The Byzantine Riots?
Friday, September 15, 2006
The death-worshippers are having televised temper-tantrums again. Stand by for riots and a shameful capitulation by the Pope. And oh yeah, our "ally", Pakistan has already officially condemned what the Pope said.
Well. When the Pope attacks secularism, he doesn't just get a free pass from our supposedly "secular/leftist" media (as Dennis Prager might put it), the Islamists, who also want to end the modern era, but openly would do so in an orgy of religious warfare, get an assist.
It puzzled me a bit the other day when I complained of the focus on that part of the Pope's remarks that criticized Islam. I knew I was on the trail when I cited multiculturalism as a reason this was given more emphasis than the real story, the attack on secularism. But I knew I was missing something.
What I was missing was the fact that this report was also guilty of doing what almost all other media coverage does in this war:
By contrast, the barbarism of the terrorists, who know by observing the West that a more civilized way of living exists, and yet choose otherwise, is grossly underreported. Take their parasitism. Without the superior achievements of the civilization they say they despise and hope to eradicate, the terrorists would not: be able to synchronize their explosions, have the entire world know of them almost instantaneously, be able to broadcast the latest lame excuse for what has become merely the last in a long line of similar acts, have explosives in the first place, or have nice, modern hotels as targets. But our news media take the great achievements of the West for granted, making the terrorists seem much more than they really are: Impotent without the aid of Western technology.In other words, the media constantly aid and abet the terrorists. Fanning a lit candle into a wildfire -- which is what appears to have occurred -- is just par for the course.
One wonders how much more resolve our nation would have were the news media not so busily presenting the demands of terrorists to the voting Western public as if they -- delivered with threats -- were worthy of attention. One wonders how much more forcefully (and quickly) our war could be won were bad reporting not constantly undercutting the moral distinctions between the terrorists and the civilization they would enslave or destroy. One wonders how appealing terrorism would be to disaffected youths in the West if it were presented as the parasitic, unmanly activity it really is.
Ayn Rand once coined a term, reification of the zero, to describe a fallacy employed in certain philosophical arguments. With apologies to her, I will play on her term to describe the pathetic dependence of terrorism on the willingness of the Western media to shirk -- in the name of "objectivity" -- from truly objective reporting. Terrorist atrocities are routinely whitewashed. The September 11, 2001 attacks are blithely called "tragedies" instead of the atrocities that they are. Terrorist attackers in Iraq are called "insurgents". Ad nauseam. The impotence of terrorism without the West is downplayed.
Perhaps, when we observe the media report a story that gives far more than appropriate importance to how something might supposedly affect Moslems, we should ask, in the vein of preparing ourselves, "How might this help the cause of global jihad?"
For example. Consider this image and the quote below it, which come from the same news article (linked at "tantrum" above):
Caption: Muslim activists (!) burn an effigy of Pope Benedict XVI during a protest in Srinagar, India.
In a statement [Britain's Ramadhan Foundation] said: "If the Pope wanted to attack Islam and Prophet Muhammad teachings he could have been brave enough to say it personally without quoting a 14th century Byzantine Christian emperor. [The wild dogs sniff fear and growl. We should be openly condemning Islam by now. -- ed]How does airing the alleged grievances of these savages help them? It conveys their desire not to be criticized as "non peaceful" as well as their threats against anyone who would disagree -- by transmitting images of their savagery while apparently expecting us not to notice or to be too afraid to speak openly about the obvious: namely, the distinct contradiction between how wonderful the Moslems claim to be and how despicable they really are. Ditto for their "great religion".
"The late Pope John Paul II spent over 25 years to build bridges and links with the Muslim community. He showed the world that its perception of Islam was false and that we are peace-loving people. [Like the ones shown above? --ed]
I once noted the similarity between Islam and organized crime. Here's another one. Just as the media openly worshipped the Soviets during the Cold War -- and Fidel Castro to this day -- they see the Islamists as the powerful "bad boys". And they love this mafia kiss, this outer appearance of civilized behavior (a professed love for "building bridges") with its subtext of threatened violence (They're burning effigies over this?) So they will make sure we know about it.
Just like they made sure the Moslems got whipped up in a frenzy over the Pope's remarks.
Remember. The Islamists hate us for everything. There is really nothing special about what the Pope said, other than the fact that it was widely broadcast as news (with helpful hints that it might "inflame" Moslems) and, in the process, designated as the next target in the Islamic war against civilization.
-- CAV
11 comments:
Gus, the press is delaying accurate coverage of the Islamic scourge until its inevitable impact on this country is more shocking than it ever needed to be. (Which will generate even better headlines for the media, so one may even guess that it has been intentional)
One Keith Ellison is running on the Dem' ticket from Minnesota and would be the first Muslim to serve in the U.S. Congress. I expect the national Republican party will secretly help his bid.
My early evaluation is that his election would be bad news for either Islamo-fascists or the Democrat party depending on what he says about Islam. Moreover, I am predicting that it will open related debate and be good for America.
Vigilis,
You're being far too generous to both the news media and Ellison. The former jerk their knees in unison due to the foolish ideas that guide their actions rather than any clever scheme to boost ratings.
And Ellison? What you say might be true to a degree, but what the Islamofascists and the Democrats have already done should have, by now, taught the public far more than anything he might say or do. By all rights, this man should go down as the historical footnote he is: first elected Moslem congressman. His "educational value" will depend entirely on how much the Dems lionize him and more importantly, on how well pro-victory commentators demonstrate to average Americans that this is the essential nature of the Democrat Party.
In that last respect, the GOP helping him would be understandable, but his win is already in the bag. Just look at his district.
Gus
Byzantine Riots?
Something about that headline triggers my "ominous historical parallel detector..."
Though I don't think the metaphor extends to the subject at hand.
From your linked news story, Ellison will attempt in Congress to straddle the fence like Ibrahim Hooper has. He will further define the indecisveness of the Democrat party.
The next 9-11 type attempt by Al Qaeda will tarnish the party of indecisiveness out of existence.
Vigilis,
Yes. But only if the Republicans could stop acting so much ike Democrats for long enough to make an election into a real choice.
Inspector,
I wasn't being especially clever in my title. Just referring to the fact that the Pope had quoted a Byzantine emperor.
Gus
Grant,
Reports vary on that, but I concur. (Some say that the Pope has stopped "just short" of an apology and Egypt's Moslem Brotherhood wants a "personal apology".
In this context, anything less than "Yes. You heard me." is an apology. We in the West have GOT to stop apologising to these savages.
And oh yeah. The bombing has already started.
Gus
Those guys burning churches and effigies... I reckon their imams never speak ill of other religions. Never a rude word about the Jews?
On the other hand, I can't understand what the Vatican is up to (unless they did not think the speech would be reported). This remark seems out of character. I'd have expected them to push the "Islam is cool, but hijacked by bad guys" message.
SN,
It is as I originally said. The Pope is trying to turn this into a religious war from the West's perspective vs. a war against religion, which is what it really is. Which side is he, a religious figure, going to choose? And how can he succeed?
The part about him attacking secularism I was right about. What I did not see the Anchoress intimates: He may perhaps think that an escalation of hostilities will show us benighted moderns that our "alternative" EITHER is a return to the Christian roots of our civilization (while helping us forget the Greco-Roman ones) OR Islam. (Rather than freedom from all religion.)
"... Benedict has managed - in his very scholarly fashion - to apply a very hot drawing poultice to the enormous and festering boils of both radical Islamism and rampant secularism. At the very least, it will cause some Muslims to insist that distinctions be made between them and their more extreme co-religionists, and it may rouse the West to examine how cavalierly it has tossed off the “shackles” of Christianity only to open itself up to the scimitar. Perhaps some will look at the spires of their great cathedrals and wonder if they really want to see them replaced with minarets."
This is an interesting interpretation. And, if true, the Anhcoress rightly indicates that someone who values mystical insight over the verdict of his mind is capable of being quite reckless.
"Maybe Benedict will just trust the Holy Spirit to use his words as the Spirit will - which can get pretty messy, and scary for some. Even for Christians, casting one’s work to the wiles of the Holy Spirit can be scary. But then we can have faith that everything will work out for the best. And that’s a powerful lesson, a tremendously frightening obedience to learn."
Remember, this is coming from the same source as the recent condemnations of Israel's self-defense vs Hezbollah and a major proponent of Just War Theory.
It is one thing to take the gloves off and pummel an opponent, as I advocate. It is quite another to provoke him, and then insist that fighting back be by half-measures.
Gus
BTW: These comments are not showing up perfectly in IE6 (they're fine in Firefox). They're more or less fine, except that the right-most part is being cut off. On Firefox, the lines wrap fine; on IE6 they keep going a little over the thick-blue line to the right and are cut off as they cross that line.
Thought I'd point that out, because you mentioned you'd changed your template.
SN,
That's a longstanding problem I'd forgotten about (since I never use Windows when actually blogging). If I recall correctly, it's just a letter or so and doesn't affect readability. Unless it's somehow worse now, I'm letting that sleeping dog lie.
The amount of effort it would take to figure out what nonstandard aspect of IE is (likely) the cause of the problem, how to solve it (without breaking this on other browsers), and then wage a war of attrition with Blogger's horrendous template editor just isn't worth it.
Gus
Howdy Grant,
Based on the Anchoress's comments, I think the Pope sees this as a chance to claim reason as a subsidy of the Christian faith.
He wants us to see this the choice as being between Islam and Christianity. Not blind faith (but I am being redundant) and reason.
There are some signs of spine in the West, like this one from Australia. But my optimism is cautious there. They sometimes make the opposite mistake of the dhimmis and needlessly restrict freedom of speech.
Gus
Post a Comment