A Frenchman named Stephane
Charbonnier once said “I prefer to die standing than live on my knees.” But
what if I refuse to die or live on my knees? What if I want to live standing
upright on my feet? Will this ever happen in a society that understands the
principle of intellectual honesty as much as a rat understands rocket science?
The Charbonnier quote is mentioned
in the Wall Street Journal editorial that came under the title: “Islamist
Terror in Paris ”
and the subtitle: “The jihadists target Western principles of free speech and
religious pluralism.” It was published on January 8, 2015. Also appearing in
the same edition of the Journal are two op-ed pieces on the subject of the
attack that was carried out in France against the newspaper that Charbonnier
edited before he was murdered holding a meeting of the editorial board.
The two op-ed pieces are: (1)
“France and the New Charismatic Jihad” which also came under the subtitle:
“Worries about autonomous jihadist cells appear to have been realized in Paris .” It was written by
Reuel Marc Gerecht. (2) “Defeating Islamists in Their War on Free Thought”
which also came under the subtitle: “It's time to roll back the Western culture
of Offense-seeking that aids and comforts those who would violently suppress
speech.” It was written by Brendan O'Neill.
While all three pieces suggest
they know how to solve a problem that is increasing in intensity – and they
give advice to this effect – none is showing enough of the intellectual
integrity that is required to understand the problem, much less help solve it.
For example, the editors of the Journal suggest: “There will be more such
attempts, and authorities need broad authority to surveil and interrogate
potential plotters.” That is because, in their view, it is better to impose
this restriction on liberty now than suffer the restrictions “that would follow
if radical Muslims succeed in blowing up a soccer stadium or half a city.”
As to what the core of the problem
may be, the editors of the Journal suggest it may not be “a reaction to poverty
or Western policies in the Middle East ,” but
that “it is an ideological challenge to Western civilization and principles,
including a free press and religious pluralism.” And this is why they believe
that “Western leaders need to be more forthright in defense of liberal values
[because] Islamists gain confidence when they see lack of self-confidence in
the West.”
As to Reuel Marc Gerecht, he
suggests that the core of the problem resides in the “unchecked rise of
anti-Semitism against European Jews that is practiced by both Muslim and
non-Muslim Europeans.” He explains: “Anti-Semitism nourishes the radical
Islamic vision of a humbled Europe , once the
motherland of imperialism.” Make what you want of that because Gerecht will not
attempt to show the link between anti-Semitism and a humbled Europe .
Does he want to see a Europe that is brimming
with Nazi-style confidence?
On his part, Brendan O'Neill comes
close to accurately defining the core of the problem, but then orbits around it
rather than hit it head-on. He begins: “In a terrible echo of our dark,
intolerant, medieval past, 12 people were executed for daring to speak ill of a
religion.” He goes on: “Across Europe , the
feelings of offended people are too often elevated above the freedom of thought
and speech.” But who are these offended people? He cites them, and they are the
Muslims, the Blacks, the feminists the homosexuals and those on both sides of
the abortion debate.
What did he miss? He missed the
origin of the problem, that which continues to be the elephant in the room, the
one around which everyone orbits but dares not poke directly. It is the Jews,
only the Jews and no one but the Jews. As demonstrated in the Gerecht article,
no matter where you are and no matter what happen, there will always be a Jew
who will spin the event in such a way as to demand more and more of what is
taken from others to give to the Jews.
Nearly half a century ago I wrote:
“Don't listen to propaganda, Egypt
is a civilized country” and that was enough to put me on the Jewish blacklist
for life. Also, for most of that time, the Canadian Jewish Congress maintained
the order that had me placed under the surveillance of the RCMP who openly
harassed me to let me know they were still there and still watching me.
When I complained to my Member of
Parliament, which I did on several occasions, the RCMP interrogated me and said
I should enjoy what is happening because I was classified as being clean like a
whistle. But the surveillance will continue, they said. When I expressed
disgust at the situation, it was suggested on two occasions that some people
took their own life to end the misery.
Well, my friend, you can see that
the difference between the Muslim kids who risk their own lives when
terrorizing people, are infinitely superior to the one-eyed Jewish cowards who
hire the morally blind non-Jews to terrorize the people who express themselves
freely.