The cartoons.  A selection of the points being made:

Posted by Johan Van Vlaams on February 07, 2006, 11:24 AM | #

February 26, 2006 Carnival in Aalst (Flanders/Belgium)
http://www.aalst.be/default.asp?siteid=2&skin=carnaval2006|fun
I wonder what will be shown about the cartoons.

Posted by Al Ross on February 07, 2006, 12:44 PM | #

As the offending cartoons were published by a Jewish editor (Flemming Rose), it seems apt that an Imam should lead the protests, although if the Danes suddenly awoke, in Rip van Winkle fashion, with their Viking forebears’ sense of community intact, they would rid themselves of both groups of pests as soon as is practicable. Come to think of it, having consolidated the P & O acquisition, the Copenhagen-based Maersk/Moller Shipping company is well-placed to undertake the happy task.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 07, 2006, 12:46 PM | #

I read the Bertram post on CT and the thread.  There is no humour in Bertram’s words.  It isn’t a well-constructed piece of writing - even for a parody, which isn’t normally very difficult to pull off.  It offers no insights into the minds of the left’s political opponents, just a few crude, left-typical assumptions about how “offended” the right is.  This invention it then equates with the spectacular offence taken by Muslims across the globe at the Danish cartoons.

It is hardly intellectual blogging.  I’m afraid the slavish CTers who think so highly of it are suffering from a horribly virulent strain of smugness.

Posted by Amalek on February 07, 2006, 02:07 PM | #

I do not know for sure that Flemming Rose is a Jew, but I do know that in 2004 he published an admiring interview with Daniel Pipes, the arch-Zionist academic propaganda pedlar for the view that there is to be a great clash between Islam and neo-post-quasi-secular-Judaeo-Christian-free-abortionism.

Moreover, the first paper in another country to republish the cartoons was France Soir, under the editorship of a M. Arnaud Levy.

Rose has also published a cartoon insulting Jesus Christ, but he isn’t an equal-opportunity blasphemer. Some things are too, well, sacred, to impugn. The International Herald Tribune interviewed him on January 1:

Rose acknowledges that even his liberalism has its limits. He said he would not publish a cartoon of Israel’s Ariel Sharon strangling a Palestinian baby, since that could be construed as “racist.”

It could also be construed as a little too near the diurnal truth of Israeli/Palestinian relations.

Posted by Geoff Beck on February 07, 2006, 02:11 PM | #

I’m for driving the Muslims out of Europe. That’s for sure, but they too can make a rhetorical point, now and then:

The State of Free Speech in Europe

Posted by Johan Van Vlaams on February 07, 2006, 02:44 PM | #

Already seen a cartoon to ridicule Flemish culture?

With more background: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/287

Chokri Ben Chikha also was the director of “The Flemish lion”.

Posted by Calvin on February 07, 2006, 02:56 PM | #

Great post Amalek! The key points in this affair seem to me to be these;

1. The neo-cons are agitating for a war against Israels most powerful regional enemy, Iran.

2. Flemming Rose, whether he is a Jew or not, is a neo-con fellow traveler.

3. Flemming Rose commissioned the provocative cartoons.

4. Abu Laban is the true face of “moderate” Islam.

5. Abu Laban is a liar and an Islamic supremacist.

6. This indicates that the liberal establishments trust in so-called Islamic moderates is a manifestation of their ignorance and incompetence. They believe that people like Iqbal Sacranie, the self-proclaimed homophobe, and Abu Laban are peaceful and rational for the same reasons that they believed James Fey to be a great author. They can’t tell shit from shinola.

7. The condemnations of the actions of protesting (violently rioting to you and me) Muslims by the Muslim establishment are lies excused in the Islamic belief system by the doctrine of takeyya.

8. The most offensive of the cartoons were created by a Danish Muslim race-hate agitator.

9. These fake cartoons were disseminated in the dar al Islam by fake moderate Abu Laban with exhortations to violent anti-Western action.

10. Pictures of Mohammed have been popular throughout Muslim history.

11. The failure of Muslim nations to stem the tide of violence being directed against Europeans is tantamount to complicity and is, therefore, an act of war.

12. The Muslims want to attack Europeans and have gone to the extent of insulting their own religion to provide an excuse to do so.

13. The zionists want a conflict between Muslims and Europeans to provide an excuse to increase the power of Israel.

Tipping point can’t be far away.

Posted by john rackell on February 07, 2006, 03:07 PM | #

And the most offensive cartoon shown in Laban’s tour of the ME depicting Mohammed with the face of a pig was “No, not a satire of Mohammed nor any other sacred Islamic figure but a photo of Jacques Barrot, a pig squealing contestant at the French Pig-Squealing Championships in Trie-sur-Baise’s annual festival. “

neandernews

(with pictures of both images)

Posted by Matra on February 07, 2006, 04:41 PM | #

Not all the neocons are on board. In the US only the New York Sun has published any of the pictures. Meanwhile, Ralph Peters, probably the most militant of the pro-Iraq war agitators continues to attack Europeans. A couple of months ago he said Americans should support the rioters in France dismissing the French as the “effete bigots on the banks of the Seine”.

Ralph Peters in today’s NY Post:

The Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons last September was not standing up courageously for freedom of expression. The editors and cartoonists were so oblivious to any reality beyond their Copenhagen coffee bars that they just thought they were pulling an attention-getting prank.

They got attention, all right. As did the papers elsewhere in Europe that reprinted the offending cartoons last week. In the name of press freedom, of course.

The problem is that with freedom comes responsibility, a quality to which Europe’s become allergic (nothing is ever a European’s fault). Breaking a well-known taboo of Islam was irresponsible. 

Later he says:

Those cartoons said more about Europe’s own arrogance toward religious believers and intolerance of faith than they do about Islam. Today’s Europeans consider religious belief as beneath their sophistication. They’ve come so far that they no longer grasp how intense faith can be — and how furiously the faithful can react.

Through their clumsiness and vanity, the Europeans have made this an all-or-nothing issue. What began as a nasty little Danish problem has been globalized. If the Europeans appear to capitulate now, it will only encourage Muslim extremists around the world.

Wasn’t it those oh-so-clever Europeans who complained about a heavy U.S. hand in the Middle East? Who made excuses for 9/11, the Madrid bombings, street murders, terrorist kidnappings and beheadings, the London bombings, French suburbs aflame and no end of hate speech? Then treated Islam the way a dog treats a fire hydrant?

That’s Europe for you: A continent of cowards who start fights they can’t finish themselves. Thanks, Hans. Merci, Pierre.

Peters blames Muslims too for the crisis but like many Iraq war hawks he seethes with hatred towards ALL Europeans. (Did you know that all Europeans are the same?) Keep in mind that the Danes have been the most pro-American of countries in recent years and have troops in Iraq. But Peters just dismisses them as “Eurotrash”:

It’s hard not to feel a certain amount of Schadenfreude after enduring endless lectures from Europeans about how the Middle East’s problems were all made in America. It will be fascinating to watch the Europeans attempt to come to grips with fanaticism… For once, we Americans can sit back and watch the fight (pass the popcorn, please). The Europeans are going to get a few more teeth knocked out.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/63063.htm

Obviously anti-Americanism is far more common in the European press than anti-Europeanism is in the US, but Ralph Peters is a fascinating example of the anti-European,  universal democracy worshipping American. He’s so bitter about Europe’s lack of support for the Iraq invasion that he’s completely lost his marbles.

Here’s Joseph Sobran on another hate-filled Peters article about the French.

Posted by Amalek on February 07, 2006, 07:43 PM | #

The funny thing is that while some American gung-ho types assail Europeans indiscriminately as effete types who are letting themselves be outbred into extinction by immigrants, other neocons are suggesting that NATO take over ‘peacekeeping’ tasks in Iraq as well as Afghanistan (you know, those wars America won, yes dammit, won, three or four years ago) so that the Hyperpower can teach Iran some manners without bringing back the draft.

The new unhappy Straussian lords know that if the boys of whitebread suburbia had to be sent to the desert, it would kill Christian America’s sentimental attachment to the Judenstaat overnight. So the mavens of the PNAC are going to have to decide whether ‘Eurabia’ is friend or foe.

As always. whether denouncing Europe’s ‘racism’ or our military diffidence, the Jewish neocons project their own failings. So many American Jews are marrying out, failing to reproduce and losing any meaningful separate identity that there are now, for the first time, more Jews in Israel than in the USA.

And what was that about the cowardice of France and Germany? For the IDF, like the US armed forces, no longer fights big setpiece battles. It confines itself to beating up armed civilians (or bombing unarmed ones) in pacification operations, and fooling around with smart weapons which prove to be not so smart. At all costs it must avoid upsetting mommas by sending their sons back in body bags. And the same goes double for young Hymie or Shmuel at Harvard Law School. Can’t have *him* chucking his life away in Najaf!

Posted by Al Ross on February 07, 2006, 08:28 PM | #

If the Americans brought back the draft, it would, because of the mandatory inclusion of ‘alien’ green-card holders and the altered racial profile of the citizenry, mean that the US military would look even more Third Worldish than at present. No doubt many Leftist peacenik Jews would refuse to serve on the grounds of conscientious objection, as was the case in the Vietnam debacle. This ‘principled’stance would immediately undergo a change in the event of Israel’s coming under direct attack.  The resultant exodus of the Jewish State’s defenders (as evidenced by the Hebrew draft-dodgers who quickly headed for the homeland at the onset of the Six Day War) would, no doubt, be impressive, if (sadly) temporary.

By the way, Amalek, your inclusion of a Chestertonian rhetorical flourish is delightful.

Posted by Geoff Beck on February 07, 2006, 09:02 PM | #

BTW,  I’ve been wondering who owns the newspapers in Denmarke which printed the inflammatory caricatures of muhammed.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on February 07, 2006, 10:11 PM | #

they believed James Fey to be a great author. They can’t tell shit from shinola.

LOL!  Amen to that.  I was just reading Dolan’s piece pillorying Frey (an obvious jew if photographs of him are any guide), it’s unbelievable what lemmings will swallow once they’re taught an appetite for it.

Posted by Amalek on February 08, 2006, 05:42 AM | #

Someone else has tumbled to the possibility of a provocation. Justin Raimondo of antiwar.com writes on Flemming Rose, double standards and the Daniel Pipes connection:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8512

Posted by Calvin on February 08, 2006, 07:13 AM | #

Raimondo makes some good points, but he’s just playing the game. He is jumping from the arms of the Zionists into the arms of the Islamacists. Mecca and Jerusalem are playing ping-pong using White Europe as the ball. Fuck ‘em both! Ourselves alone!

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on February 08, 2006, 01:22 PM | #

I do not know for sure that Flemming Rose is a Jew

This was just being discussed in a SF thread, and a photo of him sealed the deal for me:

http://xs66.xs.to/pics/06050/7551.jpg

Lol, uhh, yeah.

Posted by Geoff Beck on February 08, 2006, 01:45 PM | #

Fleming Rose! Well, that figures. Its not that Europe doesn’t have a Muslim cancer on its soil, it does.  Yet, the public isn’t being told the whole story: a semetic war - between Jew and Muslim - is being fought in Europe. 

Of course, no thinking man expects the media - at least in the USA - to probe the question of EGI in media ownership.

Although, a Mr. Tam Dayall has broached the subject.

Posted by Steve Edwards on February 08, 2006, 01:53 PM | #

“Ourselves alone!”

That’s one of the best slogans of all time.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 08, 2006, 02:25 PM | #

Unfortunately, Steve, its Gaelic translation is Sinn Fein.  Yep, those wonderful Irish nationalists who favour anti-racism and Third World immigration in Ireland.

Posted by Steve Edwards on February 08, 2006, 02:53 PM | #

Yikes!

Too bad about that!!

It’s a fine slogan, and too bad a bunch of UN-loving communists already took it.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on February 08, 2006, 04:51 PM | #

I just heard from the neojingocon who comes on after Rush that the editor of the whatever-Posten (is that Rose?) has stated he will publish the results of an Iranian paper’s holocaust cartoon solicitation.

Posted by DissidentMan on February 08, 2006, 05:25 PM | #

Like I’ve said before, I’m a practicing Buddhsist that does almost daily meditation. Its been brought up before by other posters but giant Buddha statues were destroyed by some Imams in Afghanistan which was an act of aggresssive memetic warfare. There were no firebombings and violent protests by Buddhists anywhere in the world AFAIK.

How would Buddhist react to Buddha being mocked in the newspapers? I can’t speak for all Buddhists of course but I guess that it wouldn’t ruffle our feathers that much, because the worth of Buddhism to a Buddhist is connected to its efficacy in producing inner peace and the other more esoteric goals of Buddhism. By analogy suppose you’ve got a million dollars and someone mocks your million dollars, it won’t bother you in the least because its value to you has got precious little to do with what others think. Mocking a bank account won’t change the balance.

What does violent reaction to mild mockery say about Islam? It indicates that to Muslisms the worth of their religion (to them) is totally bound up with memetic dominance. Those Danish papers touched a very raw nerve, and did everyone a service in so doing because a very bad aspect of Islam got exposed in the process.

Posted by Phil Peterson on February 08, 2006, 05:57 PM | #

These cartoons have woken up even the most deluded of European liberals. If a handful of Cartoons can achieve what reams of our writing cannot, I say we need more!

Posted by Amalek on February 08, 2006, 08:49 PM | #

So Flemming Rose turns out to look like Steven Spielberg. Quelle surprise.

“What is still more important [than homogeneity of culture] is unity of religious background; and reasons of race and religion combine to make any large number of freethinking Jews undesirable.”  (TS Eliot, ‘After Strange Gods’, 1934)

Posted by Geoff Beck on February 08, 2006, 11:19 PM | #

After Strange Gods.

I own that book. Great lecture. BTW, T.S. Eliot is buried in East Coker. I nice place I’m told.

Posted by friedrich braun on February 09, 2006, 05:13 PM | #

A dissenting voice: Once again I totally agree with Pat Buchanan who shows Europeans for the hypocrites that they are:

...

British Foreign Minister Jack Straw deplored republication of the cartoons as “insensitive ... disrespectful ... wrong.” But German Interior Minister Wolfgang Shauble haughtily dissented, “Here, in Europe, governments have nothing to say about which publisher publishes what.”

What hypocrisy. When it comes to what Germans are most sensitive about, Hitler and the Holocaust, they are ruthless censors. British historian David Irving has spent three months in a Viennese prison awaiting trial on Feb. 20 for speeches he made 15 years ago in Austria. Skeptics and deniers of the Holocaust are prosecuted, fined and imprisoned in Europe with the enthusiastic endorsement of the European press.

...

What has happened in Europe is that the secular press, which loves to mock the beliefs and symbols of religious faith, has now insulted a deadly serious religion that answers insults with action.

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/62/

Posted by Matra on February 09, 2006, 05:32 PM | #

So what if Europeans are being hypocritical on free speech. What matters is they are (for once) standing up against one of their troublesome foreign minorities.

Posted by friedrich braun on February 09, 2006, 05:55 PM | #

So what if Europeans are being hypocritical on free speech.

Well, maybe those like Iriving, Germar, Zundel, Verbeke, etc. sitting in jail for raising questions on aspects of the holocaust story care. Here’s more on censorship in Germany:

http://www.vho.org/censor/D.html

Secondly, The “Danish” newspaper is owned by the New York Times and the Zionist Jew who commisioned the blasphemous cartoons is called Flemming Rose, the ‘cultural editor’ of Jyllands-Posten, Denmark’s most widely read morning paper.

Yes, it’s the usual common denominator again, but let us ignore it as usual and talk about the weather instead. Yeah…let’s blame it all on “troublesome minorities.” I congratulate the Muslims for showing courage in this instance…maybe…just maybe…they don’t like to be humiliated and spat on by Europe’s self-seeking, hypocritical elites.

Posted by Phil Peterson on February 09, 2006, 06:10 PM | #

Secondly, The “Danish” newspaper is owned by the New York Times

Do you have a link or a reference for that?

Posted by Matra on February 09, 2006, 06:40 PM | #

Well, maybe those like Iriving, Germar, Zundel, Verbeke, etc. sitting in jail for raising questions on aspects of the holocaust story care.

Nothing to do with the attempt by Muslims to flex their muscles in a European country. It is up to Danes to decide what kind of speech is allowed in their country.

Incidentally I think Denmark is more open minded about people like Irving and Zundel and free speech in general than the rest of Western Europe.  I recall other foreign agitators screaming about some neo-Nazi radio station that was (is?) funded in part by the Danish government.

Secondly, The “Danish” newspaper is owned by the New York Times

You mean the New York Times that refuses to publish the cartoons because it might offend a minority group.  If there’s one newspaper the American Zionists despise it is the Times.  They are always complaining about the paper’s coverage of the “War on Terror”. The recent wire-tapping story is a case in point. Endless NY Times coverage of Abu Ghraib has also infuriated the neocons. Check some of the neocon blogs; they’ve launched a cyber jihad against the paper.

it’s the usual common denominator again, but let us ignore it as usual

Too simplistic. Jews are more dominant in the US mainstream yet they’ve been afraid to publish the cartoons lest it cause offence to a minority community.

Posted by Amalek on February 09, 2006, 09:40 PM | #

Matra:  “If there’s one newspaper the American Zionists despise it is the Times.  They are always complaining about the paper’s coverage of the “War on Terror”. The recent wire-tapping story is a case in point.”

Quite right. The New York Sun was begun to be a more reliable mouthpiece of neoconnerie in ZOG HQ than the Good Gray Liberal Tikkun Times. The Sun *did* run some of the offending cartoons, whereas few American papers, dedicated to middle-of-the-road moneygrubbing as they are, abstained whether Jewish-owned (e.g. the Newhouse chain) or not.

Here’s a typical PNAC war whoop from the Sun in today’s leader column:

Hardly a day passes now without new provocations by President Ahmadinejad of Iran. Whether he is threatening to wipe Israel off the map, denying the Holocaust, or defiantly resuming his nuclear program, it is obvious to all that Iran is now a menace not only to its neighbors in the Middle East but to the Western world as well. Yet European governments, led by the troika of France, Britain, and Germany, continue to insist that diplomacy can persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions. With the exception of Tony Blair, no European leader has so far been prepared to contemplate the use of military means to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Indeed, Foreign Secretary Straw insists that no such military option is even being contemplated. Mr. Straw told the BBC recently that he had never even discussed the use of force against Iran with the Bush administration. The manifest failure of European policy towards Iran does not appear to have shaken the European political class out of its complacency. Clearly the politicians believe that their voters are either ignorant about Iran or share their attitude of hoping, like Dickens’s Mr. Micawber, that “something will turn up.”

It’s always the same song: clash of civilisations (though the Others aren’t civilised), gotta zap them before they convert us all or make us into second-class serfs of Islam, kick even America’s allies in the teeth if they aren’t doing enough spending and dying for Israel. ‘Denying’ the Holocaust ipso facto makes you a menace to the entire western world. Hypertrophied Jewish ethno-egocentricity has rarely been expressed so artlessly.

This nasty little rag, which calls itself a quality broadsheet, is owned partly by Hollinger—former scene of Lord Black’s depredations—and by a bunch of NYC businessmen, but is rumoured to be leeding money after four years. Maybe Rupert Murdoch or the Moonies would like to rescue it.

Posted by Phil Peterson on February 10, 2006, 03:57 AM | #

You mean the New York Times that refuses to publish the cartoons because it might offend a minority group.

The NYT often describes Hamas as “activists”.

I agree with you totally Matra. There are two schools of thought on Western decline: one sees Jews as the masterkey to solve every conceivable problem (and as the ultimate source of all problems); the second understands the decline in the larger context of the decay of civilization which has many components (and Jewish political activism is only a part of it but not all of it).

I subscribe to the second school of thought.

Posted by Phil Peterson on February 10, 2006, 03:58 AM | #

Amalek,

You sound like an educated Palestinian in exile. Is that correct? What ethnicity are you?

Posted by Steve Edwards on February 10, 2006, 02:49 PM | #

“we will prevail…”

I hope so, because this monstrosity is the enemy of all decent people, everywhere. And I don’t think civilisation can stand much more.

Posted by friedrich braun on February 10, 2006, 04:19 PM | #

It is up to Danes to decide what kind of speech is allowed in their country.

Sure, and we can call them bloody hypocrites when they scream: “freedom of speech!” for stupid, blasphemous cartoons…but don’t dare say a word when historians are jailed for doubting aspects of the holocaust story.

Too simplistic. Jews are more dominant in the US mainstream yet they’ve been afraid to publish the cartoons lest it cause offence to a minority community

I’ll say this, the Jews have been at the forefront of all sorts of movements in the West detrimental to White people. In other words, Jews don’t pass the “but for” test. For e.g., but for the Jews the US wouldn’t have made changes to its immigration policy, effectively opening the gates to the world and thereby (irreversabily) altering the ethnic composition of the US…to the detriment of White people.

See MacDonald:

Jewish involvement in influencing United States immigration policy, 1881-1965: A historical review

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/Immigration.pdf