Friday, April 14, 2006
WWFS?
What would Fallaci say about Comedy Central's dhimmitude?
Well, let's open The Rage and the Pride at random....
The problem is that the solution does not depend upon the death of
Osama bin Laden. Because the bin Ladens are too many by now.
...
Moreover, they are no longer the bold Moors who conquered Spain and Portugal riding camels and fighting with golden scimitars. Times change. Today they are the shrewd tricksters whom we teach how to pilot a 757 jet, how to use a sophisticated computer, how to fabricate a nuclear weapon. How to destroy or block an electrical system ... how to unleash an epidemic virus. How to blackmail a government, how to manipulate a Pope, how to seduce and exploit the media and the so-called intellectual world. ... They have excellent bonds with our churches, our banks, our televisions, our radios, our newspapers, our publishers, our academic organizations, our unions, our political parties.
Worse: they live in the heart of a society that hosts them without questioning their differences, without checking their bad intentions, without penalizing their fanaticism. ... Which is the reason why these Reverse Crusaders become more and more, demand more and more, boss around more and more. Also, the reason why (if we continue to stay inert) they will vex and boss us more and more. Till the point of subduing us. Therefore, dealing with them is impossible. Attempting a dialogue, unthinkable. Showing indulgence, suicidal. And he or she who believes the contrary is a fool.
QED.
-----
Sidenote 1: I find it mildly interesting that this question is being discussed properly and fully in the blogworld, with a proper perspective (i.e., it's just a TV show, but it's evidence of our submission.) Yet I don't hear anything about it on TV. Possibly I'm missing something, but normally when I click around the dial, the various 'TV shows about TV shows' like Inside Edition and Entertainment Tonight will be discussing the latest political gimmick by some left-wing drama or comedy. And they'll be discussing it often enough and long enough that I'm bound to catch it at some point. I don't hear a word about South Park's Mohammed episode; not even an attempt to dismiss it as just another political shtick. Only silence. Orwell would call it unthink. Even discussing whether the topic is discussable is undiscussable.
-----
Sidenote 2:
Even on the pro-American side of this question, we seem to be missing the basic danger. Much of the chatter runs like this: "If we censor ourselves we're failing to use our rights, and we're becoming like them."
No. Wrong. Dead wrong. Self-restraint is usually a good thing, and in wartime even government censorship can be a good thing. It's one of the temporary sacrifices we make in order to have our LIVES and our PROPERTY relatively intact so we can resume our normal way of life after the war. We understood this clearly in previous major wars.
The problem here and now is deeper and simpler. Separate out the whole topic of censorship, and what we have here is a major corporation OBEYING THE ENEMY'S ORDERS. It's just incidental that self-censorship is the primary way for a TV network to obey the enemy. Other corporations could submit in their own ways: Tyson Foods could offer only halal meat; Donna Karan could design only burqas; USBank could stop paying and charging interest. Allah has enough rules for everybody. The fact remains that our media are OBEYING ALLAH in the way that matters most for their particular product. They are sacrificing to HELP the enemy, not sacrificing to assist OUR morale. That's the problem. Censorship is not the problem.
¶ 9:24 AM
Well, let's open The Rage and the Pride at random....
The problem is that the solution does not depend upon the death of
Osama bin Laden. Because the bin Ladens are too many by now.
...
Moreover, they are no longer the bold Moors who conquered Spain and Portugal riding camels and fighting with golden scimitars. Times change. Today they are the shrewd tricksters whom we teach how to pilot a 757 jet, how to use a sophisticated computer, how to fabricate a nuclear weapon. How to destroy or block an electrical system ... how to unleash an epidemic virus. How to blackmail a government, how to manipulate a Pope, how to seduce and exploit the media and the so-called intellectual world. ... They have excellent bonds with our churches, our banks, our televisions, our radios, our newspapers, our publishers, our academic organizations, our unions, our political parties.
Worse: they live in the heart of a society that hosts them without questioning their differences, without checking their bad intentions, without penalizing their fanaticism. ... Which is the reason why these Reverse Crusaders become more and more, demand more and more, boss around more and more. Also, the reason why (if we continue to stay inert) they will vex and boss us more and more. Till the point of subduing us. Therefore, dealing with them is impossible. Attempting a dialogue, unthinkable. Showing indulgence, suicidal. And he or she who believes the contrary is a fool.
QED.
-----
Sidenote 1: I find it mildly interesting that this question is being discussed properly and fully in the blogworld, with a proper perspective (i.e., it's just a TV show, but it's evidence of our submission.) Yet I don't hear anything about it on TV. Possibly I'm missing something, but normally when I click around the dial, the various 'TV shows about TV shows' like Inside Edition and Entertainment Tonight will be discussing the latest political gimmick by some left-wing drama or comedy. And they'll be discussing it often enough and long enough that I'm bound to catch it at some point. I don't hear a word about South Park's Mohammed episode; not even an attempt to dismiss it as just another political shtick. Only silence. Orwell would call it unthink. Even discussing whether the topic is discussable is undiscussable.
-----
Sidenote 2:
Even on the pro-American side of this question, we seem to be missing the basic danger. Much of the chatter runs like this: "If we censor ourselves we're failing to use our rights, and we're becoming like them."
No. Wrong. Dead wrong. Self-restraint is usually a good thing, and in wartime even government censorship can be a good thing. It's one of the temporary sacrifices we make in order to have our LIVES and our PROPERTY relatively intact so we can resume our normal way of life after the war. We understood this clearly in previous major wars.
The problem here and now is deeper and simpler. Separate out the whole topic of censorship, and what we have here is a major corporation OBEYING THE ENEMY'S ORDERS. It's just incidental that self-censorship is the primary way for a TV network to obey the enemy. Other corporations could submit in their own ways: Tyson Foods could offer only halal meat; Donna Karan could design only burqas; USBank could stop paying and charging interest. Allah has enough rules for everybody. The fact remains that our media are OBEYING ALLAH in the way that matters most for their particular product. They are sacrificing to HELP the enemy, not sacrificing to assist OUR morale. That's the problem. Censorship is not the problem.
¶ 9:24 AM
