're going to rant about rights, but the moment you won't go along with what we want we're ready to coerce you' left got it's start in 1789. History has now turned a full circle so that the heirs of that left have become a bunch of panicky reactionaries, desperately trying to pretend to themselves that disorder and violence on the streets does not mean anything, will not spread and cannot threaten the privileges they had thought were permanently established.
So far, so true to form. If the Europeans continue to track the performance of their forebears, the response to pressure from Muslims will be at first delayed and then accomplished in a paroxysm of shocking violence.
This can be compared to a container that is under increasing pressure. The longer the pressure builds before it explodes, the greater the explosion will be when it happens.
The simplest way to let off the steam is to provoke little explosions. The little explosions will alert the populace to the danger and create a counter-movement. The sooner the counter-movement can be activated, the less violent its reaction will be. Thus it behooves all who care about the lives of Muslims to provoke Muslim rage through ridicule. For it clarifies things and brings things to a head sooner, rather than later.
Peter Boston said: And then again there's Harry. As privileged a youth as there could be - and without even the good sense to join the Royal Navy. Maybe there's enough left in the Brits to learn from Harry that there are indeed some folks who need killing out there and a good, swift kick in the ass back here."
I've never met a Brit who wasn't ready to mix it up in a heartbeat.
But then again, there's James Blunt.
There is also one image that shows the image of an Orthodox Jew and the sayin "Stupid Hat". No death threats about that one. There is probably something about Christianity too.
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2008/02/pic-of-satirical-poster-in-german-art.html
As usual, this has nothing to do with religious sensibilities, and a lot with fear.
Both GulfNews out of Dubai and ArabNews out of Saudi Arabia have run editorials about cartoon issues in the last day or two. They both have tones of outraged dismay, like, "I can't believe you Westerners are DOING this again, after we made such a stink about it last time!"
They both are warning about further violence, but are not actively calling up their fellow citizens to rise up and start killing each other again.
Dubai wants to build more bridges, by which they mean they want to send more and louder messages to the West to back off, because their bridges are always one-way.
Saudi Arabia thinks that violence is fine and dandy, and it's only at the end of the editorial that the writer specifies that the violence should be in GErmany, pointing the direction away from the Middle East and not-so-subtly directing its readers to go out and bop the heads of Germans.
Both editorial writers mention freedom of speech/freedom of the press in passing, but think it's just a stupid little tic of the West that really needs to be overlooked for the overall good of all mankind.
But really, there's an undertone of dismay that we're calling their bluff and INSISTING on freedom of speech in the face of all their dire warnings about unspecified violence.
Personally, I think that anything that causes Muslims to go out in the streets and kill other Muslims must be a very good thing, indeed. Thus, I've been urging the editorial writers of both online papers to so inform their readers of their civic duty to demonstrate their anger in streets across the whole Middle East.
.
I must say that we live in interesting times.
Here we have a large number of people, living essentially to accumulate pensionable earnings, the only danger is lived vicariously watching some foreign war or disaster. But it is now happening at home.
Maybe if we deny what is happening it will go away. If a tree falls in a forest and nobody hears, does it make a noise? If a war is being fought and we ignore it, do we have peace? Please can we have peace. Anything to have peace. My daughter and son in exchange for peace.
What is going to be interesting is how high a ransom will be offered.
Like the ancient prophet said, they say “There is peace!” when there is no peace.
Derek
Wretchard,
Are you suggesting that we dynamically modulate our ridicule response to their hysterical escalation process? perhaps by using the methods of Col. Boyd?
I work about a mile from the gallery. The city district historically was french hugenots, then german blue-collar, and now is heavily arabic (as opposed to turkish, which is the largest immigrant block, but concentrated in different districs and quite different in certain aspects).
Saw some reports on TV yesterday, the one that stood out was a white haired older arab proclaiming "Berlin is an Islamic City. German government better recognize that fact". I'll send you an email to ask for directions if I decide it gets bad enough to emigrate to Australia.
apex
When Wilders announced he was going to release this film, he essentially committed himself to a course of action. If Wilders pulls back now it will be regarded as a victory for the Islamists. So his credibility is on the line.
On the other hand if he releases the film one or more persons -- perhaps a considerable number of people -- are going to die. It will be a miracle if there isn't an explosion in the Islamic world. Some innocent Danish tourist, or maybe your generic European man, maybe an American just out to buy some noodles in Thailand. Somebody will die. And the odds are about 100% that half the press will blame Wilders for it.
This much seems clear.
But even if Wilders is suppressed the train wreck will continue. There will be other acts of defiance to radical Islam. Maybe not Wilders, but some book author, television critic, academic, songwriter, etc will wittingly or unwittingly cross the line. So the European authorities will be in a whack-a-mole mode with too many moles to whack.
Worse, even if Wilders is suppressed there will also be violence because the Islamists will have scented success. If the threat of violence succeeds it will be followed by more violence and threats of violence. This is inescapable.
Therefore violence is coming down the pike in some form or other. The question is, who will it serve? In the short run the violence will strengthen the hands of the Leftists, who will want more Hate Speech Laws, the Fascist Right, who use the events to pick up support, and the Islamists, who love a good riot.
In other words the Wilders gambit will tend to erode the middle, frighten the 'moderates' and polarize society. I have visions of Rowan Williams walking in circles in Lambeth Palace.
In that atmosphere one becomes afraid to say almost anything, whether pro-Islam or anti-Islam. The subject has become the Third Rail, lethal to merely approach.
I have often wondered if moderate Muslims (Yes, they do exist, just not in the majority) have ever tried to denounce this insanity. It's a film - attack it, protest it, even make a rebuttal film, but don't go out and riot. If I was Muslim, I would be disgusted by this paranoid reaction. Islam is a religion based on conversion, so isn't its image something to be concerned about? The reaction to the film fuels global disgust with Islam, far more than the film could ever do.
I am fairly neutral on the religion of Islam, but this kind of behavior makes me want to start my own controversy.
Exactly Wretchard. The middle is eroded because there is no middle.
Either Islamists rule, and the only way to avoid offense is to institute Sharia, which would represent the colonization of Europe AND America by Muslims, or Muslims must be smacked down so hard, so violently, so terribly that it is generations before they even think of Jihad again.
Many people will cross the line. And Islamists love a good riot as you say, and also sense the weakness of the Western Elite. For the Right, and the ... I guess you could say Militarists, this is all good news. It exposes the futility and weakness of the Western Elites. It positions the Cromwell or Napoleon to offer himself as the sword and the shield for all that people hold dear in the West. And there will be takers. Most people will do what they have to in order to protect their way of life.
Which is what Islamists don't understand. They see the weakness of Rowan Williams, and Gordon Brown, and George Galloway, and Barack Hussein Obama and imagine that's all there is. They don't understand that those types are our Nassers, Shahs, Farouks, etc. who will be tossed out.
A terrible, terrible slaughter is coming. First a big one (I am now convinced you were right and I was wrong on the nature of the attack -- the Anthrax attacks post 9/11 have never been solved and disappeared down everyone's memory hole -- perhaps the solution is too dangerous for everyone). Which will likely be bio in nature (Anthrax is easy to make, compared to nukes. I'm sure Pakistan's or Iran's national labs could lend a hand.) And then an even bigger one.
The trigger will be some thing no one expects. A restaurant opens with a menu that has squiggles looking like Arabic for "Allah" or something.
Let's see the Eurps reaction to the Prince Harry Thing. The jihadis have to execute a counterstrike because a British royal has no so publicly stuck his finger in their collective eye. Apparently Harry not only served with the grunts but most likely was directly involved in whacking more than a few Taliban on "Muslim land."
The British and European equivalent of the "There were no Al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded" crew will come to the fore and condemn Harry for provoking the bad guys. Let's see who they are.
There are imam's living in England right now who are calling for the death of Harry. http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/03/british-islamists-threaten-prince-harry.html
Seems to me at a minimum they should be deported. Isn't there some sort of beheading law about threatening the life of a Royal?
The English might be able to accomplish hanging a terrorist without popping his head off. And that would be instructive to everyone concerned.
I wonder if there's enough will left on the whole sceptered isle to do anything about death threats being made.
The problem for moderate Muslims is that the Fanatics will Kill them in defense of their faith even more readily than going after the infidel. To the Jihadis, Apostasy is more immediately dangerous, and so more eagerly punished, because
(a) it is (to them) betrayal by their own, and
(b) it is ordered by the HOLY WORD OF ALLAH as whispered into the ears of his Prophet.
I've been gradually learning more and more about Islam since I bought a copy of the "Koran" in 1987 (same year I bought my first ever for myself Christian Bible.)
It's a 17th century translation, so it's actually more archaic than the King James version of the Bible. I haven't gotten through more than a quarter of it. I've made much better progress looking up translations online. I think it's a very important thing for people to do, to see what the Qur'an actually says... well, as closely as you can without learning classical Arabic.
I can't imagine a starker contrast between two faiths than the teachings and principles taught by Jesus of Nazareth compared to those of Mohammed.
So the Netherlands and Denmark are out front, like the canary in a coal mine, for all to see just how far Islamic laws will erode established liberties. It appears that other EU countries aren't too far behind them.
Will they go quietly, with Wilders at a time. The Islamics just have to play whack-a-mole in the reverse direction if the populace goes quietly. Flooding the environment with moles will make this impossible.
Brings to mind the 'Merry Minuet', Kingston Trio ca. 60.
The Islamic sensitivity to criticism is wielded as a shield. Any reference to Islam is now subject to regulation by self-appointed representatives of Islam. Absolutely anything can be construed as racist or offensive. (It reminds me of Hillary's position vis-a-vis Obama's race.) In fact, it is a pose, a reaction deliberately chosen to magnify self-censorship. It's a tactic and it works. Being reasonable in response is counter-productive.
The Danish cartoon reprint counterinsurgency initiative (DCRCI?) was strategically sound, but only a first step. Essentially, it was a collective punishment for the planned crimes of a small group. Ordinarily, collective punishments are seen as effective, but immoral. This one is different. For one thing, it's not really a punishment. What is it hurting beside some power-trippers whose wishes have been thwarted? Maybe some Muslims will wake up and realize that freedom of speech requires adult participation.
More importantly, the reprint action is an assertion of solidarity among the supporters of free speech. And it is strongly polarizing. People who are willing to compromise with unreasonable demands are now forced to confront the nature of the triggering event. We can only hope that the escalation will continue until everyone with any love of liberty is forced to take sides. It's not Christians against Muslims. It's really freedom against theocracy.
So where should we go from here? We should assiduously provoke irrational responses from the extremists -- whatever it takes to flush out the real enemies of civilization. In the US artists do this all the time. We even give them grants for it. Except for a few like Wilders, these people are pointed in the wrong direction. We should find a way to refocus their ridicule onto a deserving target.
Maybe it's for the best that Dutch authorities are trying to discourage Wilders. It will give him more notoriety -- as long as they don't succeed.
You know,it occurs to me that the Muslim sensitivity to critcism is very similar to Obama's sensitivity to criticism.
We're not allowed to criticise Muslims or their prophet because it's written in the Koran and they'll kill us.
We're not allowed to criticize Barak Obama because he's a black man and you just can't criticize the black race any more in the United States.
Further, we're not allowed to even use his middle name Hussein just as we're not allowed to discuss the Religion of Peace writhing amongst us. There's a total taboo on both offending Muslims both living in our midst and over there by telling them they're nuts, as well as a taboo about even naming a candidate's certain middle name because his wife says that's a "scare tactic".
Seems to me that there is something deeply wrong about ANYthing that can't be discussed or mentioned in public.
"But even if Wilders is suppressed the train wreck will continue."
Allow me to repeat:
Slaughter now or slaughter later.
Slaughter later = slaughter more.
Sammy Small: I would suggest that for every incident that generates threats from Muslims, at least two more should be generated. The pyramid effect will then proliferate and overshadow any further threats or backlash. The goal is to make it the norm and change the thinking in the Muslim-Western paradigm.
Agreed. Every single death fatwa should be countered with a promise to wipe some Muslim city off of the map. Every new 9-11 type atrocity should see an Islamic nation left in ruins. Eventually, either enraged and homeless Muslims will begin policing their jihadis themselves or there will be so few of them left that we no longer need to worry anymore.
Regardless of how we respond, rest assured that Islam will push things in this exact direction. Before all of this is over, Muslims will be dying in large quantities. The only real question is how many Westerners will need to die along with them before we finally take the gloves off.
Wretchard: Worse, even if Wilders is suppressed there will also be violence because the Islamists will have scented success. If the threat of violence succeeds it will be followed by more violence and threats of violence. This is inescapable.
Doesn't this automatically point towards smacking down Islam on sheer principle? This is no different from negotiating with terrorists. If you do so, then the terrorists are rewarded for their heinous acts. Islam's attempts to muzzle Western free speech are no different.
The release of Wilders' film will not cause harm to anyone. Those who use it as a reason to kill others are the ones to blame. Plus, let's face it, even if Wilders' film never existed in the first place, these same individuals would still dig up some reason to go around beheading totally innocent folk.
IT'S WHAT THEY DO.
This comment has been removed by the author.
The demand that we not mention Barack Hussein Obama's middle name is the most ham-handed censorship endeavor since the attempt to silence the veterans who opposed John Kerry. It is utterly unacceptable. To make a demand that is unmistakeably the tactic of intimidation used so reflexively by Radicalized "Islamicists" it cannot avoid having the ironic effect of further emphasizing Obama's Islamic affinities. How can his wife and many supporters not see this?
If B. Hussein Obama had any desire that his name not be mentioned he has had the same option exercised freely by many millions of U.S. citizens to change his name. The simple, crude, brutal, and undeniable fact that he has proudly retained his name as he plunges into the public arena, emphatically shows that he is satisfied with that name. Neither he nor anyone else has the right to demand that his chosen name NOT be spoken.
SCREW THAT CRAP.
It looks to me that if his wife thinks she can issue absurd orders and proclamations like that, she is going to be a serious source of embarrassment for HIM, and an increasing attraction for lightning bolts.
It looks to me that if his wife thinks she can issue absurd orders and proclamations like that, she is going to be a serious source of embarrassment for HIM, and an increasing attraction for lightning bolts.
Karma's a bitch.
Bill has lost the primary campaigns for Hillary.
Michelle is now in the process of losing the Presidency for Barak.
Bill's a loose cannon Alpha male and can't be shut up.
Michelle's a proud educated black woman and can't be shut up.
McCain just needs to follow the circus parade along quietly sweeping up the elephant poop to win.
The Pope's got it right. There's no need to bomb their cities. All that's needed to defang this islamist nonsense is to establish the right to become a christian (or anything else) in peace and according to personal conscience inside every country on earth.
When the arabs of the arabian peninsula once again permit christian churches, we will be well on our way to an end to this war.
Mad Fiddler: To make a demand that is unmistakeably the tactic of intimidation used so reflexively by Radicalized "Islamicists" it cannot avoid having the ironic effect of further emphasizing Obama's Islamic affinities.
That's strange, I never knew my Coincidence Meter could display negative numbers.
TM Lutas: When the arabs of the arabian peninsula once again permit christian churches, we will be well on our way to an end to this war.
Ummmm ... Don't hold your breath, emkay? It is far more likely that the Arabian Peninsula will be turned into a shrapnel-strewn lunar landscape before any churches or synagogues get built there.
In its current form, Islam could no more tolerate Infidel houses of worship in its own holy land than it could a pig farm. The modification needed for such a thing to happen would require a doctrinal transmutation that'd render Islam unrecognizable as such. This is just one of many reasons why the outlook is so grim for the MME (Muslim Middle East).
Post a Comment
<< Home