MY VERSION - Commentary of March 15, 2006

European liars; NASCAR shakedown; and Keeping the patient bound to past adversities

Europe's Hypocrites and Liars - Part I

Is there something in the water in Europe that could turn so many Europeans into such colossal hypocrites and liars? In the November 30, 2005 Commentary, "When Truth Is No Defense," I described the outrageous policies that are in place, some for decades, in Germany, France, Austria, Spain, Belgium, and in British-based societies like Australia and Canada. These policies enforce laws that forbid scholars, researchers and citizens, in general, from engaging in public dissent on certain data relating to the period in history called the Holocaust. These laws make it clear that European countries in no way acknowledge the right to free speech. (Actually, every European country, even those I failed to cite by name, support such laws to a greater or lesser degree, even if they have not yet passed specific legislation.)

I cited historian David Irving who at the time was awaiting his fate at the hands of an Austrian court. As we've learned in recent days, he has now been convicted and sentenced to three years in prison. That's three years for writing books and delivering speeches.

In recent decades, dozens of Europeans have been given warnings, fined, or jailed for the "crimes" of writing and speaking. In most cases, their names were never even mentioned in the Western press, which, as evidenced by the publication of those anti-Muslim cartoons, we are now supposed to believe is thoroughly dedicated to free speech rights. No editorialist of any note took up the cause of these men or simply reported on their plight. (Not even that braggart Danish publisher, Mr. Free Speech himself.) If anything, members of the media proved ready to reinforce state mandates against free expression.

Ernst Zundel, who now sits in a German jail, as his kangaroo court trial proceeds, suffered earlier persecution at the hands of freedom-loving Canadians. Throughout those years, not one American newspaper or television outlet found it worthwhile to tell his story and to expose Canada for the selectively repressive society it is.

And would we expect France to be far behind? In that country, as I pointed out in my earlier Commentary, a former member of the European Parliament, Bruno Gollnisch, has been charged with "denying crimes against humanity." This means he has disputed, either in print or verbally, certain historical "facts" that now are considered sacred and concretized in stone. Whoever heard of any aspect of history declared closed to further study and research? Who but barbarians would imprison anyone for questioning data compiled by other fallible human beings? Who, other than rabid fundamentalists, would harass and hound a citizen for his opinions on historical events, while sending out signals to the general mob that he no longer has the protection of law and is ripe for burglary, house burning, and other illegal atrocities?

Many of us who, for years, have observed the vehement stifling of free expression in European countries, could hardly keep from laughing in disgust at those government representatives and newspaper editors, who wailed about the "tradition" of free speech rights, in their vain attempts to justify the publication of those crude, anti-Muslim cartoons. Hypocrisy seems not a strong enough word to describe this demonstration of gall. We are talking about a region of the world where academic degrees have been stripped from scholars because they took politically incorrect positions on this Holocaust business, where livelihoods and careers have been lost, because an educator dared to request that his research at least be examined before being dismissed. A "tradition" of free speech rights?

We are expected to look upon the editors of that Danish newspaper, and the copycats who followed, as courageous, even heroic figures. Indeed, according to these liberty professing crusaders, anything less than publication of those 12 cartoons would have constituted a denial of free speech. Yet, editorialists throughout Europe consistently, and cowardly, check their candidness at the door, in deference to the "sensitivities" of their Third World immigrants. In fact, in most countries, criticizing immigration policy and advocating reform is just as taboo as engaging in Holocaust revisionism. Ask former actress Brigitte Bardot about the fines she has been forced to pay in France, over the years, for daring to speak out against the immigrant invasion.

We've always known that Islam does not allow for free speech, but what are Europeans doing fining and locking up their fellow citizens for expressing dissenting views? Statutes against open discussion of history exist because intimidated Europeans succumbed to representatives of powerful interest groups, whose members persisted in getting these biased laws passed. Such groups were also instrumental in banning open criticism of mass immigration. Critics of foreign migrants who have become a liability in many societies are automatically stung with variations of the charge of "inciting racism" -- the same concocted law used against historical revisionists.

The governments of Europe relent to such pressures because, contrary to their claims, they have never enjoyed a "tradition" of free speech. This is just a canard that gets employed whenever it proves expedient, or when irresponsible fomenters of strife are looking for the world's pity after setting off an unnecessary firestorm.

Here in this country, the "Piss Christ" in urine and the Madonna in feces have been cited frequently as parallel cases in discussions about the sacrilegious cartoons. We are urged to look upon the Christ/Madonna exhibitions in the same light as the publication of those cartoons -- both demonstrated acts of bravery in the name of freedom. But would the museum curators, who so boldly exhibited those replicas of sacred Christian figures, have been any less courageous had they decided against mounting such exhibits? Would their failure to do so have signaled a revocation of their free speech rights, or would it simply have been proof of their ability to discriminate between good and bad taste?

In "Secularist Stupidity and Religious Wars," Pat Buchanan calls the action of the Danish editor "a defiant provocation" and picks up on the hypocrisy theme. He chides those European governments that are "wringing their hands" over the ensuing violence brought on by publication of the cartoons, and quotes the German Interior Minister Wolfgang Shauble, who declared, "Here, in Europe, governments have nothing to say about which publisher publishes what." Mr. Shauble's nose must have grown by hundreds of inches with that monumental lie. In Europe, it is clear that censorship of publishing is a major function of the state -- at least when it comes to the works of those who study and research the Holocaust. Is Shauble making claim to a "tradition" of free speech in, of all places, Germany? Was he laughed off the podium with that remark?

Buchanan correctly asserts, "Skeptics and deniers of the Holocaust are prosecuted, fined and imprisoned in Europe with the enthusiastic endorsement of the European press." Clare Murphy, writing for the BBC, says, "At the heart of the matter is whether the distortion of such a fundamental period of history [the Holocaust] is a greater problem than the suppression of the right to express contrary interpretations." Yes, this is the heart of the matter.

University of Graz sociologist Christian Fleck asks of Irving's views, "Are we saying his ideas are so powerful we can't argue with him?" Charles Richardson, on Australia's Crikey site, observes: "It would be hard to find a clearer case of penalising someone purely on the basis of their opinions" than the Irving case.

It is only the events surrounding publication of the cartoons, which happened to coincide with the court trials of David Irving and Ernst Zundel, that have drawn greater numbers of people into discussing the double standards of censorship and punishment prevalent in Europe. Before the cartoon protests, which began just weeks ago, few Americans were aware of these countries' false claims of freedom. European censorship was a subject relegated only to minor publications and Internet forums. It is now gaining greater exposure in other media outlets.

Here on this website, among many articles on the subject, you can read "Europe censors itself" and "Intolerant laws." And let's not forget England, which rushed to join Europe's self-censorship camp. See "Whose law shall prevail?"

In "Totalitarian Tony," Eric Margolis, writing from London, describes the legendary Hyde Park, where at one time "each Sunday morning, orators, preachers, revolutionaries and crazies would mount soapboxes and say whatever they pleased." Nothing was taboo, he writes. "This was Britain's temple of free speech." Not today, and not in a land where Prime Minister Tony Blair has declared the "glorification of terrorism" a criminal offense. Margolis warns, "History shows such gag laws are soon followed by offences like 'insulting the leadership.' Then, by crimes like 'encouraging anti-state activities,' and, that gulag gate-opener, being 'an enemy of the people.'"

In "Cartoons and Holocaust Deniers" (New York Sun, 2/14/06), Hillel Halkin offers this bit of wisdom:

Nor, even if Holocaust denial laws are in some sense unique, can they be detached from the general atmosphere of political correctness in which they exist -- an atmosphere that is unhealthy for the intelligent discussion of many other things. Although offending groups of people or making prejudiced remarks about them has little to recommend it in itself, the social taboos that now exist against anything that is definable as offensive or prejudiced, or that might possibly be construed as such, are in the long run far more damaging. They lead to self-censorship and fear to speak out on a wide variety of issues, and are far more pernicious than open prohibitions like Holocaust denial laws.

There's hope that the recent spate of press coverage of previously ignored government abuses against free speech will prove more than just a passing fling. For Time magazine (3/6/06) to have acknowledged David Irving's arrest, even if only in a two-inch notice, is a remarkable first. One can only wish that such coverage had begun at least two decades ago.

Elizabeth Wright
Issues & Views - editor@issues-views.com
http://www.issues-views.com

Europe's Hypocrites and Liars - Part II

Exposing the hypocritical nature of Europe's government officials in regard to non-existent freedoms in no way supports the migration of masses of Muslims into Europe. Such populations should have been kept limited in the first place. One might think that common sense would instruct nations, which foolishly allow hundreds of thousands of sharia-driven Muslims to propagate within their borders, to take care not to incite them.

At one time it appeared that Europeans had no difficulty understanding why masses of Muslims must never be allowed to group within European borders. The history of the Muslim conquest of large sections of the Continent, and the eventual expulsion of said Muslims, was not some meaningless fairy tale. That earlier experience with the sons of Muhammad seemed to teach Westerners that Islam is a civilization unto itself, whose masses come to plant their way of life, not to be absorbed by or assimilated into another. Europe's committed assimilationists would, no doubt, be offended by Japan [see "Japan for the Japanese"], whose officials declare they will never allow Japanese society to be overtaken by alien cultures.

How did today's Europeans devolve into such a benighted condition that they would prefer to beat up on Brigitte Bardot, rather than listen to truth? The desire of commercial interests for ongoing sources of cheap labor is primarily why feckless Westerners now put their territories in danger and throw open their borders to alien populations. And then there is the ordinary European who, over several decades, much like his American counterpart, has been socialized to fixate on cleansing himself of possible sins of the mind, which might inspire "white supremacist" thoughts. Anxious to show his zealous commitment to "diversity," lest anyone mistake him for a skeptic of the West's new multicultural religion, this man's fear of being labeled "racist" far surpasses all other concerns. And so he sits and observes as one region after another of his homeland falls under the sway of foreigners. This time the Muslims did not have to come with a sword to conquer.

Consider the town of Bergsjon in Sweden, recently profiled by the New York Times. Once an important industrial center where Swedish workers developed a substantial middle class, today about 70% of its residents or their parents were born abroad, as well as 93% of its school children. The Times reports that "40 % of the families are on outright welfare, far below half the population is employed." Membership in criminal gangs is rising, and the authorities have no handle on whether or not networks of terrorists are operating in the area. There are now hundreds of thousands of Muslims within Sweden's borders, making it among the most heavily Muslim countries in the West. Does this make any sense?

Europe might yet be able to salvage some part of its cultural soul, if its citizens begin to exert muscle against the bureaucrats who hold their countries hostage to destructive immigration laws. They could begin by heeding the recent words of Peter Costello, the Treasurer of Australia, who, in a speech to the Sydney Institute, criticized "mushy misguided multiculturalists":

To be an Australian citizen one pledges loyalty first: loyalty to Australia. One pledges to share certain beliefs: democratic beliefs; to respect the rights and liberty of others; and to respect the rule of law. . . .

We have a compact to live under a democratic legislature and obey the laws it makes. In doing this the rights and liberties of all are protected. Those who are outside this compact threaten the rights and liberties of others. They should be refused citizenship if they apply for it. Where they have it they should be stripped of it if they are dual citizens and have some other country that recognizes them as citizens. . . .

But there is not a separate stream of law derived from religious sources that competes with or supplants Australian law in governing our civil society. The source of our law is the democratically elected legislature.

There are countries that apply religious or sharia law -- Saudi Arabia and Iran come to mind. If a person wants to live under sharia law these are countries where they might feel at ease. But not Australia.

It should be added that, along with the hypocrite European countries that make claim to democratic practices, while repressing those very practices, Mr. Costello's nation might also clean house by respecting the right to free expression for all Australians. This would include people like Professor Andrew Fraser and Frederick Toben, both of whom, along with others, have been punished by government action for adhering to unpopular, dissident views. By living up to the democratic standards implied in its laws, so vigorously celebrated by Costello, Australia would no longer share the same bed with those governments that condemn Muslim extremists for their intolerance of free speech, while imprisoning their own citizens for writing books, delivering lectures, and attending conferences.

Elizabeth Wright
Issues & Views - editor@issues-views.com
http://www.issues-views.com

Still shaking down NASCAR

It sounds so innocent when it's called "minority outreach," doesn't it? One would never guess the intimidation and coercion that lay behind this noble-sounding term. Several years ago, when I first learned about the moves being put on stock car racing's NASCAR by the usual suspects of black elites, I wondered how long it would take that organization's officials to succumb. It hardly took a South Carolina minute.

Already bent on de-southernizing this sport, whose roots are deeply embedded far below the Mason-Dixon line, Nascar's chiefs now express their determination to join the multicultural big leagues. With a "Diversity Initiative" in place, to recruit black drivers especially, and a battery of newly-hired blacks to guide the mission, they've set off to chase the Rainbow.

In a Nascar.com feature (2/6/06), we learn from Anthony Martin, director of the Urban Youth Racing School in Philadelphia (conceived of and run by blacks with Nascar money), of the urgent necessity for blacks to participate in this sport. Not only is it urgent that there be high-profiled "African-American" drivers, "it is vitally important for them to be successful," he claims.

Martin explains, "It will have a huge impact. If the driver is finishing 35th every week and is unsuccessful, it will be counterproductive." Of course, it goes without saying that all Americans of good will are supposed to concern themselves with the image of blacks. Is there a stranger in the room who might dare ask why anyone should give a nanosecond's care about whether blacks are among the highest winners in this or any other sport? Hold that un-American thought.

Martin is among those "social justice" seekers who have pressured Nascar officials for years to sponsor such novelties as his "urban school." Other "outreach" spin-offs are forming, as still more careerists smell blood in the Nascar water. Waving the civil rights banner in the faces of accommodating whites, they position themselves to profit off yet another "victory over segregation."

This sport does pose a problem, however, which even Martin admits. Citing the obvious, that men who go on to succeed in football and basketball "have been playing since they were six years old," Martin insists that something like this must now happen with car racing. Younger and younger blacks must be inducted into a sport, whose founding, for a host of indigenous reasons, came as naturally to southern white males as do city sports to urban blacks.

There is no rational explanation offered for why these targeted young people must be steered towards this end -- only the unspoken, irrational sentiment that there simply must not be one field or sport of any kind in which whites dominate. Not one. [See "Still not enough blacks," about "civil rights" in films and TV.]

Pressure, intimidation, threatened lawsuits are now the norm, as Americans are encouraged to sing the praises of yet another racial barrier overcome. The fact that such irrelevant barriers are worn down due only to biased, unconstitutional laws, which remove the civil liberties of one set of citizens for the benefit of another, is to be ignored. Hold that second un-American thought.

About the indifference to racing of black youth, whose sports interests lie elsewhere, Martin explains, "Kids see cars going in a circle, and they don't want to watch that." But, if Martin and his steadfast vanguard have their way, there will be no rest in black communities until those kids are clamoring to watch cars go round and round.

Observing this Nascar story unfold is to understand how so many irrelevant crusades were accomplished by this country's adamant integrationists, as they pressed their Holy Cause on everyone for everything. Jesse Jackson's foray into the Nascar saga in 2003 tells much. When officials began dumping money into Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH organization and a specially contrived division of his "Citizenship Education Fund," he was off on his newest integration campaign. He and his loyal clique set to work to convince the black masses of the importance of stock car racing -- importuning them to see as their obligation and duty the need to put an end to yet one more impediment to liberation that has been maliciously erected by the "white racists" of the land.

For Josh Moon, writing in the Montgomery Advertiser (2/10/06), reaching out to blacks is just "not nearly enough." If Nascar is truly serious, it must alter what he calls the "Nascar environment." According to Moon, most blacks don't disdain car racing due to a lack of interest, but due to the fact that the events are not particularly "inviting."

Whites must change the "atmosphere," so that blacks will feel comfortable in the midst of all those white folks. Needless to say, Moon makes clear, this means that the tradition of some fans carrying and waving Confederate flags must be excised. For the sake of harmony with the multi-ethnic newcomers, the old crowd must rein in its long-indulged enthusiasms.

Like the good white liberal he is, Moon is ever eager to pamper whiny blacks. He admits that for many southerners, the flag is symbolic of nothing more than heritage and regional attachments. However, such sentiments should give way -- in fact, must give way -- to the sensibilities of blacks who, one presumes from Moon's paternalistic coddling, are incapable of accepting the legitimacy of cultural symbols other than those they consider their own.

He worries that, for the majority of blacks, walking into a stadium "filled with 100,000 white people and hundreds of Confederate flags" could not be "a great way to spend the weekend." Of course, it would be totally un-P.C. to ask why such tender-natured blacks should go out of their way to bring discomfort to themselves in the first place. Yet another un-American thought.

If we extrapolate from Anthony Martin's remarks, Nascar must set up a structure of some kind that is conducive to black drivers winning. Then, according to Josh Moon, Nascar must forbid a tradition that is as old as the sport itself and actually embodies a great deal of its essence -- that is, the bold manifestation of "rebel," as represented by the battle flag. As ever, in the game of racial one-upmanship, it is the white man who must concede, until the black man feels "welcome."

And, now, leading the newest drive for "inclusiveness" is former newsman Bryant Gumbel. His caustic criticisms of the "whiteness" of the 2006 Winter Olympics might already have set some wheels in motion. Gumbel's intimation that the lack of black athletes invalidates a sports event probably spells the beginning of dozens of major "outreach" programs.

Expect to see, first, charges of "racism" directed towards the appropriate sniveling powers that be. Next, watch as manufacturers of hockey, skating and ski gear fall over one another to finance the nurturing of black hockey players, black figure skaters and black skiers. Who knows? The day might come when the witty Gumbel lives to retract his lament that the Winter Olympics "looks like a GOP convention."

Elizabeth Wright
Issues & Views - editor@issues-views.com
http://www.issues-views.com

Bound to the horror stories of the past

If there were any doubts that black elites plan to keep the fires of victimhood burning for as long as the earth revolves around the sun, such doubts should have disappeared with the renaming of James McCosh Elementary School in Chicago. In February, the school was rededicated as the Emmett Louis Till Math & Science Academy, named for the 14-year-old boy, who, on a visit in 1955 to Money, Mississippi, was beaten to death, after inflaming some men who observed him whistling at a white woman.

However regretful one might find Till's ultimate fate, what kind of a figure is this to honor with his name on a school attended by children? Institutions, especially schools, are usually named for public figures who have contributed to the general welfare, and whose admirable lives serve as models for emulation. Since the school board found it imperative to remove the name of the white former president of Princeton University, was there no black scientist or scholar or entrepreneur whose name could have graced this school?

When a youngster asks about the personage for whom his school is named, he will be zapped with one of the goriest of stories -- battered body with unrecognizable head dragged from the Tallahatchie River, barbed wire wrapped around the neck attached to a 75-lb steel fan. If that doesn't leave the little inquirer depressed and ready to run for cover, there's still more that can bring down his spirits.

On the school's first floor is a bulletin board filled with newspaper and magazine clippings about the crime, along with relevant poetry and other writings. There is also a planned "museum" for the school grounds, which will house still more memorabilia and artifacts dedicated to Till's short life. It is clear that black elites are setting out to milk the Till story as thoroughly as they have the legends surrounding Rosa Parks.

There are those Negroes who never want the patient to get well, Booker T. Washington said of those blacks who profit by emphasizing past adversities and maintaining dejection among the masses. A hundred years later and his words ring truer than ever, as the same elites strive to keep the race immersed and bound to the horror stories of the past.

Elizabeth Wright
Issues & Views - editor@issues-views.com
http://www.issues-views.com

One more thought . . .

By adopting an offensive grand strategy that demands everyone else in the world accept the values of "democratic capitalism"--the neo cons' little present to the rest of us--we have overreached. We are now bogged down in two wars, in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Every indication I see, as a military historian, tells me we are not winning and will not win either one.

While most Americans, not just conservatives, would be happy to take care of ourselves and let the rest of the world take care of itself, the Washington Establishment lives off the "Great Power" game. Will the loss of two wars force that Establishment to face reality? Probably not, at least until, in classic Great Power fashion, it bankrupts the country. . . .

Added to imperial overreach, financial imprudence, and voluntary de-industrialization is the fact that we are being invaded. Both parties see no evil as millions of immigrants from very different cultures pour into our country through what are effectively open borders. Not only does this further undermine the American middle class by lowering wages, it sets us up for Fourth Generation war on our own soil. Internal wars are yet another classic element in the fall of a Great Power.

-- William S. Lind, Free Congress Foundation

Visit Issues & Views - The Blog and leave feedback on the Commentaries or other relevant topics.

We are grateful to our Subscribers whose contributions help to keep us on the net. If you would like to donate at this time, please follow this link to PayPal - or use our mailing address: P.O. Box 467, New York, NY 10025

Issues & Views is a 501(c)3 tax-deductible organization.

Copyright © 2008 Issues & Views