How to deal with atrocities? « Samizdata.

It has been a while. My life has been filled with family, friends and festive fun as I hope, gentle reader, has yours. Even this, the first post of 2017, is something of an accident. A young photographer friend of mine responded on Facebook to President Trump's inaugural speech as follows;

Now I am genuinely confused. How do you eradicate an idea unless it's made from bricks?

I replied but soon realised my post was not Facebook material. So here it is for your review and correction. Please let me know in the comments how you would change or add to my draft plan for POTUS to eradicate radical Islamic terrorism as a threat to the USA . 

1. You begin by naming it. [Done, in the Inauguration speech].

2. You stop making excuses for it.

3. You deport its supporters and ensure proper screening of future immigrants from the countries where it is rife.

4. You publish a threat list of such countries; naming, shaming and withdrawing all aid from them and restricting their citizens' travel to the US until they qualify to be de-listed.

5. You ensure Saudi Arabia – the heart of Islamic darkness and Western civilisation's most important current enemy – is on that list.

6. You allow citizens of threat list countries to trade freely with yours so that their isolation is only political. Trade is always good and almost never the legitimate concern of government because countries don't trade — their citizens do.

7. You override all "Green" opposition to allow free enterprise to open every oil field, fracking site and nuclear plant it can on US and US-friendly territory to make your country energy independent and weaken the Arab oil states on the threat list.

8. You lean diplomatically on its sources of funds (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Iran, the EU — which funds Hamas in Israel).

9. You arm the West's only ally in the region — Israel — to the teeth and back it loyally in eliminating with extreme prejudice the enemies who threaten it.

10. You purge its cultural Marxist allies and apologists from US academia — there is no reason to fund treason from taxes; let them sell their indoctrination in the free market if they can.

11. You equip and train special forces and deploy drones to kill anyone who practises or promotes it.

12. You cease aid to any country or body (e.g. the UN) that provides support to it.

13. You announce that you will never intervene in a threat list state militarily to facilitate regime change. No more overthrowing one Arab fascist to make way for another. In making this announcement you acknowledge that President Putin was right to support the recognised government of Syria rather than back first the rebels who proved to be Al Qaida and then the rebels who turned out to be ISIS. You announce your intention to seek President Putin's advice in future such situations.

14. You close the UN nest of vipers in NYC (and redevelop the land as Trump-branded condominiums to help recover some of the millions wasted on funding US enemies there for decades).

15. You deploy a fleet in the Mediterranean to sink the smugglers boats, kill the smugglers and land any illegal migrants you may rescue back to their port of embarkation. You order that fleet to destroy any ports still allowing smugglers to operate after having given them fair warning.

16. You ask President Putin to deploy the Black Sea fleet on a similar mission.

17. You insist that freeloading parasites like Germany and France pull their weight in the defence of Western civilisation by putting troops in harm's way alongside Americans and Brits where necessary and paying their NATO dues of 2% of GDP (including arrears back to its foundation) or lose the protection of the US nuclear umbrella.

18. You ignore as irrelevances anyone who finds the above shocking because there is no question the majority of the American public will support all of it.

Today the Free World has a leader who has the balls to do it and "Mad Dog" Mattis in charge of the US military. US "liberals" may be trembling histrionically today but the terrorists they have succoured around the world should be genuinely afraid.

The Enlightenment West is as powerful as it chooses to be. All it has to do is quit the self loathing political correctness and believe in itself again — as its despised  "ordinary" people have never ceased to do. You may say the above programme is not libertarian and you would be right. It is a plan for the US as currently constituted, not as I would wish it to be. In a libertarian America, for example, there would be no state funding of universities and so it would be up to their owners to decide whether to employ Marxists and other enemies of the Enlightenment - and up to students and their families to decide if they want to pay for an anti-Western education that equips them for nothing productive.

In the meantime, drain that swamp, Mr President. Gentle reader, please discuss. 

Is this what our law has come to?

A Muslim extremist linked to Woolwich killer Michael Adebowale was jailed for five years and four months today (Weds) for glorifying the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby in a series of YouTube videos. Royal Barnes, 23, was filmed by his veiled wife Rebekah Dawson, 22, laughing hysterically as he drove past the scene of the attack. Dawson, who has caused nationwide controversy by refusing to remove her niqab in court, was jailed for one year and eight months. The couple ridiculed the memorial flowers left by friends, family and members of the public for Drummer Rigby and Barnes described the murder as 'absolutely brilliant'. Dawson also boasted in a text to a friend: 'Did you watch it? It was really inciting and almost glorifying lol.'

Two young idiots upload stupid films to YouTube. They express primitive, ignorant, violent opinions. Opinions rather like those expressed by revolutionary socialists every single day (but with far less chance of influencing anyone).

Did their childish, ignorant words represent a threat? If so, then we are a feeble society too decadent to deserve survival. This is using the sledgehammer of the criminal law to crack something that merited the toffee hammer of an Anglo-Saxon imprecation at best.

These idiots are pathetic, yes. But so are we for having nothing better to do with the hard-earned money taken by force from decent people than to pay policemen, lawyers, judges and prison officers to deal with them. And for not understanding that it's better to hear dangerous opinions and know where threats may come from than to drive them underground.

I spent the weekend pleasantly at the southern stronghold of Clan Paine; a fifteenth-century coaching inn in Berkshire owned by my cousin. It is built partly of oak reclaimed from Royal Navy warships of the Age of Sail. No more English place could be imagined. It has been in her branch of our family all my life and it was there her father - then the owner - made the teenaged me a tifoso and today's me a Ferrarista.

Elders visiting from the North told of a rare visit to London. Two ladies dressed in what they called a burka (but more likely an abaya or chador combined with a headscarf) got into a lift with them. They admitted to feelings of fear and were concerned this reaction might be 'racist'.

I feel sorry for older Britons. Most have strived their whole lives to be decent, kind and polite but now live in danger of being told they are wicked because they have not grasped the latest sociological nuance.

In our culture, I told them, fear is a normal psychological response to masks. Long ago, rehearsing a youth theatre production, my drama coach warned me that I must be careful where I fixed my masked gaze. People, she said, find it 'disturbing'. Another masked actor and I (there being nothing crueller than male teenagers) would stand in the wings during each performance selecting the prettiest girl in the audience. During a scene in which we stood for twenty minutes, masked and immobile, we would fix our gazes on her. She always cried. She always left. None lasted more than five minutes.

In other cultures things are different. I assured them that the ladies in their lift had not meant to scare them. I said their reaction was not 'racist', but a cultural response that the routine presence of ladies in hijab would eventually change. They were reassured. They had not thought they were 'racist' and had not wanted to be misperceived.

Someone else suggested Britain should follow the lead of France and ban the hijab. I jokingly replied that if they chose to dress in public as Superman or Wonder Woman they could expect strangers to laugh, neighbours to think them barmy and their friends to tell them so. But, very properly in a free and tolerant society, they would not expect the police to intervene. A lady dressed in hijab was entitled to expect the same reactions from her non-cosplay neighbours; no more and no less.

On my daily constitutional today I wondered how a hijab-wearing Muslim would view my advice to these elderly relatives so keen to respect her culture. Does she know that in our culture her mask inspires fear? Does she care? If she is not prepared to respect the cultural sensitivities of her neighbours, is it fair to expect them to work so hard and so fearfully to respect hers?

 Muslims protest 'age of mockery' as thousands descend on Google HQ - Telegraph.

I applaud the stance of Google and its subsidiary YouTube in response to the demands of the mob outside their offices in London yesterday. I worry that their stance might be less tough if they were headquartered anywhere but in the United States, where the constitution strongly protects free speech. Or for that matter if Google had not been founded by a Russian who knows from family experience what totalitarianism feels like. If Google were run by woolly-minded Old Etonians with more manners than ethics, who knows how it might have reacted?

Of course I respect the rights of primitive and backward people with no concept of the importance of free speech to call for films to be banned. All I ask from them in return is that they respect my right to call them primitive and backward for doing so, without whingeing about "hate speech" or (ludicrously) equating my stance with "terrorism." I can't help but be ashamed of them when they are my fellow citizens however. Nor can I help being even more ashamed of the fellow-member of the legal profession speaking for them. How did such a sorry creature ever obtain admission to the Bar?

Most of all though I am worried that my country's constitution does not protect such vital rights. They can be so easily lost at any time by politicians pandering to such people. Politicians, perhaps, with more manners - or more ideology - than ethics.

A woman was in full niqab at my local Tube station today. That I respect her right to dress as she likes, is for most libertarians all that there is to say on that subject. In truth, of course, there is much more. A wise friend of mine said recently that libertarians are wrong to treat such issues as cut and dried. We give the impression that we are uncaring, cold and more unlike other people than we really are.

This post of mine was a good example. My friend rebuked me for saying that "I don't care" if people want to enter into polygamous/polyandrous marriages, when I would actually be very concerned for any family member or friend embarking on one. He has a point. As witness the conventional lives that most of us lead, libertarians generally have a similar range of ethical scruples to everyone else. In a sense, we just have an extra scruple about interfering in the lives of others.

I would never advocate interfering with that young lady's right to dress as she does. That doesn't mean I don't have any other response. In truth my reaction was the same I would have to seeing her paraded in public on a leash. However much she and they might deny it, I feel it's degrading that her menfolk claim the right for her to be seen only by them. I feel her garb is the sign and symbol of misogynistic subjection.

Other libertarians might have different responses. We are not an army of liberty-minded robots. We are diverse, mostly rather ordinary humans with a range of views.

Why then do I feel so uncomfortable in expressing such a personal view? I am not afraid of being accused of islamophobia. As used in public discourse in Britain, I regard it as a bogus concept designed to close down discussion. Rather like racism, sexism and homophobia, it is usually no more than an incantation; a magic spell to shut opponents up.

Nor do I recognise the lady's right not to be offended. Someone is offended by any point of view. I am very offended by those who advocate enslaving their fellow-men on a time share basis; making them work for the state for months before permitting them to earn for their families. Yet I don't claim the right to suppress their foul views. There is no free speech without offence - real, imagined or bogus. Sticks and stones may break our bones, but if we want to live in a free society we can't ever allow mere words to hurt us.

My wise friend is right. If we don't talk about the many concerns we share with non-libertarians, we make it harder to win them over. We sound like cold, hard people lacking concern for our fellow men. It's not enough to say the lady in the niqab is entitled to wear it. We also need to say that, like our fellow citizens, some of us at least feel sorry for her and disgusted by the misogyny her garb represents.

In modern Britain, libertarians inevitably spend most of our time arguing against the increasing intrusion of the state into private lives. We need also to make clear that we only do so as a matter of ethical principle. It's not because we approve of whatever "evil" the state pretends it is trying to cure. We would oppose a hijab ban à la française in England for example, but that doesn't mean any or all of us are happy for the women concerned. Just because we claim no right to interfere doesn't mean we lack a moral response.

Perhaps the confusion arises from the fact that, in a radically statist society like ours, where government accepts no boundaries on its right to interfere, moral criticism is almost always the precursor to an attack on liberty. We used to separate the immoral (to be avoided in oneself and discouraged in others on ethical grounds) and the illegal (to be suppressed for the protection of others from genuine harm). That distinction has somehow been lost.

The loss is no accident, in my view. To advance their cause, statists have - in a cynical agitprop exercise - sought out "oppressed" groups and offered them the state's protection. They have given the right to those favoured groups (selected for the sympathy they evoke in a population of generally decent people) not to be offended and not to have hatred expressed against them. In doing so they have chilled free expression so effectively that it's hard not to imagine that was their objective. And they have caused a clamour from other groups to be added to the list of the elect.

The British media demonised the Polish and Ukrainian peoples as racist bigots in advance of UEFA 2012, for example. I am familiar with both countries and don't believe racism is more prevalent there than here. I simply think we have suppressed its expression here and in doing so may even have increased its incidence. Does that really make anyone's life better? Does it increase the chance of different communities growing together; learning to understand each others' concerns and to build trust? I think not.

The lady on the platform today may, as most human communication is non-verbal, have detected my unease. She may speculate as to its causes but she will never know the truth. Unless it's possible to talk openly to each other, how can we progress? How can we explain to those who are taught to assume we are hostile by our racist, sexist, homophobic and islamophobic natures, that we stand by the old English principle of "handsome is as handsome does?" That we really just want people to stop calling for us to be controlled like dangerous dogs and for all of us - citizen familes old and new - to sign up to the standards of tolerance and mutual respect that we think should define our society?

The key question is, as always, cui bono? I don't think it's the young lady in the niqab, who might well enjoy having me as a neighbour if not taught to fear me. I don't think it's the black and brown football fans who missed out on two wonderful countries. The only beneficiaries of this moral panic agitprop are those who seek ever more control over our lives. Every time we edit our speech for fear of PC "offence" we are losing the battle for our freedom.

freeasiabibi.co.uk - What can I do?.

 

I have made a donation today to the British Pakistani Christian Association to support its campaign to free Asia Bibi, a Christian in Pakistan who is to be hanged for "blasphemy." The alleged crime is described variously as having taken the form of refusing to recant her Christian beliefs or "drinking from a well designated for Muslims only".

I am prepared to match the donation to the first British Muslim organisation which formally joins the campaign. Some of my intellectually sterner readers complain when, despite my own atheism, I sympathise with the religious. This case offers fuel to their views, but also an opportunity for believers of all faiths to prove them wrong.

Two Christian politicians have been murdered in Pakistan for opposing this barbaric blasphemy law and there are threats from Muslim clerics that people will "take the law into their own hands" if Asia Bibi is released. It is disturbing to think that there are people of Pakistani origin living in this country who nurture such hatred in their hearts, but apparently - according to Harry's Place - that is so. Sitting here in my London home I can't say that I have ever read more chilling words than these;

There is evidence that the case against Bibi is being directed, funded and organised from London.

If so, then shame on those who are doing it. I hope their fellow British muslims will persuade them to see the error of their ways. There should be no place on these islands for such barbarism. The purpose of this blog is to oppose the erosion of liberty in Britain. British citizens baying for the execution of a woman exercising her freedom of thought is - to put it mildly - part of that problem.

h/t Harry's Place

September 11 attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This is the anniversary of the day that had even the French saying "we are all Americans now."

I remember a baffled Polish colleague coming into my office in Warsaw with the news. I remember waiting to hear if colleagues in the WTC were safe. I remember sending messages of sympathy and support to American friends and clients.

The sense of unity we had that day has been entirely lost. Partly because of the American alliance's mishandled responses, but mostly because no envied superpower can expect sympathy for long. Anti-Americanism is back to default levels among all the usual suspects.

Today, however, the families of 2,974 innocent people are remembering their loss. As we remember with them, we should reflect on the costs of fanaticism. After eight years, perhaps our governments should also begin to reflect on how quickly we can return to peacetime levels of security. The "War on Terror" has outlasted the Second World War, though such of our enemies as have not been killed or captured skulk harmlessly in caves.

There have been huge costs to civil liberties. There has been economic damage as "security theatre" has become the bane of international travellers. Intelligence, espionage, diplomacy and clandestine military operations are the way to defeat Al Qaeda. All else is pointless show at best and political opportunism at worst.

Every day we live in continued fear, is a victory for those 19 maniacs and the evil men who sent them to their deaths. Enough.

Shari`a — Suspect Paki.

I wish he posted more often, because Shahid over at Suspect Paki provides one of the few unmediated insights into the thinking of our Muslim community in Britain. He is a sincere man with his heart mostly in the right place who says some quite terrifying things at times. His pride in his community and his religion is impressive. I wish more native Britons had that. However, his latest attempt to evangelise - by reference to the shocking lenience of the English law to a gang of teenagers who raped a 14 year old girl is monumentally misguided. His personal (and "distinctly un-Islamic") suggestions as to how the rapists should have been punished are amusingly reminiscent of the style of DK over at the Devil's Kitchen.

In truth, had this incident occurred in a country governed by Shari'a law, the rapists would not have been convicted at all, because four male Muslim witnesses would have been required. The girl's evidence (and that of any female by-standers) would not have been admissible (even on the basis of two female witnesses being equivalent to one male). A different view to Shahid's of what she might have expected under Shari'a is to be found here.

Please don't go over to his site and abuse the guy. He's reaching out and it's a good thing that British Muslims engage with the wider community. We should encourage as many British Muslims as possible to express their views openly and honestly rather than leave them to be "represented" by self-appointed community leaders and the mealy-mouthed in government and media.  We would all benefit from more communication. I have left a measured comment. You may like to do the same.

Mumbai attacks: Are they British? - Telegraph.

Let's hope the Mumbai attacks were not led by British muslims, but would it be surprising if they were? I fear that Britain has long been the heart of Islamist darkness. Muslim communities in the North of England - not far from where I grew up - live entirely apart. When my flights to Manchester airport coincide with flights from Islamabad, it is apparent that those communities are being constantly reinforced, with two identical and roughly equal queues of Pakistanis holding British passports and other Pakistanis arriving to begin the process of acquiring them. British muslim men ship in pliant wives from "back home", rather than marry British-educated muslim women. There have been calls for muslim-0nly areas and examples of non-muslims being beaten up for straying into muslim territory.

All this is our fault, not theirs. If given the chance of a richer life for one's family without any need to compromise linguistic, religious or cultural traditions, who in their right mind would not take it? It was our local authorities, funded and encouraged by our central government, urged on by our academics who provided cultural cocoons for these colonists. We provided translators so that they did not need to learn English. We provided multilingual information to help them find their way around our public services and systems of welfare benefits.  I have lived in other countries and can assure you their authorities felt no such need. Nor would I ever expect it. It is our schools that are staffed by teachers who have taken "respect for other cultures" to the point of inspiring contempt for the weakness of our own. it is our academic establishment that has twisted the curriculum so as to inspire shame in the native population. It is our politicians who have raised the historical apology to a ludicrous art form and put us into a cringeing posture of submission and shame in relation to our new fellow citizens. As the lyrics of Show of Hands' excellent modern folk song "Roots" put it;

And we learn to be ashamed before we walk
Of the way we look, and the way we talk

Our public servants have betrayed us at every level and have fostered evil in our midst. If I were a young British muslim, I would have nothing but contempt for the weaklings who hymn the merits of every culture but their own. Convinced of the superiority of my own culture and way of life, I might well see a chance to take over the society around me and raise its level to my own. I understand the thinking of the radical British muslim far better than I understand that of my craven fellow-citizens who saw no need to welcome and integrate our newcomers. My Labour-voting mother-in-law has taken in her old age to attending art galleries, operas and concerts of orchestral music in the cities of Liverpool and Manchester. Both have substantial immigrant communities, but she noticed that she never sees any at such events. We have rightly learned to value their cultures, but it is chilling that they have not learned  to value ours.

If it proves that British muslims were involved, then the "multi-culti" ideologues of the Left ought justly to share the blame. They will be partly responsible not only for the appalling slaughter in Mumbai but also for the poverty and misery it will now cause in an Indian economy desperate for foreign investment. Foreign investment that will not now come.