“May One Kill a Terrorist?” is a typical title. In this case, it originates from a long piece published by the Neue Zürcher Zeitung which is rated among the ten best papers globally. The answer the title implies regarding the proper treatment of those that kill by principle comes at the end of the piece. It is an oblique: “No.” A characteristic letter also stands out in your correspondent’s mind. It condemns the killing of OBL and reproaches that the disrespectful American street celebrates. Naturally, disparaging remarks regarding Bush, Iraq and Afghanistan also adorn the message.

President Obama is praised with reason for his decision to kill Osama bin Laden, when the CIA offered him this opportunity. As the Commander in Chief he bears the ultimate responsibility for the success and the failures of the US military. If the operation had failed, he would have been blamed for it. Now that his decision produced success, he deserves to be applauded for it.

Up till now, Obama committed one international blunder on top of the next international humiliation. The execution of OBL becomes a shining star on his coat of arms. Obama will counter all critique on his international record by any Republican candidate for the Presidency in 2012 with: “Was it not me, who killed OBL, the most wanted Muslim terrorist in the world?”

The death of Osama bin Laden ushers in a period of relief fit for Sophocles!

It should surprise no one that violent revolutionaries are unfit to govern the impact of the means by which they rule.  This tale is well trodden when one considers Western literature, whether it be high Attic, Elizabethan drama or the political mien of Machiavelli.

1. Osama bin Laden has been induced to leave us. The good fortune of terrorists is on the vane. This applies to the ones in power that can apply the means of a government to oppress. It also pertains to the trade’s free lancers that head some bloody “NGO”. Bin Laden’s deserved demise comes late. His person and his, by now institutionalized, system have become separate entities. Like the McDonald chain, the gang’s franchises form a global network. This is likely to save the Qaida from disintegrating. On the other hand, “electioneering by terror” has suffered a major blow. Terrorism’s prestige will suffer and the remaining CEOs will need to spend much energy to hide. This will diminish the efficiency of their operations.

A quote from Giulio Meotti on YnetNews, 2 May 2011:

Europe risks losing all its precious gifts: human dignity, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, rule of law, separation of state and mosque. Across Europe there are dozens of journalists, cartoonists and writers who are living under terrorist threats. (...)

Timo Soini

It was to be expected that the success of the True Finns in the Finnish parliamentary election earlier this month would cause many angry comments in Euroland.  Many of the European elite openly expressed their resentment over the party's policies which include opposition to the European Union, reductions in foreign aid, strict limits on immigration, tougher punishment for crime, support for cultural activities promoting the Finnish identity etc.  The point of concern for the 'official Europe' is of course the campaign of Timo Soini's party against a bailout of Portugal and its opposition against the European Stability Mechanism in general.   In Timo Soini's words, "the Finnish cow should be milked in Finland and the milk should not be sent abroad in charity".  

1. North African autocracies that controlled the Arab Muslims of the region are collapsing. Since then, a wave of a human mass is forcing –not requesting- entrance into Europe. Primarily the crowd that likes to claim refugee status is exploiting the Italian island of Lampedusa in the Mediterranean to gain access to “Europe”. The consequences are creating a problem not only for Italy but also for the EU.

First, Italy uses a number of very Italian techniques to cope with the direct challenge. Naturally, the genuine Lampedusans, by now outnumbered by entrants, are loudly demanding relief. The more so since the guests are not necessarily orderly and show an inclination to use violence –such as torching their housing- to force their transfer to the mainland. There they expect to receive permits to stay which in turn allow them to invade the rest of the EU.

On Tuesday the 26th April 2011, Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service announced that the inability to read and write English – and even sometimes to understand it fluently – should not automatically prevent anyone from sitting as jurymen. It was accepted that a Judge may decide if any particular juryman is fit to serve on account of his inability to understand the proceedings. At the same time, a spokesman for the Courts and Tribunals Service has claimed that “people who cannot read English very well but can speak English… would be able to serve on a jury.”

Ole Jørgen Anfindsen

I recently had the privilege to exchange a series of questions with Norwegian author and pundit Ole Jørgen Anfindsen via e-mail. Anfindsen's writings on race, gender, and political correctness have appeared in major publications, and provide a rare corrective to the prevailing orthodoxies about those subjects. He founded the English- and Scandinavian-language website HonestThinking.org with his brother Jens Tomas, and is currently its editor. His recent book Selvmordsparadigmet (The Suicidal Paradigm) features original contributions by Henry Harpending, Frank Salter, and Fjordman.

1. Raul Castro has spoken on April 16. Addresses from the top of the heap command greater interest in dictatorships than in open societies. In the latter, a de-electable person’s words shrink to a support seeking call. In an autocracy, the Leader’s words are pronouncements to be enforced by whatever it takes.

If you add up the areas in which changes are promised, you find an admission of what earlier the “enemy” claimed. The list confirms a catalogue of things that are awry. These admissions should be compared to the hither claims made by the regime and its apologists. According to these, 2+2 was not four but five or six –as Castro the Lesser has now put it. Remember here the enthusiasm with which the claims of paradise were the holy writ among “progressives” abroad. Such declarations substitute dreams for reality and overlook the systemic shortcomings of leftism.