Not the event matters. Its spin is what counts.

England’s riots have earned much deserved publicity. A trend is discernible behind the occurrence that does not stop at national boundaries. The impressive pictures created by the rioters and the well-formulated reactions of PM Cameron have guaranteed the world’s attention. At the time of this writing, it seems that the event –not the government’s reaction- finds imitators. At least on this level, the individuals that form criminal gangs demonstrate an ability to be creatively enterprising. Some of the interpreters that are telling us what “really” happened fall into the same category. You are urged by them not to believe what you see but the contrary of it. Here we detect a remarkable PR construction. The more so, since some will go along with the fact defying pronouncements manufactured in the PC factory. These people would sell left shoes to left leg amputees. Even worse: they pander their product without any remorse.

A Review of Edwin Dyga's “Eastern Promise—Why the West Needs Mitteleuropa”.

Edwin Dyga's, “Eastern Promise—Why the West Needs Mitteleuropa,” upcoming in Quarterly Review, 5:2, Summer 2011, confronts a subject many today are unhappy over, that is, the future possibilities of Central European countries vis-a-vis post Soviet Russian intentions.  After the fall of both the Soviet Union and Eastern bloc Communism, all hoped that this past could be, if not completely forgotten, at least remembered without the specter of new Russian imperialism.  Mr. Dyga argues that such hope is naïve, and that the West, taken in its larger Atlanticist meaning, must be prepared for the possibility of Russian geopolitical hegemony within the lately freed Eastern bloc countries and environs.  The chief European country in mind is Poland, however others making up the greater Central Europe are not excluded.  His essay is directly addressed to American “conservatives,” both neo and paleo, as he believes American conservatives should be natural allies.  

Dulled are the instruments of government intervention in free markets.

The evolving data that expresses the global economy’s pulse might have odd aspects. Even so, it falls behind the outlandish economic performance of our governors. Even if everybody bemoans the “crisis”, the subject remains too tempting to avoid. Here, the question that arises is “the crisis of what”.

Terror rules where the irrational is allowed to govern human affairs.

This week’s “Duly Noted” must begin with a personal experience. It is the kind of bit from the past that can shed light on the present during the process that converts it into a future. 

Whether stated or not, our individual encounters with the forces that shaped our world act as sieves. Through these, we are programmed to perceive, not unlike a film through a color filter, the objective components of life as these evolve around us. The result makes us especially sensitive regarding some trends and can hone our insights. Similarly, our experiences can disorient us as we are made by them to perceive possibly distorted dangers and opportunities.

Maybe there is a simple explanation for the riots. In Great-Britain crime is easy and almost risk-free. 

In his startling book ‘A Land fit for Criminals’ insider David Fraser demonstrates it with figures and facts.

Detection rate of crimes is 5 per cent. Of these cases only 2 per cent are processed in court. Only a mere 0.3 per cent of all crimes result in prison sentence. Offenders deem themselves untouchable. Fines are seldom paid. In 2002 it was reported that tens of millions of pounds in unpaid fines were written off.

In recent weeks, Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik and the authors he cites as his influences have often been described as "right-wing extremists." But as I pointed out not too long ago in a Norwegian-language post on Dispatches from the North, that term is largely useless, having devolved into a meaningless slur with no clear, objective definition. Its purpose at present seems to be to tarnish everyone on the non-establishment Right with the stain of Breivik's atrocities. Those atrocities came about, the reasoning goes, because Breivik's views were on the "extreme Right," i.e. to the Right of accepted political opinion, and thus, anyone who holds views that are to the Right of accepted opinion, whether or not they advocate terrorism, has an indirect culpability for Breivik's actions. Right-wing terrorism, it seems, is not abhorrent because it is terrorism, but because it is right-wing.

Ibrahim Kalin

You may be interested in an article that appears at the Arab website Asharq Alawsat, by Ibrahim Kalin, senior adviser to Turkish premier Recep Tayyib Erdogan. Kalin warns the West about the dangers of "Islamophobia" and proposes that it be designated a crime against humanity. 

This was bound to happen. The massacre in Norway has been a boon to Arab and pro-Muslim activists. And the Gayssot Law, in France, that criminalizes holocaust denial, racist speech and discriminatory actions, will soon be invoked again in defense of Muslims. Thus, anyone critical of Islam or of immigration could be guilty of a crime against humanity. 

Everyone knows by now that Fjordman has revealed his identity and will be keeping a low profile indefinitely. In other words, he will go into hiding for his own safety. He will therefore join the ranks of Robert Redeker, Udo Ulfkotte, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Geert Wilders, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff and others who have spoken out against Islam and who either had to go underground or who are living under constant police protection, deprived of their basic freedom of movement.

It is forbidden to criticize Islam because Islam is violent, intolerant and world-conquering. Islam demands submission, and the West, decultured, indoctrinated, terrified, deluded, de-Christianized and in moral limbo, submits… because it cannot conceive of fighting back and saving its own civilization. How can it save a civilization that it hates, that it never really knew, and that is a constant reminder of the qualitative differences that inevitably exist between people, nations, ethnic groups, religions and races?

Geert Wilders has been acquitted, but the progressive press is continuing the trial. Indeed, new evidence has been found, in the abject person of mass murderer Anders Breivik. Through their words and writings, Wilders and other criticizers of Islam would be partly responsible for Breivik's crime.

Such nonsense does not deserve a reply. But that has changed since Ian Buruma joined the debate.  This epitome of political correctness distinguishes himself from his less subtle ideological companions by his sense of nuance. He does not insult, he does not slander, he considers pros and cons, he argues. It is worth the while to consider his arguments. It is an instructive exercise. What do we see? Buruma has developed a way of reasoning which creates the false impression of an impartial investigation.

As the initial shock of Norwegian events subsides, and as those inclined toward explanations begin their reflections and assignation of blame, one more or less common theme arises.  That is, how could such an illiberal act happen in such a liberal country?  This perplexity underscores the generally shallow analysis of liberalism, both its right-conservative variant as well as its more common leftist form.  Perhaps, though, given the foundations of modern liberal society it is better for us to ask why this sort of violence didn’t happen sooner?  We wonder, however, whether Breivik's hyper-individualistic violence is not simply a logical consequence of political liberalism (both classical and modern), and if not, whether it is at least consistent with the ground inherent in a mature liberal social order.