The further to the left or the right you move, the more your lens on life distorts.

Monday, February 16, 2015


Less than a month ago, I posted a piece about European anti-Semitism entitled, "Canaries" in which I wrote:
The current population of a specific group within a country, coupled with the birthrate of that group, compared to the population and birthrate of other indigenous groups leads to a relatively simple outcome. High birthrate will lead to a larger group that will grow in population geometrically, if that birthrate remains high. And if the birthrate of other groups is low, the high birthrate group inexorably takes over—in population, in voters, in culture.

Of course, this isn't a problem when different groups have shared values, are tolerant of one another, and have no intention of forcing less fecund groups to "submit." But when members of the high birthrate group are intolerant, want to instantiate a set of laws that is closer to the 7th century than the 21st century, and will only tolerate others if they submit—a country has a very serious problem.
Now, we see that Denmark, the icon of liberal Western thought, of multiculturalism, and of tolerance has had two vicious attacks against free speech (1 dead, a number wounded) and against Jews (1 dead). The response among the same people who promote liberal Western thought, multiculturalism, and tolerance is to wring their hands, express dismay, form a task force, and when all of that seems inadequate (it is), tell Jews in Europe that they are valued and will be protected. They won't.

But the big question is: protected from whom? In article after article and speech after speech that discusses anti-Semitism the term is presented without an adjective, in much the same way that "extremism" or "terrorism" is often discussed without an adjective. It's as if it just appears, out of the blue, and that it isn't associated with a specific group or ideology.

Here's the harsh truth: Violent anti-Semitism in Europe—the murder of innocents, the desecration of cemeteries, the graffiti on synagogues, the fire-bombings, the beatings—is a wholly Muslim activity, just as it was a wholly Nazi activity in the 1930s. Sure not every Muslim participates or condones the acts, just as not every German participated in the 1930s. But my guess is that anti-Semitism is quietly applauded by a non-trivial percentage of 'mainstream' Muslims. No one knows what that percentage is because the Western media is afraid to ask, fearing the result. But the percentage is almost certainly in the double digits.

So let me do what Barack Obama won't. Let me use an adjective. The anti-Semitism that is growing more virulent in Europe by the week is Muslim anti-Semitism and is the consequence of a growing demographic throughout Europe that at its core, believes in Islamic supremacism.

Until the liberal leaders of countries like France, the U.K, and Denmark use the adjective, there is no hope—none—of stopping this cancer. The West must calmly confront all of European Islam, calling on European Muslims to police their own people, calling on Imans in Mosques to stop inciting against the infidel in general and Jews in particular. This is a Muslim problem, and it demands a Muslim solution. If that solution cannot or will not be delivered, then we'll better understand the road ahead.

Let me repeat what I wrote just over a month ago:
... Looking back at history, it does seem that Jews are the proverbial 'canary in the coal mine.' When the Nazis began their efforts to exterminate the Jews in the 1930s, few became concerned over what seemed like random anti-Semitic acts. It was just a few "radicals" or "extremists," argued outlets like The New York Times. But it wasn't ... and the carnage that resulted left tens of millions dead, most of whom were not Jews. The canary was a warning, and most chose to look the other way.
In spite of all the liberal hand-wringing over these anti-Semitic acts, weak leaders throughout the  West still prefer to look the other way. They do so at our peril.

As if to accentuate the ban on descriptive adjectives or the statement of any information that might assist the public in better understanding the current threat of radical Islam, we get the following statement from the White House, after ISIS beheaded 21 Coptic Christians yesterday.
The United States condemns the despicable and cowardly murder of twenty-one Egyptian citizens [emphasis mine] in Libya by ISIL-affiliated terrorists.  We offer our condolences to the families of the victims and our support to the Egyptian government and people as they grieve for their fellow citizens.  ISIL’s barbarity knows no bounds.  It is unconstrained by faith, sect, or ethnicity.  This wanton killing of innocents is just the most recent of the many vicious acts perpetrated by ISIL-affiliated terrorists against the people of the region, including the murders of dozens of Egyptian soldiers in the Sinai, which only further galvanizes the international community to unite against ISIL.
Egyptian citizens!?? That's true, but it's irrelevant. These 21 people were barbarically murdered because they were Christian, NOT because they were Egyptians!

One of the key indicators of effective leadership is to speak without equivocation—clearly, accurately and directly. In government this approach allows the public to better understand the reality of any situation and to appreciate the leader's position. Barack Obama's White House represents the polar opposite—they obfuscate, they mislead, they dither. The real question is -- why?