Brush Up Your Sharia (Apologies to Cole Porter)
From the desk of Diana West on Sun, 2010-01-10 14:00
Tragically, but darkly comically also, this counts as news: The Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten printed Kurt Westergaard's Motoon yesterday along with five other of the12 original Danish Motoons. As the Telegraph recaps (without running the cartoon as an illustration):
On Jan 2, an axe-wielding 28-year-old man broke into Westergaard's home screaming for "revenge" and "blood". Police - alerted by the cartoonist who had hidden in a panic room - shot and arrested him.
Aftenposten's editor, Hilde Haugsgjerd, said it seemed "natural and justified to republish the artistic and journalistic body of work that is likely the cause of this violence".
Aftenposten first published copies of the cartoons in 2005 ...
Natural and justified, to be sure. But rare as a hot cross bun in Mecca. If you take a look at the Google News queue on the story here, you will see hundreds of stories reporting that Aftenposten published the cartoon, but no further illustrations of the cartoon itself, at least not that I could find. Instead, you will see photos like this generic shot of the Norwegian paper:
or photos like this one of Kurt with some of his non-Mohammed cartoons:
Here is a shot from Aftenposten:
Kurt's Mohammed is the little head on right on the broadsheet above.
When I posted on January 2 about the near-miss assassination attempt by a Somali Muslim with Danish residency on Kurt's life, I wrote:
News reports tells us Kurt is safe.
Safe. Kurt isn't safe. Nor will he be, nor any of us be, "safe" until Islamic law is stopped in the West, its deeply advanced tentacles eradicated. Because don't think it isn't here. Sharia is here and in force.
To measure the extent, just watch the "free press" cover Kurt's latest (and closest) brush with sharia-sanctioned death, and count how many times that coverage is accompanied by a picture of Kurt's cartoon. Any media outlet that runs the cartoon is not under Islamic law. Any media outlet that doesn't is under Islamic law.
Bully for Aftenposten and everything, but the cartoon tally to date reveals the extent to which Islamic law continues to be observed to the letter in the "free" press of the West.
Few seem to understand the Westergaard story in these crucially important legal terms. In a recent Financial Times column, Christopher Caldwell ponders the Westergaard attack, calling it "an act of political violence."
The aim, as best we can tell, was not to take Mr Westergaard’s money but to enforce “justice” in a way that would alter society’s rules and people’s behaviour.
"As best we can tell"? ("Blood," "Revenge," the jihadist yelled as he chopped at Kurt's reinforced steel door with an axe ....) No matter. At this point, with Caldwell noting the attack's purpose to "alter society's rules and people's behavior," it sounds as if he is about to discuss Islamic law (sharia) from which the "justice" of killing Kurt for cartooning Islam's prophet is derived.
But no.
He goes on:
A state’s authority rests, as Max Weber said, on a monopoly of violence. In matters of free speech about religion in Denmark, the government monopoly on violence has been broken. There is another player in the market, declaring that cartoons perceived as anti-Islamic are punishable by death.
And that player is named ... Islam? Sharia?
But no again. Mid-paragraph, Caldwell changes course:
A pattern of political violence against ordinary citizens is something western Europe has not experienced in more than half a century. Some people describe radical Islam as a kind of totalitarianism, or “Islamofascism”. That is an oversimplification.
"Radical" Islam is just padding, while "Islamofascism" is a senseless word, but "totalitarianism" is absolutely dead right and let me count the ways beginning with the words of G.H. Bosquet, one of the 20th century's leading scholars of Islamic law, who described Islam as being "doubly totalitarian." This is no oversimplification, it's just simple. Islam is simple. It's just our elites that are ... complicated. So why does Caldwell tangle himself up?
Even if he had contact with al-Qaeda, Mr Westergaard’s would-be assassin was probably working as an individual.
Does the assailant own a Koran? Is he a soldier of Allah? Was he carrying out jihad? Then this Islamic axe-murderer (attempted) deserves his official al Qaeda membership card and jihadi secret decoder ring. Whether he had them, though, his actions served to advance jihad terror and, as we see, further entrenched submission to Islamic law in what was once known as Christendom. Caldwell continues:
But this power to intimidate, though informal, is potentially decisive. It is the same power exercised by those who threaten journalists in Russia, those who kill policemen in Mexico, or the Ku Klux Klan in the US south of a century ago. Such acts make law.
Wow. A few paragraphs ago it almost looked as if Caldwell were going to inform his readers about the traditional, mainstream, centuries-old Islamic laws that sanction, indeed, demand the Islamic faithful to kill the likes of Westergaard. Now Caldwell tells them the furor is all generic, a matter of the "power to intimidate," a la drug cartels or the KKK, through "acts" that "make law" along the way.
I suggest that he and everyone else brush up on their sharia. This esteemed Islamic legal source, Reliance of the Traveller, is widely available.
Of course, at this rate, soon every home will have one.
Caldwell never gets more specific than discussing "a real taboo, backed by violence." This, he says, is a "terrible problem." Namely:
If a country cannot stop the violence directly, then the public will demand that it stop the violence indirectly, by thwarting the cause the violence serves. The rise of Geert Wilders’s party in the Netherlands, the referendum to ban minarets in Switzerland, the proposed burka ban in France – these are all desperate measures to declare that Islam is not the first religion of Europe.
"Desperate" measures?
I call them signs of life.
Historically Inaccurate?
Submitted by Capodistrias on Thu, 2010-01-21 19:52.
"I fully realise that they may be one and the same to him and to many others but even so it is still historically inaccurate."
You're assuming you're right, we're assuming you're wrong.
@PR & capo
Submitted by Monarchist on Thu, 2010-01-21 19:23.
I do not expect that I convince anybody to the CC in this forum. I can only encourage people to buy proper literature and study for themselves. You got me wrong on some points, I need to elaborate. I do not aim to support Catholic states to accomplish "political well being". This is not what I mean, the goal of the church is NOT political. The goal of the church is to lead people to salvation.
I do not support theocracy, this is impossible in the CC because unlike Judaism our religion provide some certain general values. While Judaism for example tell people step by step what they need to do. This is why officially Catholic cannot be theocratic. Why to proclaim Catholicism to be the state religion? Traditional Catholics support alliance of the church and secular state. It would mean that the state would support only the CC.
Evangelization by no way is about "forcing". Catholic understanding of freedom of religion say "You are free to chose Catholicism without being forced to it". If you both want to say that every religion is equal, this is simply illogical unless you consider yourself atheists. If one truly believein one universal religion then you should support it worldwide. Obviously I'm not talking about military force , unless fellow believers are under fire somewhere. Edmund Burke theory about character of the nations and approciate religion is entirely political. Burke care less about the nature of God, he think in political categories. Freedom of religion in leftist sense (every religion is equal and need to be tolerated) leads to de-Christianization of Europe.According to Catholic traditional doctrine you could not build new mosques in Catholic states.
@ Monarchist
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Thu, 2010-01-21 21:11.
Thank you for elaborating on what you meant. It would appear your wording lead me to mistakenly believe that you were promoting the idea that Western nations should adopt Roman Catholicism as the state religion. If indeed that is not what you intended to say, I am sorry for this exchange. My beef mostly has to do with the role of the papacy in all this, not with individual Catholics, as I am a believer in the two kingdoms view on the roles of Church and State. Your last sentence nonetheless shows there is a tension between your outlook on these matters and mine. However, since this is not a website devoted to theology, I will leave it at this and I will not further debate this with you. Best regards.
Western states should adopt
Submitted by Monarchist on Thu, 2010-01-21 21:39.
Western states should adopt Catholicism as a state religion when most of population become really Catholic. It should not be done before, civil war is not our goal. We are not Machiavellists.
Insanity
Submitted by atheling on Fri, 2010-01-22 01:44.
@Monarchist:
You're really not a monarchist. You're a totalitarian.
I thought you were going to read de Tocqueville's Democracy in America. What happened? Or don't you ever learn?
@atheling
Submitted by Monarchist on Fri, 2010-01-22 11:22.
I understand that all Catholic monarchies of the past ages you consider totalitarian. I think that I'm much more liberal than old monarchists. Well... but since when women know something about politics :)
This is sad period for you, the times of liberal ecumenist "Catholics" who visit synagogue each Saturday and Catholic church each every Sunday are over. You are so confused that cannot even precisely say in what you really believe.
Another Missing Point
Submitted by atheling on Fri, 2010-01-22 20:32.
@Monarchist
I understand that all Catholic monarchies of the past ages you consider totalitarian.
No you don't understand. My point is that your willingness to IMPOSE a state religion is totalitarian - not much different from the Islamofascists who want to impose Islam as a state religion.
Did you read de Tocqueville? Please respond.
@atheling
Submitted by Monarchist on Sat, 2010-01-23 23:57.
Think politically, this is not same fact of imposition of state religion is totalitarian but eventually its consequences! An example? Turkmenistan where its post-commie president imposed his own personal cult and terrorized his countrymen. Imposition of Islam in Iran on other hand is just authoritarian, you cannot compare those two states if you have any basic knowledge regarding situation in Asia. Jews or Christians in Iran aren't terrorized, unlike Muslims in Turkmenistan.
btw, Do you think that imposition of laicite state is fair or maybe totalitarian? We need to remove crucifixes from public places, right?
@ Monarchist (2)
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Thu, 2010-01-21 23:05.
Then obviously we are not on the same page. That view is not much different from that of the Muslim minorities which seek to implement Islam as the official religion of the Western nations once they have sufficiently increased their numbers.
I also believe you misconstrued my earlier argument. For the sake of clarification, I elaborate. I have never said all religions are equal and that nations can adopt whatever religion suits them best, since there is only one true religion and that is the Christian faith. I am neither a universalist nor a relativist. However, I do not believe the Christian faith can be coerced - evangelisation is necessary but the Christian faith will never be accepted by all and therefore I accept that I have to live among unbelievers and I wish to do so in as honourable a manner as possible.
I have attempted to consistently draw a sharp distinction between temporal and spiritual or ecclesiastical matters. That is why I can say that I oppose Roman Catholicism as having power over temporal matters that concern the nation, while at the same time granting that the Roman Church exerts spiritual power over its own adherents in ecclesiastical matters, albeit within the boundaries as set forth by national or constitutional laws, i.e. the people.
You do not apparently deem it necessary to make such a distinction. I do. You say the Roman Church's mission is to save people and that it does not have a political agenda. Your remark about the Catholic "doctrine" against the building of minarets in "Christian" lands directly contradicts that statement since it necessarily means that the Church is to be involved in temporal, i.e. political matters. The fact of the matter is that the papacy has always considered itself to represent Christ's kingdom on earth and thus, for better or for worse, has primacy over secular (i.e. non-ecclesiastical) governments.
If Islam poses a threat to a nation's order and security, it ought to be dealt with accordingly by secular authorities. If Islamic nations are invading our territories, war is to be waged upon them in defence of our God-given homelands and not on behalf of the Christian Church in a so-called defence of Christ.
Again I refer to the Two Kingdoms theology which, among others, was defended by Martin Luther, though unfortunately not practised as zealously by the ruling authorities in his days.
You are obviously entitled to your own view. I am afraid this borders on a ecclesiological debate which this site is not the right place for. Any further argument may be impossible anyway since we both have deep convictions on this subject.
Best regards.
@pale rider
Submitted by Monarchist on Fri, 2010-01-22 11:15.
There are some similarities between Muslims and traditional Catholics, they are both truly believe and have winners mentality. However there are also substantial differences. As Thomas Woods jr noticed the CC built western civilization. Islamic civilizations aren't too impressive, actually there are even miserable. I think that both groups to some extend respect each other. European people always considered Muslim way of life unacceptable for themselves.
Catholic doctrine stand in opposition not only to minarettes but to mosques in general to be build in Catholic state. When the secular state is allied with the church, the church itself doesn't need to interfere in political matters. The secular authority ban mosques and there is no place for any compromises.
Does defence of you Christian religion contradict somehow with defence of your homeland? I think that both motivations support each other and this is very unwise to undermine religion. Such attitude only bust morals of Muslim fanatics to attack Christians around the world.
If you don't wish to discuss about certain matters, I'm fine with it. However don't say that supposedly conservative website this is bad place to discuss religious matters. Should we just cry about Muslim threat and twice a day declare our unconditional support for Israel? Seriously a Muslim who visit this website must have a good laugh.
@ Monarchist
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Fri, 2010-01-22 15:36.
Monarchist, it was not my intention to suggest that traditional Catholics are no better than Islam. For all the wrongs I see in Roman Catholicism, it is still superior to Islam in many regards. In ethical matters, I largely find myself in agreement with Catholic believers. In the end we are all Europeans or Westerners of European extraction sharing a commitment to such foundational principles as monogamy and a belief in Christ as Lord and Saviour. I have no more intention to continue this debate with you. You have your convictions, I have mine. I do hope you will read the link to Luther's treatise on war against the Turks written in the 16th century. Though you do not have to agree with him entirely, the basic idea is that it is unchristian to wage war in the name of Christianity and for Christ, since Christ can defend His own Church. Rather, individual Christians or "Christian" nations ought to wage war to defend their homelands. In doing so, they defend both their temporal lives and properties and at the same time ensure the survival of the Christian faith in their lands, while avoiding that the name of Christ be blasphemed through the atrocities of war. All this goes back to the principle of the Two Kingdoms. This is not Roman Catholic teaching. However, I do not have the impression that most conservative Roman Catholic today are diametrically opposed to this principle. Very few are those who would agree with your view. It might have been logical a few centuries ago, perhaps even justifiable. We had it in the Dutch Republic when Calvinism was the de facto official religion, as a consequence of complex political, historical and societal factors. Yet today, such attempts are out of place. Today, Geert Wilders, a Catholic by the way, is on trial for defending many liberties that were unheard of for most of our history for telling the truth regarding Islam. Among his supporters are both Protestants and Catholics who in spite of their difference share a commitment to free societies, limited government, national self-determination, as well as Christian family values and moral values as the basis for order and justice in society while maintaining freedom of Christian creed. Those, Monarchist, are the things that I believe we need to defend on the political level.
@pale rider
Submitted by Monarchist on Sat, 2010-01-23 23:37.
You may not reply, but I will write my opinion. Christ may defend his church but this doesn't mean that he cannot be helped. This is our moral obligation to defend Christians.
If Wilders is a Catholic indeed he hiding this fact very well. Most likely he is a Catholic by the name only. I have seen Catholic websites describing him as a liberal. Of course this doesn't mean that I reject any cooperation with people who do not share my views.
@Pale Rider
Submitted by Capodistrias on Thu, 2010-01-21 18:44.
PR asked:
"Was Monarchist speaking of Christendom in general or of Roman Catholicism specifically? I believe it was the latter."
I believe he was speaking of both, because from a Catholic perspective they are essentially the same and you should realize that, just as I realize why you would argue they are not. I may not agree with Monarchist concerning his favorite whipping horse, democracy et al, but much of what he says and where he is coming from is perfectly plausible from a conservative Cathoic perspective.
As for Papist 'secular' authority in your Flemish land along the lines that Monarchist might envision, don't worry Monarchist summons to Rome was lost in transit a few centuries ago.
@ Capo
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Thu, 2010-01-21 19:06.
I fully realise that they may be one and the same to him and to many others but even so it is still historically inaccurate. It is really not even a matter of Protestant vs Roman Catholic to me - consider the East–West Schism, for instance.
To kappert RE: Demontage, 3
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Thu, 2010-01-21 18:37.
Your opinion of democracy appears to be quite low, as you hold voters in low esteem. If politics are directed by elites, be they media moguls or "elected" representatives, why not do away with democracy altogether?
Hitler is commonly regarded as the most murderous tyrant in history, even though Mao and Stalin each killed far more. While the Swastika is prohibited in many countries, the Hammer and Sickle are not. Fools even wear Che Guevara t-shirts, without any understanding of his crimes. While anti-fascists and minority gangs are allowed to paralyze entire cities, European governments remain committed only to hunting neo-fascists who pose little threat. Still think that the authoritarian right is running wild?
Air Brushing History
Submitted by Capodistrias on Thu, 2010-01-21 17:17.
"First of all, Europe was never entirely Roman Catholic so any talk of regaining "the continent" is beside the question."
The concept of a Christendom is neither far-fetched, nor historically inaccurate. Deconstructing can quickly degenerate into a blame game in which no one is without sin.
'Supranational Shepherd' is not necessarily a bad thing and requiring the Pope to forswear a major role in world politics is disingenous and not exactly promoting freedom of religion.
@ Capodistrias
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Thu, 2010-01-21 17:52.
Was Monarchist speaking of Christendom in general or of Roman Catholicism specifically? I believe it was the latter. I do not believe a country such as Romania should adopt Roman Catholicism - or Protestantism for that matter - for its political 'well-being'.
As for your last point, there is not a single religious entity on earth which holds such esteem as the Vatican, being recognised by virtually all nations as a state in its own right. The interests of the Vatican may go directly against those of other nations and therefore I do not want the papacy to have [secular] authority on my Flemish soil.
Now that we're brushing up...
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Thu, 2010-01-21 15:30.
let's just brush up a wee bit on European history, shall we? I sense a resurgence of ultramontanism and I am not liking it.
First of all, Europe was never entirely Roman Catholic so any talk of regaining "the continent" is beside the question.
Secondly, European history is full of examples of what the greatness of blind adherence to the Magisterium leads to - hardly anything resembling freedom of religion, freedom of speech, free enterprise and so on.
Thirdly, to my mind, individual Catholics most assuredly can and will contribute to the re-emergence of Western civilisation on the European continent without having to resort to such extreme measures as Catholicising the whole of Europe and exalting the Pope to the office of supranational shepherd. Let him mind the spiritual lives of his flock but keep out of worldly politics. There is no need for Maistrean conservatism.
In conclusion, we need a general return to law and order and national sovereignty without any specific religious institutions meddling into the affairs of national governments. And as to the question of whether to have a monarchy or a republic, that is up to each nation to decide for their own. Though every man is equal, all are also "equally unequal" as to their characters, gifts, talents, goals, wishes and desires. Likewise are the nations.
@pale rider
Submitted by Monarchist on Thu, 2010-01-21 16:36.
You doesn't seems to understand the essence of Catholicism. True Catholic has an obligation to evangelize non-believers. Ecumenist who claims that every religion is equal is most likely an leftist atheist in disguise. You should reconsider your stance over the CC if you want to be a subject of salvation. I see that you are a decent person but you can pay dearly for your mistakes. This is not a trivial issue, so I would check this out on your place. Try to read some books written by traditional Catholics because liberal hierarchy that you probably witness more often is not really committed to Catholic doctrine.
@ Monarchist
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Thu, 2010-01-21 17:39.
Monarchist, I confess "one, holy, catholic [universal] and apostolic church" and I am not a Roman Catholic. I might thus well be among those problems in our Western societies that you cited. Now, I do not wish to enter a theological debate with you because this is a website devoted to politics. The reason I responded to you is that you spoke of what a officially [Roman] Catholic nation would do regarding minarets and hence, I infer, Islam in general. I am diametrically opposed to the idea that in order for Europe to get rid of its postmodern crisis and the problems with Islam, it must [re-]adopt Roman Catholicism. Your view would come down to reinstating political, i.e. secular power for the papacy. In addition, faith is God-given and not imposable by man; since many Europeans are not Roman Catholic, you would have to force them to accept the Roman tradition, contrary to their individual consciousness or their national character or interests. Both my religious convictions as well as history compel me to believe this to be wrong. As far as I am concerned, however, you are free to proselytise and you are fully entitled to your beliefs as I stand by freedom of religion for all. Regards.
@Monarchist and Atheling
Submitted by Capodistrias on Thu, 2010-01-21 14:49.
How not to proselytize:
node/4256
Round and round we go. Where we stop? Anything Goes.
http://www.stlyrics.com/songs/c/coleporter5950/anythinggoes235308.html
To kappert RE: Demontage, 2
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Wed, 2010-01-20 22:29.
What type of democracy are you referring to, then? Certainly not the direct variety which is clearly alive and well in Switzerland, and enshrined in its law. I think the 3rd is far more dangerous than the 17th, given the vast differences in output. National Socialism evolved for well over a decade before the Die Endlösung was initiated, and Islam has already caused atrocities and mass murders over the centuries. If you believe European Muslims are docile now (which they are clearly not), they can turn on you in a heartbeat.
Your last comments make little sense and therefore I can't properly address them.
on demontage
Submitted by kappert on Thu, 2010-01-21 09:13.
Direct democracy, i.e. referendums, are likely abused by rhetoric opinion makers. The Swiss anti-minaret campaign was directed by German advertising guru Alexander Segert and the referendum had nothing to do with democracy, neither the Areopag version (elite rules), nor Polis (only males), nor even representative (not everyone voted), mere participative with half of the Swiss voters giving their opinion. To reach a verdict 'well and alive' is a distortion.
Switzerland sold weapons (2008) worth 722 million sfr to 72 countries, see http://maps.kriegsmaterial.ch
It's historical and empirical evidence that rightwing-extremism is less sanctioned than leftwing-extremism. Your implication of nazi-Endlösung and Islam mass murder is lunatic.
@kappert
Submitted by Monarchist on Wed, 2010-01-20 17:06.
Minaretes? Wait till Catholics regain this continent. Official Catholic state would not allow any Mosques to be build. You need to say "thank you" to all those so called "rightist" that they support this democratic idiocy.
Minaretes? Wait till
Submitted by atheling on Thu, 2010-01-21 06:27.
Minaretes? Wait till Catholics regain this continent. Official Catholic state would not allow any Mosques to be build. You need to say "thank you" to all those so called "rightist" that they support this democratic idiocy.
How can Catholics regain the continent when they are not having babies?
@atheling
Submitted by Monarchist on Thu, 2010-01-21 10:23.
Thanks to our new Pope, now traditional Catholics have backing of Rome. Our circles are in offensive, spreading true Catholic teaching, organizing real Catholic masses. People need to rediscover true Catholic spirit which was undermined by many years of liberal offensive inside of the church. This website cannot be treated seriously cause here appears that Islam is the great problem. This is a lie! Attitude of modern European is the real problem. First we need to expose and get rid of liberals, modernists, ecumenists and other atheists who claim to be Catholic and spoil everything. The church aim is to lecture people and not to try to buddy up with them by all means. Once tradition regain its place in the church, people will rediscover faith and then more babies will appear.
on democracy
Submitted by kappert on Wed, 2010-01-20 15:27.
Kapitein Andre failed to inform me what he understands under the term 'democracy', and I am not at all referring to any Brussels sprout fancy Barroso style. Why should the 17th ranked arms producer be less dangerous than the 1st ranked? There are 120 countries still behind. Fanatic Islam is in no way comparable to Nazism, and I did not comment on that point in my Swiss demontage. You are right with your last point: Germany regards rightwing-extremism as mere sectarian phenomenon, while the Merkel government equals the threat of leftwing-extremism and islamism. So, while the rightwing-extremists want to abolish democracy, the leftwing-extremists want to abolish capitalism. That brings us back to the beginning of this text.
To kappert
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Wed, 2010-01-20 04:51.
Au contraire, Europe’s libertarian right is fighting for democracy. If, by “democracy”, you are referring to the representative democracy practiced in Brussels, where sovereignty is held by appointees and bureaucrats not the people – whose will is ignored and often overruled, and whose suffrage exists only to legitimize the Leviathan – then you are in the right.
Wilders is hardly comparable to Hitler, and his rhetoric tends to focus on the facts. While Germany’s “hate speech” record has improved markedly since 1945, today it is the third largest arms exporter, whereas Switzerland is seventeenth. Again, how can Swiss neutrality compare to German aggression?
It is disingenuous to claim that militant Islam is a phantom created by shadowy elites to divert attention from the “real” problems. Your comments imply a naive worldview of order, which cannot comprehend the disorder of Islamic supremacism. Well, tens of millions were even more taken aback by German fanaticism, which was very real, and which cannot be explained away by victor’s justice or Illuminati/Masonic conspiracies.
I believe the German people have suffered enough self–criticism, which is now collective and pathological, but I would rather you look closer to home than turn your ill–conceived righteousness against the rest of Europe. Démontage indeed…
demontage
Submitted by kappert on Thu, 2010-01-14 07:57.
Europe's right parties are demolishing democracy. SVP, Lega Nord, FPÖ and enfant terrible Geert Wilders are fueling the popular hatespeeches. The same time half of Swiss voters decided not to build minarettes, safeguarding the four they have in the country, they decided also to export weapons à tous azimuts. A weird understanding of 'neutrality', at least. Behind all this is the fear of sozial poverty, unemployment, impotence - problems for which the elite has no answers.