Cartoons in Weasel World

The Mohammed Cartoon War has been cruel to Secular Sammy and the neo-com foes of neo-cons.  They are normally  quick  to stand up for 'freedom from religion,' i.e. freedom from Christian theocrats,  Christian puritans,  Christian anti-abortionists, Christians against Sodom and Gomorrah,  Christians who don't want Suzy "marrying"  Samantha etc. Their venerated Rottweiller, the ACLU, has even had Christian crosses on the burial grounds of World War II veterans declared illegal, citing the cemetery as being on Government property. [Cartoon 'Meet Your New Editor' by Mike Luckovich, Atlanta Journal Constitution, hat tip www.michaelgraham.com]

 

But this time was a little different. No Pat Robertson to snicker at fearlessly. No evangelicals to battle bravely. No  reading of Psalms in school to put down with legalistic  valor. No Creationism for Comedy Hour smart bombs.  No Genesis-quoting  politician to skin  heroically for WaPo or "Pinch" Sulzberger's paper. . No apostle of Armageddon to vanquish. Not this time. This time the religion was, uh, Islam.

 

International mobs had been rabble-roused by Radio Imam and Jihad TV over twelve cartoons published four months previously in Denmark. Agitation? Fury? Goebbels-in-a-Djellabah had them super-stoked  against the Homosexual Crusaders, the unclean unbelievers.  And now they were ready, in  beards and burqas, for service on CNN and Al-Jazeera. And how did they react to infidels who disobeyed  their mooslim strictures on depicting the prophet/warlord Mohammed (who they claimed not to idolize)? They reacted with faith. With devotion. With religious dedication. That is, they burned embassies and Christian flags(especially the Danish, with white cross)  shrieking  "You will pay!" and "To hell with your free speech!" and sometimes even "Have we got a holocaust for you!"

 

A moment of truth for the West and its (normally) noisy secularites? What was the reaction from the usual  foes of  mob rule, angry wingnuts, sexual repression, religious racketeering and  men controlling women's bodies? Actually, not much. It bordered on zilch. Hollywood's anti-fascist narcissists  were pretty quiet---not even mentioning the Bush Nazis they are forced to live and party under.  No one suggested taking the homopromo frenzy for 'Brokeback Mountain' to Islamic  media, as an experiment in multy-culty-let's-all-get-along.

 

In fact, aside from the upstart blogosphere, which dared to show the evidence that allegedly unleashed  the Mobs of Mohammed,  it was virtually all quiet on the Western front. Eliteniks from media to education to government were either shutting up or clamping down, often both. With stunningly few exceptions, nobody showed the prima facie evidence for the controversy, the 12 moderately satirical cartoons published by Jyllens-Posten in Copenhagen on September 30, 2005 (over four months before the "spontaneous" riots.)  An elementary rule of honest reportage (not to mention law going back to ancient Rome), was suddenly verboten.  CNN? ("Your world raw, unfiltered and live. You see it when we see it.") Alas, no. Not this time, baby. Verboten. (CNN's wanting to avoid "giving offense" came at the same time it was showing a black rapper's dopey posturing as a crucified Christ.) The eliteniks were freaking. Even President Bush at first seemed to side with  mob indignation, then got more "balanced" as embassies burned in terror-friendly Syria. French President Chirac, in a country once known for Voltaire and the Enlightenment, called publication of the Mohammed cartoons "a provocation." UN Secretary-General, the scandal-ridden Kofi Annan, a favorite of white globalizers  and the World Welfare Project, scolded any media that dared to publish the Mohammed cartoons. At Cardiff University in Wales four students were suspended for publishing the cartoons in the student newspaper, and most of the 10,000 copies were confiscated. In Sweden and Switzerland the Government shut down internet sites that published the cartoons. They did not even need the kind of help that "Don't Do Evil" Google and Yahoo  rendered to  Beijing commisars  for quashing web freedom in China.

 

Sad? Ludicrous? Troubling? Or just ignominious, abject, pathetic and deeply revolting? 2500 years of Western civilization, culture, gods, goddesses, God, tragedy, plague, exploration, invention from jet flight to the Internet, creation from Shakespeare to  Bach to the rule of law, discoveries from the swamps to the stars , where even the shape of the mosque was made possible by the stupendous Pantheon and the Roman dome ---for what? For the triumph of the wuss and the weasel?

 

Are Secular Sammy and friends now on full display in the light of day, their credibility--what was left of it---  beheaded? Are they now revealed---to everyone except themselves---as  headless hypocrites, their double standard blown away by 12 cartoons?

 

Keshertalk, in 'the measure of artistic risk' takes a  look and seems to think so. How to explain the secularite taste for surrender, the willingness to compromise with barbarism and genital mutilation?  Isn't it now all too obvious? Behind the worldly veneer---fear. Nothing like good old fear to get the multi-culterati  to bend over.(The Boston Phoenix, an alternative weekly, on Feb 09 confessed it would not publish the cartoons "Out of fear of retaliation from the international brotherhood of radical and bloodthirsty Islamists...."). Most everyone  in Lamestream Media(Mainstream, if you prefer) did fine-sounding mealy mouth about "not wanting to give offense" etc ad blah-blah.) Keshertalk says  that the self-styled speakers of  truth to power are "just pretending at courage. Cross the line and say something about Islam, and your life is on the line."(url problem at Keshertalk. If you can't find this post, see related ones.)

 

Whether in Brokeback Hollywood, a media suite, a rap studio, a politico's office or even an artist's den, they know how to play it safe. They know how to keep the odds against  being kidnapped, assassinated,  having family threatened or having to do a Salman Rushdie and go into hiding from  a fatwa.  They can be as  outspoken  and Michael Moore and anti-American as they like. They  can lampoon  heterosexual Boy Scouts and the Family Coalition. Baptists are fair game (if they're white.) Zionists are fair game. Neo-cons are fair game. Exxon and McDonald's are fair game.

 

Or does this mis-characterize and mis-represent?  Is it  really just about principles, convictions, ethics, and not a bankrupt double standard? Maybe it really has nothing to do with the wuss (naive and  cowardly) or the weasel (devious and cowardly)?

 

Maybe the real reason they  don't mess with the mullah and the imam  is...is...is...?

[Of special interest on how the Wuss and the Weasel relate to the West and Islam today, see the always exceptional Alexandra's The Sin of Racism  at All Things Beautiful, and The Roses of the Prophet at The American Princess (a very good Catholic girl, and see Michelle Malkin's "Gevoelig",[Feb 16]a Dutch cartoon video, and Joe Katzman at Winds of Change takes a  look at 'tired European statism' in 'Cartoon Revelations'. And just when you thought the Islamites might start to chill out a bit, Shakespeare' Sister reports  a $1 million bounty for killing Danish cartoonist)

.

 

Comments

[Phillip Wedeen]

If only we could harness the energy of the islamic street to stomp on jackasses like you!
More proof that Gringoman lives in the hermetic little-kingdom of fear mongering neo-con idiots, there are some 220 articles in the left press on the "cartoon anxiety". One was posted on this blog by Edwards, written by Robert Fisk of The Independant, was not commented upon. I believe Edwards noted the lack of your response.
Well, I can see that Gringoman has plenty of toilet reading from nazi-bloggers that he can take up to Birdshot Mountain.
This whole right wing Cartoon Caper is simply a "look over there" while the neo-con Project For A New American Century crumbles under the weight or worldwide repudiation.
Face it Gringoman, the world hated the american Bushit government before the '04 elections, now they just hate americans; and ONLY because you are the american face that they see.
Go back to editing your MCC blog on the Shue story before you're sued.

[Dan Cameron Rodill]

WEEDeen (doesn't the cannabizing of your name help with the anti-American sophomores majoring in Diversity Studies?)

Of course you'd like to have the energy of the mob, wouldn't you? But you don't. The pitiful prog can only fantasize having what he doesn't have---as the brilliant Alexandra von Maltzen saw instantly in your sad case. So suck it up. If you've got a degree in wussology---which you and Edwards obviously do---there are lots of opportunities today for the enterprising weasel. (But you and Edwards must know that already.)

As for your dopey reference to Hero Progman Fisk: again you're showing the affects of Professor Edwards' course in "critical thinking." That is, you, like your mentor, mistake your reading deficiencies for logical argument. Go back and read the "Comments' where your mentor mentions Robert Fisk, the Brit Middle East "authority." Take it slow. No rush. Try reading where I reply to Edwards and point out that "Fisk" has become such an object of fun that it's already a verb. If you take it nice and slow I'm confident that you won't go dumb-dumb on us any more than necessary. ('Confident' doesn't mean I'm 'certain.') Or is it unfair to blame you for considering Professor Comrade Edwards a credible source? Maybe it wasn't your stupidity and poor reading skills? (We allow for that) Maybe you were just being a credulous boob?

[Phillip Wedeen]

Would Gringoman point out just where in this blog he commented on the Fisk piece?
Did Gringoman erase it?

(Gringoman wishes he could have the stature and integrity of Robert Fisk. Wycopedia says the term "fisking" came from hate groups.
Should one wonder?

Do be a stout fellow, and give the refernce.. story name and response...
We're patient.
Or was it more Bushit?

[Dan Cameron Rodill]

Wedeen,

You and your marxie mentor Edwards call UN's Secretary General for Klepto-Diplomacy, Kofi Annan, a "great man." You even pretended there was no U.N. Oil-For-Food mega-scandal until even the Prog Monthly and "Pinch" Sulzberger has to concede. You attack the fearless militarycorruption.com and its probe of COLONEL SHUE'S RICH WIDOW by calling the widow "poor" and the Colonel's relatively poor elderly parents "rich." In other words, you continue to come on as a jumping jackass with a law degree (assuming you have one that's bonafide and legal. Do you?) But hold on. Maybe there's hope even for a Canadian weasel who, unlike Canadian grown-ups, is dedicated to couch-rants against the "US imperialists." I looked for the reply I made (in gringoVision's REVOLT OF THE INFIDELS) to your mentor Edwards re Robert Fisk and how he's become a verb. I haven't found it. Regrettably, this indicates that after "Preview" I may have neglected to click 'Post.'(Allowing you to make lame comment that "Fisking" comes from "hate groups". And you can say that because you read it in Wikipedia, which allows any moonbat or Soros worker to call anything a "hate group" if it disagrees with his dimwit agenda. Thanks, Wedeen, for exposing yourself yet again as a pseudo-intellectual half-wit.) So, unless I locate my response to your mentor, congratulations! You finally got something on gringoman, proveable, traceable. Be proud! You know what? I'm encouraged for you. It's good to see that you and your mentor are not total frauds. Your crap, occasionally, gets mitigated. Good for you! (Why don't you celebrate such a rare occasion with a bottle of Edwards' Chilean red,if you can't see 'Brokeback' together?) As for the noted Robert Fisk, he's a special case, roving the Middle East for years, seeing it close up, often dangerously(even though, as far as I know, he still doesn't speak Arabic.)In this sense, he is not your typical progressive weasel, trying to combat the U.S. and Israel by sucking up to mooslims. I respect any journo who actually gets his feet wet out in the field, whether or not it takes its toll on his mental faculties. Being anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian obviously makes him a prog hero. Question: Would he dare to ramble around the MIddle East like he does if he was pro-Israel at the expense of the Palestinians? Would he dare and what would happen to him? And would you distribute the video?

And since your mentor wonders why there was no response to Fisk Our Journo Hero: If ProgoProf Edwards isn't too busy trying to teach you "critical thinking," you might ask why he finked out and made no reply to a non-weaselly Frenchman I linked to.............

For Secular Sammy and the loopy leftniki riding the Mooslim Express: BACK TO VOLTAIRE.

http://www.editorsweblog.org/analysis/2006/02/mohammed_cartoons_row_basta_with_intimid.php

Posted by: Dan Cameron Rodill | February 10, 2006 at 10:52 PM

[scott edwards]

I believe Gringoman's premise that the left, quick to disparage the badges and incidences of christianity, has not been swift in responding to those who would quash the danish cartoon publications. That premise is invalid and as Wedeen has pointed out there has been an abundant reaction although not in agreement with american reactionaires. I'll post here one of the more cogent replys, if only to show that the left has a response, one not explained on the american MSM:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoonprotests/story/0,,1708319,00.html

I am puzzled by Gringoman's vituprative and rambling response above- "Oil 4 Food"( read the 6-volume Volker report before you open your mouth) "Col Shue's suicide"- and most obdurant "trying to combat the US and Israel", when Gringoman's topic was the alleged tepid response to the cartoons by the left. (Strange though the american pledge of fielty to der republic does not contain reference to Israel..whatever)

Gringoman must have more than a modicom of sprettzatorra; and in recognition I will offer this supplication perhaps heard on QXR (?):

My good friend Jordi Savall of Iqualada has been feted by Midem, in Cannes this past 24 January, for his magnificent 'Don Quijote de la Mancha'. Savall has always been a journeyman in his craft yet finds time for the people and an avid devotee of Neruda. I have hosted him many times in Mexico and Santiago. I urge Gringoman to listen; even if he hasn't read Cervantes.

Another dear comrade, Radu Lupu, regrettably gave up recording in 1993, yet Decca has re-issued eleven of his discs. I point Gringoman here as Lupu is the pianists pianist. Lupu felt his work was somehow too vunerable and private to withstand sustained scrutiny and he remains sadly unconvinced of the permanent value of his artistry to continue recording. He has retreated into christian orthodoxy yet remains an interested and interesting human being. Radu has told me that he would never grant interviews on a commercial medium, rejected statism in favour of socialism, yet is a fervent devotee of eastern orthodox christianity. Go figure. (Many creative people defy being placed in ideo boxes, though I suppose it a Gringo mission to try. Versoomish?) Six Stars out of five for Lapu's Schubert (Decca 475 7074DC4) although if Gringoman can locate a bootleg recording from a Paris concert in 1997...then seventh heaven is his!

[Dan Cameron Rodill]

It's good to see at least one VOICE OF THE LEFT (UK Observer)make an attempt to address what is obvious to everyone else (including what it snidely calls the 'Western Civilization fundamentalists.' presumably equating Plato with Pat Robertson and Copernicus with Americans opposed to pedophiles and polygamy.)Most can see what's in front of their noses: How fanatics are using Islamism like Nazis used Aryanism. This is so obvious that even some lefty "enemies of the reactionaries" can see it (the same ones who secretly and not so secretly thrill at how these fanatics are strategizing against "Western civilization" and "US imperialism" ) I believe they can see it. They're not so dense.(I suspect that even Edwards and Wedeen can see it when sober.)Unfortunately, not even the UK Observer can resist THE SPIN. As....

"The latest round of culture wars does neither side any good. The western civilisational fundamentalists insist on seeing Muslims as the other - different, alien and morally evil. Jyllands-Posten published the cartoons in bad faith. Their aim was not to engage in debate but to provoke, and they succeeded."

After the snark-out on 'Western civilization," followed by the disingenuous (confusing the fanatic minority with the muslim majority), these leftniks then dive into deep dishonesty OR deep ignorance. (You decide.) The Danish paper was confronted by the fact of Danish artists living under Islamite threats (and while the Islamites were living on Danish socialist welfare.) Danish illustrators feared even to supply illustrations for a book to be published about Mohammed. Jyllens-Posten, respecting itself, and deciding not to cower with others, found this intolerable. These Islamites were now, ecouraged by their white multy-culty enablers and welfare stipends, imposing themselves on the West. The Danes reacted. They broke out of the PC shackles LeftyWorld prescribes for them. The Danes took a stand, which good leftniks understand as being "right-wing" or "provocative." Guts are now classified as "reactionary" (and Bernard-Levy in THE NATION called American lefties "comatose"--why doesn't he cover today's UK crop?) They would publish these (mildly satirical) Mohammed cartoons to show that the West--at least Denmark---was not totally cowed by the new Islamic Diktat. This, for the UK Lefties, was a "provocation." Translation: By standing up for your own soul(or integrity, if 'soul' offends the Lefties) you are acting in "bad faith." Western civilization and its fountainhead of Free Speech is now "bad faith". And these are the POST-Stalinist lefties (presumably the "enemies" of appeasing Nazism in the 30's.) And this is only the first few lines of Edwards example of the "sensitive" and "understanding" Left.

Professor Edwards, you'll excuse the plain talk? Thanks for the reference to the "abundant" leftie response to the cartoon carnage, but there's a limp in the old wimp. As for the "rambling" interconnectedness of the U.N.'s klepto-diplomacy, Oil-For-Food, COLONEL SHUE'S RICH WIDOW, the imperialists, the Caliphatie killers, the ACLU potential in Vermont's recent case of serial raper of young girl, UN pedophilia and mass rape in the Congo, the missing Mercedes of Kofi's son Kojo et al (as opposed to rambling with Radu)---of course there are links. Sometimes it even serves a purpose to uncover them---when the time is ripe. Don Quixote de la Mancha would understand. You say you read him? In what language might that be? By the way, why would I need to put you in a box? I thought you put yourself in the POST-Stalinist World Socialist box. If we imperialists are mistaken, correct us. Or if you now want to jump out of the box you put yourself in, go ahead. Jump.

There's even a way for you to repent for endorsing the UK Observer's concept of "bad faith." BUY DANISH.

[Dan Cameron Rodill]

Need a breather from UK Guardian-type screeds on "reactionaries" and "right wingers"? For the sentient who want to see what the Danish paper and its gutsy editor have to say on why they published the Mohammed cartoons. This is from "A Dangerous Precedent" at All Things Beautiful, spectacular site of Alexandra von Maltzen, daughter of famous writer. (Yes, the Alexandra who visited here recently and sized up Progressive Canada's Phillip Wedeen in, uh, short order.

http://www.allthingsbeautiful.com/all_things_beautiful/2006/02/a_dangerous_pre.html

[Phillip Wedeen]

I believe that Gringoman had first said that the left was AWOL on the cartoon story

Then I told him that there were over two hundred stories on the cartoons in the left press.

Then Scott Edwards pointed out the Guardian piece as being the most cogent left response to the cartoon story.

So Gringoman goes off on the UK Obervor story about the cartoon controversy. Not at issue.

Can Gringoman comment on the substance of the Guardian piece in contrast to the vagina monologues presaging the next crusades?