Jihad for the singular, eternal and uncreated truth, or Multiculturalism? Which is the bigger joke?

Monday, September 25, 2006
News from Londonistan is sometimes so strange it seems that the ideology of multiculturalism is going all out to reveal its incompatibility with responsible representative government, or democratic self rule, and with true respect for the human unity that is the basis of all real and meaningful diversity:
POLICE have agreed to consult a panel of Muslim leaders before mounting counter-terrorist raids or arrests. Members of the panel will offer their assessment of whether information police have on a suspect is too flimsy and will also consider the consequences on community relations of a raid.

Members will be security vetted and will have to promise not to reveal any intelligence they are shown. They will not have to sign the Official Secrets Act.
So the Brits are going to tie up their police with enforced consultations with an anti-police, anti-government, anti-American, Judeophobic, pro-Iranian nuke, group and any police actions which do not meet with the Muslim watchdogs' pleasure will now presumably be officially sanctioned as victimizing the Ummah.

When governments bring such non-elected advisors/critics into consultations not only on policies, but on day-to-day policing with all its needs for timely action and control of information, we are surely seeing a prime example of how multiculturalism assumes that the various members of a nation are not fit to govern themselves. Just as the supposedly independent (from political interference) police are here implied to be incapable of governing themselves, of maintaining their own professional standards, practices, and public consultations without need of suspicious, politicized, watchdogs, multiculturalism assumes that the disparate members of a nation do not have sufficient common interests or any unifying principles that can serve as a rational basis for governing themselves. Instead of a country in which, say, a Muslim or a Christian, a person of Xinjiangese or Basque ancestry, can aspire to the virtue of going into the public sphere and making representations that could appeal to many disparate members of his nation, the ideology of multiculturalism assumes we can only speak for our own, however defined.

What this assumption must leave unanswered is the overall basis or reason for the decisions made by the high officials of state who co-ordinate the various interest groups over which the government - which becomes an imperial hierarchy riding the winds of power - rules. Democracy requires a common purpose or reason that is the basis for the people ruling themselves through their representatives. And staying alive by keeping the system and the diversity it fosters from being ripped apart into competing, warring, camps is ultimately at the root of such common purpose or reason.

But there is no accessible rationality behind the present multicultural order in full pomp; there are only attempts to obscure the fact that a liberal order, trying to serve all the conflicting desires that it pretends to have room for, and without deferring to any unifying principles or respect for a nation's foundational events that give it a particular history of self-representation, will sooner or later fall into a tyranny of high officials negotiating differences in back rooms, without the possibility of publicly accounting for the rationality of such negotiations other than in terms of deferring to competing interests and powers.

Such a "nation" might become a place, say, where police cannot protect against terrorism, from risk of offending those with a right to restrain their investigations. Or it might become a place where dhimmi police trade their powers to Muslim leaders in return for the promise that the latter will control violent trouble makers under some kind of imperial millet system.

On the other hand, maybe it is only when all see multiculturalism reveal itself for the arational and potentially tyrannical system it is, that we will be able to see clearly that the emperor has no clothes. What fun then to read:
COLUMBUS, Ohio — A car dealership's planned radio advertisement that declared "a jihad on the automotive market" has drawn sharp criticism for its content but will not be changed, the business said Saturday.

Several stations rejected the Dennis Mitsubishi spot, which says sales representatives wearing"burqas"_ head-to-toe traditional dress for Islamic women _ will sell vehicles that can"comfortably seat 12 jihadists in the back."

"Our prices are lower than the evildoers'every day. Just ask the pope!"the ad says."Friday is fatwa Friday, with free rubber swords for the kiddies."A fatwa is a religious edict.

Dealership president Keith Dennis said the ad does not disrespect any religion or culture. He said it was"fair game"to poke"a little fun at radical extremists."

"It was our intention to craft something around some of the buzzwords of the day and give everyone a good chuckle and be a little bit of a tension reliever,"he said.

The Columbus chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations decried the ad as disrespectful.

19 comments:

Skookumchuk said...

And this is now hitting various blogs - in Germany, they have cancelled a new production of Mozart's Idomeneo in which the ancient Greek king and his family somehow in their travails encounter the severed heads of Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammed. (Yeah, I realize - but, see, this is contemporary and cutting edge anti-bourgeois German opera, or sumpthin'.) Anyhoo, the severed head of Mohammed was too much and the production is cancelled. Out of fear. Which is probably just as well.

See, theocratic barbarism ain't all bad. :-)

chuck said...

See, theocratic barbarism ain't all bad. :-)

Sorta a civilizing influence, you're saying?

Skookumchuk said...

chuck:

In this case, I'd call it a draw.

But it is the exception that proves the rule.

Syl said...

This British development is so bizarre I can't even bring myself to tell Joe about it. I mean how does one explain it?

But, legally, obviously the Brits have never heard of 'equal protection'. Who are they going to consult before they catry out raids on drug pushers? But, who knows, maybe they did consult the IRA before banging down doors looking for IRA bombers.

As for the car dealership ad, it's crude, it's mocking, it's hilarious. (Sandmonkey laughed himself silly over it.) Perhaps it is a bit too much too soon. I don't know.

Since I detest extreme multiculturalism as much as I detest exteme Islamophobia, I'll just say a little bit of mocking and a little bit of concession is a lot better than either completely accepting Islam or utterly dissing it.

Musharraf pointed out something that I had never thought of before. Why do we call Pakistan's bomb the Islamic bomb, and not call Israel's the Jewish bomb, or India's the Hindu bomb? (I can almost predict the answer to that here--which kinda proves his point.)

There is a very good argument to be made that we are intimidating THEM as much as they are intimidating us and that that hurts the moderates and makes them weaker.

I think there's validity to that argument.

The answers are still a known unknown.

truepeers said...

Syl, re Musharaf, what's his point really? I mean it is Muslims who take the lead in denouncing a world of nation-states and calling for a unified Islamic Caliphate. We just mimic them when we speak of an Islamic bomb. I hope Musharaf and enough other Paks are sufficiently proud nationalists to be Paks first, Muslims second. Anyway, I wouldn't blink an eye if I heard people talking about "the Jewish bomb" - that's what it is, unless of course you think America is run by the Jews and their bomb has title priority - Oppenheimer and all those guys.

Luther McLeod said...

Ya know, in my younger days, I dated a niece of Oppenheimer's. I think. Same last name, and could never get her to talk about her family. My speculation from a long time ago. But, ultimately, BS on my part, I have no idea if she was related or not. But she was smarter than hell.

After that digression...I think this 'tactic' by the Metro Police is the straw...

Between the Pope's speech and his subsequent apologies mixed with the above...I am ready to pronounce anything east of Dingle, ummah. PeterUK, I will sponsor you.

I mean, really, when do we get serious about the threat we face? Cabbie's anyone.

chuck said...

Why do we call Pakistan's bomb the Islamic bomb

Beats me, as I always referred to them as Pakistan's nuclear weapons, India's nuclear weapons, etc. In fact, I have never heard of the Islamic bomb before, although Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan apparently thought of it that way, what with the umma taking precedence over the state and all. So maybe Musharraf knows something I don't.

Rick Ballard said...

It would really be nice to get over the theory that there is a hoard of gutless muslim moderates waiting for the right moment to speak up. There aren't, there never have been and there never will be. There are quite a number of people who call themselves muslims who are as attentive to their faith as the nominal Christians who never darken a church door but they aren't moderates and they cannot display their lack of conviction because they are aware of the consequences.

I don't blame nominal muslims for keeping their mouths shut at all. The world is full of cowards and they are no worse than others. I just think that talking about encouraging moderate muslims is a engaging in constructing a fantasy.

Barry Dauphin said...

Anyhoo, the severed head of Mohammed was too much and the production is cancelled. Out of fear.

Well, if they actually ackowledged publicly that it was out of fear, it's a start. However, if fear is disguised as moral rectitude and tolerance, then...say no more.

Skookumchuk said...

Then there are times when I agree with Mark Steyn that the most accurate prognosis for our civilization as a whole is a kind of slow, increment defeat, one that will taken place before we know it. Too early to tell. Ask me tomorrow - it might be a different answer.

Anyway, you note the caveat - "as a whole". The question is whether we survive whole - including Western Europe and the American blue castles as Rick calls them - or whether we splinter into those who fight and those who will just look out for themselves, keep their heads down, stay out of trouble, and hope for the best.

Of course, that is the case in any upheaval involving personal risk, like our own Revolution. Our greatest challenge will be in converting these fellow Westerners who while passive may in some way be inspired to help our side and to enlist them in our battles yet unfought. We will have to figure out how to do that before too long.

truepeers said...

Melanie Phillips:

he appeasement mentality of the British police seems to have plumbed hitherto unimaginable depths of professional imbecility. As the Sunday Telegraph reported:

Police are to alert Muslim community leaders about anti-terrorism raids against suspected Islamic terrorists in future… Outlining the reasoning behind the proposed plans, Rob Beckley, the head of faith and counter-terrorism for Acpo [Association of Chief Police Officers], said: ‘Muslims do not trust our operations at the moment. They do not wholly believe we are trying to root out Islamic extremists. To combat this, we will tell community leaders, who have been vetted by the security services, details of our operations before they take place. This will be adopted nationwide in an effort to build bridges and to help us do our job better.’ Mr Beckley said that community leaders could be briefed about police action weeks in advance of the raids taking place.

The police are prone to make a (dangerously false) comparison between the Islamic jihad and the IRA. But can anyone imagine the British Army or the Royal Ulster Constabulary, when the IRA terror campaign was at its height, making known to the Catholic or Protestant communities plans to conduct raids within those communities, and the intelligence on which it was based, before they took place? Can one imagine any police force doing such a thing anywhere in the world? What this policy implies is that Britain now has a two million-strong no-go area for the police labelled The Muslim Community, subject to quite different rules of engagement from everyone else because it is calling the shots. Step by shameful step, the police are being led by the nose into repudiating their role as our front line of defence against terrorism. Britain has simply taken leave of its senses.

MeaninglessHotAir said...

Britain has simply taken leave of its senses.

Today Britain, tomorrow Canada, next week the US.

Syl said...

TP

Syl, re Musharaf, what's his point really? I mean it is Muslims who take the lead in denouncing a world of nation-states and calling for a unified Islamic Caliphate.

Yeah, every muslim.

RB

I just think that talking about encouraging moderate muslims is a engaging in constructing a fantasy.

Like strawmen much?

So we should give up on Musharraf? Refuse to support the Bangladeshi journalist jailed for being a moderate?

First, as far as I'm concerned, it's not a matter of moderates rioting for peace in the streets. Though there was a big demonstration against Hezbollah again in Lebanon the other day. And there have been a few demonstrations against terrorism and extremism in Iraq.

What I suspect is that the moderate muslims simply throw up their hands and completely disengage. Why not?
If they don't join the jihad, that's all I ask.

Anyway, Iraq isn't finished yet. In another generation, or two, it will make a difference. ANd not from moderates crying out, but from a government taking care of its people and putting their foot down against violence.

What I DO hope for is clerics in the major universities to start hashing things out. And that will take a while too.


MHA

Today Britain, tomorrow Canada, next week the US.

Optimistic, are we?

Honestly, it looks bad to me in Britain, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, and elsewhere. I have no idea how it will play out.

I'm not as worried about America yet.

Knucklehead said...

I just think that talking about encouraging moderate muslims is a engaging in constructing a fantasy.

I've grown quite sick of hearing nonsense about how the "moderates" among muslems must be "enabled".

Are there Imams In the Wings just waiting for their soon-to-arrive opportunity to take over control of the madrassas where the vilest of hatreds are spewed and children are imbued with all the sick ideology of a murder and death cult?

The answer is, of course, a resounding but anechoic NO! There is no "moderate" in the Islamic World that has any influence or even a weak ability to speak up. Moderation among moslems outside of the Islamic world shares the same inability, under threat of violence, to raise any serious call for moderation. (What, exactly, would "moderation" look like to the salafist world anyway?)

But even if the moderates among the non-Islamic world were not cowed and terrorized what possible influence could they have on the salafist world? None that would matter to anything.

The promoters of "enabling the moderates" cannot tell us how to go about doing such a thing. How does one enable Islamic moderation in Saudi Arabia or Waziristan or Iran or anywhere else the death cult holds sway? What they want is tip-toed silence. Don't jab a stick in the hornet's nest or even make a sound near it. They would have us all sit quietly waiting for some magic, moderate queens to swarm from the nests and establish moderation in the ummah. What a bunch of idjits.

Rick Ballard said...

Syl,

Musharaf is no moderate - he's another muslim thug, just like Mubarak in Egypt or Qadaffi in Libya. We put a boot on his neck and he caved - in that respect he's as good a muslim as any other. They know how to submit.
A better argument is that there are hundred of millions of nominal muslims that will meekly accept whatever is handed to them and a few million who have a glimmer of self respect and a desire for freedom. Unfortunately, they are so widely dispersed that they are irrelevant.

Knucklehead said...

Re: the Deutsche Oper Berlin was scheduled to do four performances of Mozart's Idomeneo but decided it best to cancel and substitute...

on concern that the production's reference to world religions, including Islam, raises an ``incalculable security risk.''

``To avoid endangering its audience and employees, the management has decided against repeating `Idomeneo' in November 2006,'' the opera house said in a press release.

The ``Idomeneo'' production, directed by Hans Neuenfels, shows King Idomeneo staggering on stage carrying the decapitated heads of Poseidon, Jesus, Buddha and Muhammad. German press agency DPA said Berlin police have so far recorded no direct threat to the opera house.


No doubt they were worried about the reactions of fundamentalist Greeks.

Peter UK said...

"Why do we call Pakistan's bomb the Islamic bomb, and not call Israel's the Jewish bomb, or India's the Hindu bomb?"

Its father was Oppenheimer but its mother wasn't Jewish.

Syl It isn't THE Brits in the collective sense whose are pre-emptively cringing to militant Islam,it is the leberal left elite.The people are even more disgusted with this than you,I might add that Tony the Phony Blair is the architect of this,whilst Americans were giving him accolades for Iraq and the WoT,Tone was busy selling the pass at home.
It is worth adding that Sir Ian Blair,no relation,became Commissioner through carrying out his master's wishes,he is by far the worst chief police officer in living memory.A fast track graduate specialising in PC,crime has soared under his misrule.

truepeers said...

There are quite a few Muslims fighting alongside the coalition in Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps they are not "moderate", but what really matters is whether there are people willing to make their socities a little freer, with western help - to be known as American allies against local enemies. Either we learn to play this game well, or we quarantine the Islamic world. People raise all kinds of objections about the impossibility of the former option since Islam, supposedly, can't change. But I see the latter as being even more unlikely to succeed in insuring our security.

The third option, of course, is that we go down to defeat. But I am not as pessimistic as MHA. What I think we are seeing now is not the rise of Islam and the decline of the west as a general phenomenon across the board. There is a very important third element that we need to get our aheads around: the ongoing revelation of western liberalism as a failed ideology - but at present it's the only governing ideology we have - and also a good deal of revelation that Islam is also making a last desperate stand for a failed religion. As we go through liberalism's death throes for the next generation, it will be easy to feel bleak about our civilization, but in time the signs or ideas around which we rebuild our confidence will emerge, as they are starting to do - you just have to look for them. The Islamic world, let us remember, cannot feed itself let alone the rest of the world. Will humanity really starve itself to build a Caliphate? I doubt it very much. When we are ready to stand up to the sacralized gangsters and do what is necessary, the more violent war will come to a quick end; the religious reform or de-Islamification will be a real challenge, however.

Knucklehead said...

TP,

There are quite a few Muslims fighting alongside the coalition in Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps they are not "moderate", but what really matters is whether there are people willing to make their socities a little freer, with western help - to be known as American allies against local enemies.

A valid point and I, for one, feel suitably chastised. There are, in fact, moslems fighting against the salafists and I am well aware of that fact and will try. Whether or not they fit my definition of "moderate" is immaterial. What matters is whether or not they can, with help, build havens within the ummah where salafist bigotries are unwelcome.