Counterculture Con HQ

January 5, 2010

The New Dhimmis

Islam is perhaps 3-4 decades away from being an existential threat to Western culture and values as we currently know them.  No more than that.  In terms of demography, there doesn’t appear to be any real dispute about this.  See here, and here. Perhaps another 2 generations at most before that becomes a certain reality at the pace we are going.  The process will be gradual, but it has begun.  This future islamic caliphate has established for itself a foothold in the West, and has begun to gather unto itself a kernel, the seeds, the first nucleus of dhimmis from which to extract its jizya— the dhimmi tax.  And the coin you will pay as dhimmis will be your liberal and judeochristian values.

You see examples here and there, if you care to look.  For instance, those on the Left who once were so courageous in their defiance of the church, so public in their insults and blasphemies against Christianity, the room now suddenly going silent when the name of Islam or Mohammed is mentioned.  That vim and verve they made a name for themselves with, where did it go?  Let’s take one or two examples.  Like this courageous artist famous for blaspheming Jesus and christianity, but confessing fear of Islam, here, and now suddenly meek and gentle as a lamb.  Or take the courageous Hollywood film director Roland Emmerich, who in his blockbuster movie 2012 goes on to destroy St. Peter’s Basilica, the Sistine Chapel and Christ the Redeemer statue in Rio de Janeiro, the director says, “because I’m against organized religion.”  But when it came turn for Islam’s icons to be destroyed, the courageous director had a change of mind and decided to spare that religion lest its followers be offended and enraged.

“My co-writer Harald said I will not have a fatwa on my head because of a movie. And he was right. … We have to all … in the Western world … think about this. You can actually … let … Christian symbols fall apart, but if you would do this with [an] Arab symbol, you would have … a fatwa.”

Emmerich became frightened. These secular progressives tend to be cowards.  Unless they are going after Brit Hume for mentioning christianity on Fox News, then they are ferocious as lions.  But here we have the threat of Islam, and the likes of Emmerich are happy to give up their free speech out of fear.  This dhimmi paid his tax and and accepted subjugation by going silent.  Or take Ron Howard, whose adaptation of The Davinci Code scrubs the original muslim killer from the book, in favor of a christian one, here. Or the BBC who admitted they were too scared to allow jokes about Islam, here.  Or this political analyst at MSNBC who also admitted he was afraid of criticizing Islam publicly, here. And do you think in a million years Larry David would ever urinate on a Koran or an image of Mohammed, the way he famously did on a picture of Jesus? There’s far more where this came from but I had to stop somewhere.  These are just simple google searches I did in a matter of minutes.  These are the new dhimmis.  And their numbers will grow ever larger as the years go by, and their values correspondingly more normative and enforced by law, until it’s just the way things are.  The “new normal.”  And Al Gore’s new “living breathing” Constitution will have nothing to say about it.  This is how the counterculture of the 60s became normative.  The same thing is happenning here.

Below we have a more detailed unfolding of the process I’m attempting to describe.  It’s not a hypothetical, or some hyperbolic prognostication.  It’s happenning in real time and up close.   This is the beginning of the West surrendering it’s liberal values as it becomes slowly islamicized.

Kurt Westergaard: Real courage.


In 1988, Salman Rushdie’s novel “The Satanic Verses” was published in its English-language original edition. Its publication led the Iranian state and its revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, to issue a “fatwa” against Rushdie and offer a hefty bounty for his murder. This triggered several attacks on the novel’s translators and publishers, including the murder of Japanese translator Hitoshi Igarashi. Millions of Muslims around the world who had never read a single line of the book, and who had never even heard the name Salman Rushdie before, wanted to see the death sentence against the author carried out — and the sooner the better, so that the stained honor of the prophet could be washed clean again with Rushdie’s blood.

In that atmosphere, no German publisher had the courage to publish Rushdie’s book. This led a handful of famous German authors, led by Günter Grass, to take the initiative to ensure that Rushdie’s novel could appear in Germany by founding a publishing house exclusively for that purpose. It was called Artikel 19, named after the paragraph in the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights that guarantees the freedom of opinion. Dozens of publishing houses, organizations, journalists, politicians and other prominent members of German society were involved in the joint venture, which was the broadest coalition that had ever been formed in postwar German history.

Seventeen years later, after the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten published a dozen Muhammad cartoons on a single page, there were similar reactions in the Islamic world to those that had followed the publication of “The Satanic Verses.” Millions of Muslims from London to Jakarta who had never seen the caricatures or even heard the name of the newspaper, took to the streets in protests against an insult to the prophet and demanded the appropriate punishment for the offenders: death. Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden even went so far as to demand the cartoonists’ extradition so that they could be condemned by an Islamic court.

This time, however, in contrast to the Rushdie case, hardly anyone has showed any solidarity with the threatened Danish cartoonists — to the contrary. Grass, who had initiated the Artikel 19 campaign, expressed his understanding for the hurt feelings of the Muslims and the violent reactions that resulted. Grass described them as a “fundamentalist response to a fundamentalist act,” in the process drawing a moral equivalence between the 12 cartoons and the death threats against the cartoonists. Grass also stated that: “We have lost the right to seek protection under the umbrella of freedom of expression.”

“I believe that the republication of these cartoons has been unnecessary, it has been insensitive, it has been disrespectful and it has been wrong,” commented then-British Home Secretary Jack Straw, referring to the decision by several European media organizations to republish the caricatures. Meanwhile, Vorwärts, the party organ of Germany’s center-left Social Democratic Party — one of the country’s two largest political parties — defended freedom of expression in general, but gave the opinion that in this special case, the Danes had “abused” the freedom, “not in a legal sense, but in a political and moral one.” For Fritz Kuhn, the then-parliamentary floor leader for the Green Party, it was a déjà vu experience: “They (the caricatures), remind me of the anti-Jewish drawings from the Hitler era before 1939.” With his statement, Kuhn, who was born in 1955, demonstrated that either he had a sensational pre-natal memory or that he had never seen a single anti-Semitic caricature in the Nazi’s Der Stürmer propaganda newspaper.

It was like listening to the blind talk about art, the deaf about music or eunuchs discussing sex based on hearsay. Because with the exception of the left-wing Die Tageszeitung, the conservative Die Welt and the centrist Die Zeit, every German newspaper and magazine followed the advice of Green Party co-leader Claudia Roth, who said “de-escalation begins at home,” and erred on the side of caution by not republishing the cartoons. Prominent German psychoanalyst Horst-Eberhard Richter advised: “The West should refrain from any provocations that produce feelings of debasement or humiliation.” Of course, Richter left open the question of whether “the West” should also refrain from the wearing of mini skirts, eating pork and the legalization of same-sex partnerships in order to avoid causing any feelings of debasement and humiliation in the Islamic world.

Had the Muhammed cartoons been reprinted by the whole German press, then newspaper readers could have seen for themselves how excessively harmless the 12 cartoons were and how bizarre and pointless the whole debate had become. Instead, the assessment was left to “experts” who had in the past defended every criticism of the pope and the Church as well as every blasphemous piece of art in the name of freedom of opinion, but who, in the case of the Muhammad cartoons, suddenly held the view that one must take other people’s religious feelings into consideration.

But that argument was clearly just an excuse, a way of excusing the fact they had been silenced by fear. After all, a few things had happened in the time between the Rushdie affair and the caricatures debacle: 9/11, the London bombings, Madrid, Bali, Jakarta, Djerba — events which some commentators have also interpreted as a reaction by the Islamic world to its degradation and humiliation by the West. Against this threat, it seemed more reasonable and, above all, safer, to show respect to religious feelings rather than insist on the right to freedom of expression.

Very few people showed a willingness to break ranks. Among them was comedian Rowan Atkinson (“Mr. Bean”), who in the context of a debate over British proposed incitement of religious hatred legislation, declared that “right to offend is far more important than any right not to be offended.” And Somalia-born Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a secular Muslim woman then living in the Netherlands, responded with a manifesto that began with the words: “I am here to defend the right to offend.”

These people, above, are heroes.  Giants among pigmies.

But she was one of the few exceptions. Even the then-French president, Jacques Chirac, temporarily forgot that he represented the country of Sartre, Voltaire and Victor Hugo, and decreed that “anything that could offend the faith of others, especially religious beliefs, must be avoided.”

Thus began the “de-escalation” that had been called for. The only problem is the other side isn’t thinking about de-escalation. The fatwa against Salman Rushdie is still in effect, and the attempt to murder Kurt Westergaard last week wasn’t the first attempt to carry out a death sentence for an instance in which no crime had been committed. Islam may be the “religion of peace” in theory, but it looks different in practice.

A German-Turkish lawyer who lives in central Berlin recently had to go into hiding because she became the recipient of death threats after publishing a book. The tome doesn’t include any caricatures of Muhammad. It’s just the title that serves as a provocation: ” Islam Needs a Sexual Revolution.”

A sobering read if I ever saw one.  This man will have to live under armed guard for the rest of his life.  The attempt on his life may not have succeeded, but as an act of terror it has cowed virtually every critic of Islam in the West.  Now nobody will dare speak up because even our own governments are surrendering without a fight.  It is a sign of things to come, gentle readers.  God be with us all.


Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: