Monday, February 23, 2009
Wilders will be in the Boston area on Wednesday. I won't be able to make it, but I'll be very interested in watching the video tape of what he has to say and how he answers the questions. He's been called out as a hypocrite for his call to ban the Koran, but according to this post by Andy Bostom, Freedom of Speech: Wilders, Orwell, and the "Koran Ban", that's not quite true. Actually, he's in favor of free speech, he's simply pointing out that if Europe's hate speech laws were evenly applied (laws which Wilders opposes), then the Koran should rightfully be banned. So on this narrow issue, Wilders is more of a provocateur than a hypocrite. I have a problem with this kind of thing, since it becomes very difficult to get the speaker's point without wading through a lot of crap, both from their detractors and 'supporters' who are also in reaction rather than listen and think mode. You get labeled with the provocation as your point of view, rather than ever getting to the point. That's a problem.
Beyond that, I look forward to hearing him in greater depth. He's made a lot of outrageous sounding statements that may or may not be reasonable in his Dutch context.
Where and when will he be in Boston? Your link mentions only the Stoughton appearance.
Just Stoughton, Ron. Boston-area. Happier?
OK, thanks. I thought maybe I'd missed another announcement.
I have a schizoid viewpoint when writing the blog. From a Boston viewpoint, Stoughton is definitely not Boston, but from a global standpoint, it may as well be. Depends on my POV when writing.
A subspecies among prominent Leftist and Islamicist agitprop, demonizations and praxis in general is the leveraging of the pretense that they positively know - in a manner that allows for virtually no doubt whatsoever - the most subjective motivations of any social/political actor perceived in any way to reflect non-PC or anti-PC interests.
The obverse side of that coin is the need to perceive themselves and their own motives in nothing but a purified light - hence the de facto manichean world view that is so often on display in movements writ large as well as in the scaled-down discussions that take at water coolers, on blogs, etc.
E.g., Charles Johnson when it comes to certain subjects, C. Hitchens when it comes to certain subjects, others as well. The myopia, the unqualified absoluteness, the lockstep and doctrinaire quality - and all of it evinced by our wouldbe nuanced, subtle and enlightened commentariat. Woe unto those who transgress these enlightened dogmatists for thou shalt be smitten - is the general message and tone.
Politically in the U.S. it began in large measure with the soixante-huitards and the '68/'72 elections, though most notably in terms of gaining counter-factual traction and overly exciteable ideological motives in general it began with Reagan's tenure in '81.
The best way to win a war is to know who your enemy is.
We are currently fighting a war against a well-organized paramilitary infrastucture that is funded by Islamist countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan. The financial and ideological foundations of this infrastructure are managed by Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood and branch organizations like Hizb-ut-Tahrir, Hamas, CAIR and the Muslim American society.
Military training is provided by Iranian, Pakistani and Libyan intelligence agencies. While most of this organization's riches come from wealthy oil ticks, supplemental income is provided by criminal activity like drug and cigarette smuggling.
Most nations around the world are allied with terror's state supporters and most ally with their branch organizations like Hizb-ut-Tahrir and the Muslim Brotherhood. Without this political support, this organization could not survive.
That's who the enemy is, and that's how the enemy works. The best way to fight it is to attack the enemy's intelligence agencies and their alliances.
A short list of who the enemy is not:
* annoying moonbats
* anti-Islamists who question the idea that Muslims should be deported because they're Muslims.
*the Koran
*Muslims
Like some anti-Islamists, Wilders doesn't correctly identify the enemy. I'm not a fan of anyone who proposes poor or losing strategies during wartime, so I can't claim to be a fan. However, I support free speech whether I agree with what they say or not, so his arrival in America is worth celebrating.
Mary, Pim Fortuyn, was he among the "moonbats" or otherwise among those who misidentified the "enemy"?
And as far as deportations are concerned, what do you think of this occurance in Zapatero's Spain?
And some questions that might be conceived more rhetorically and thematically:
What are the concerns a Dutch and European citizens should be concerned with? Do they contrast with concerns in the U.S.?
Are all aspects of the Qur'an, as interpreted and applied presently, c. 2009, of no practical concern? Or no legislative or executive concern?
In an era of ideological war, of "cognitive war," of asymetric warfare, how should the term "enemy" be applied? Is it a discrete and unambiguous term in such an environment? "Enemy" is a very stark term, one that can be applied to WWII styled and other theaters of action, but in what sense is it applicable presently and in what sense, if any, is it not applicable?
Rhetorically intended, excepting for the initial query, because I don't know the answer to those questions, even while I do believe they are valid questions and should be raised and discussed in an open, transparent manner, absent PC-styled censorship and absent self-censorship as well. By contrast Mary, you seem to have answers that are definitive, even absolute in character.
More broadly thematically still, to what extent are current social/political multi-culti assumptions valid as foundational, not to be questioned assumptions or pieties? Or put in its occasional and simplified form, are all cultures equally valuable from a societal perspective? Or, from another vantage still, in positive terms, what is a multi-culti culture? Are such questions valid questions, or are they not valid questions and instead indicative of a dubious quality at play, some moonbattery or something more dubious still?
In an era of ideological war, of "cognitive war," of asymetric warfare, how should the term "enemy" be applied?
The definition of an enemy in the military sense is: an armed foe; an opposing military force, a hostile nation or state, a citizen of such a state. When we're talking about an asymetric war involving a paramilitary terrorist group with state sponsors, the "enemy" includes those who are citizens of the terror-paramilitary supporting state and individual citizens who organize significant political and financial influence within the organization's infrastructure.
The enemies with guns who want to kill us and the people who pay them to do this should be our first priority. Ideology without guns + intent to kill + political power is not as big of a threat.
Culture is a different issue. It's easier to fix the culture after the bad guys are all dead. Banning Mein Kampf wouldn't have stopped Nazism, but it would have provided a lot of divisive, useless conflict between allies.
Charles Johnson in his post
Dutch MP Barred from Entering Britain
links to militanislammonitor.org with explicitly wants to ban the Koran
which makes one wonder how sloppy we have become by taking everything at face value knowing full well the propensity people have for misrepresenting a story to suit their emotions.
The MSM we have been castigating are aces at spinning and now the ones we trust for facts seem to be pulling the same stunt.