Posted by
Cassandra on Wednesday, January 14, 2009 6:05:41 PM
Last Sunday in "A Landmark: the Moment of Infamy
we reported on an outrage in Duisburg, Germany in which the police - in
order to deescalate a explosive situation with a raving pro Hamas crowd
- broke in and entered the private premises of a Israeli sympathizer in
order to remove two 'offensive' Israeli flags (see the post for video footage of the event).
Occurrences
that like cross the ethics Rubicon in that police officers, servants of
the state (i.e. of all of us), are seen bowing to an angry, intolerant
mob.
Israel Matzav
today has further information on the case and states that the incident
has rightly upset a lot of people in Germany; this may not be the end
of it. We sincerely hope so.
The
mob is now known to have consisted of members of the Turkish
Nationalistic/Islamist organization Milli Görüs (caption: logo/flag),
here described as a wolf in sheep's clothing
for activities other than folk dancing. Whatever aim they pursue, it
prevents Turks from assimilating in Western societies and as such, is a
hazard. The incident is evidence of the organization's true character
and the inroads it has managed to make on the psyche of the German
authorities.
The tolerance the West is showing for the
intolerant is temporarily culminating in unbridled antisemitism not
seen here since World War II. The Duisburg flag owner was brave enough
to take a stance against it, but failed to find the servants of the law
on his side to defend his rights and property.
Police
spokespersons meanwhile have gone from defending their actions, to
apologies (probably not even realizing why they are at fault - or am I
too pessimistic here?).
The Social Democratic Party (SPD), whom
for years have pushed the "multicultural" agenda like there's no
tomorrow, now want a debate in the state's parliament about the
outrage. Why?
Have they renounced multiculturalism as a
pernicious ideology and do they no longer believe in the premise that
all cultures are equally valid? Do they think Israel, a. has the right
to defend itself, and b. has no option but to destroy a terrorist hell
hole which brutally murders its own citizens, children included? I
don't think so.
The party describes the essence of the matter as follows (read that carefully): "Why
was the potential for danger during the protest so underestimated that
police were forced into a situation in which they had to concede to the
demands of violent (protesters) rather than (protect) the right to the
freedom of speech of others?"
Israel Matsav's blogger Carl rephrases that as follows: "Actually,
the central question is why police conceded to the demands of violent
protesters rather than protecting the freedom of speech of others (...)
If Europe wants to save itself from the Islamic onslaught, it had
better learn the difference between those two questions."
The
problem as usual is the relativist default position which is killing
Western culture and debilitates the ability to defend against hostile
self-realizationists.
The irony is, that while relativists see any absolutism as the epitome of evil (full stop), the Postmodern dialectic translates that into "any absolutism emanating from evil Western culture, 'oppressed' minorities" exempted.
As
long as that is the default morality propagated by intellectuals, the
media and officials, the West is careering headlong into the abyss of
cultural suicide.
The default position should be: Western laws
and values prevail in this country and hence on we have a
zero-tolerance policy with regard to any form of intolerance.
Objectivity is key, no more compensating minorities for perceived
inequalities. Any form of apartheid is unacceptable.
If that doesn't change - rapidly - we're doomed, doomed ...
- Filed on Articles in "
In Defense of Liberty"