Breaching the Gates of Paris and Memphis: Dhimmis Bow and Scrape as Jihadis Sharpen Knives

Twice, once in 1529 and again in 1683, Christian armies stopped the Ottomans at the Gates of Vienna. In between those dates, in 1571, a multinational Catholic fleet sank the Muslim fleet in the great Battle of Lepanto. Along with the 1492 expulsion from Iberia, and, of course, the even earlier loss at the Battle of Tours in 732, the Muslim world has not forgotten those and the many other defeats since then. Make no mistake. That Muslim world seeks "revenge." The Muslims blame the West for their own failures, and point to their past "greatness" and to alleged past sins of the West as justification to commit atrocities today. Islam's war against the West that began in the seventh century continues--and for the first time since the longest war began, we are losing thanks to self-inflicted wounds.

A little personal anecdote before I get to the gist of today's topic. As mentioned too many times on this humble blog, and as its nine regular readers can attest, I served in Pakistan in the early 1980s. While there my wife was contracted by a local Muslim university to give Spanish classes. They specifically wanted Spain Spanish, and she being specifically from Spain, Spain, my wife was the perfect candidate. They paid her well, usually late, but well. The Diplowife, bored in Islamabad while I singlehandedly was defeating the evil Soviet Empire, "dressed modestly" and went off to instruct her bearded charges. Her thirty or so students were mullahs and aspiring imams. One day, I went to pick her up as she was being stalked by one of the "scholars" (another story, for another day) and happened to ask the head man at the school, "Why the interest in Spanish?" Without hesitation he replied, "We are preparing to take back Andalusia." I advised my wife, who on her mother's side claims descent, as do 25 million other Spaniards, from the great El Cid Campeador, to rethink her choice of occupation. I did not welcome a vengeful visit from a dead El Cid strapped astride his fearsome Babieca. She didn't listen, of course, and consoled herself with lucre, secure in the knowledge that my M-1 and I could deal with any ghostly horseman.

These thoughts come in a jumble as I read about a true horror underway in France where, clearly, the authorities have decided that they do not welcome the spirit of Charles Martel, and insist on exorcising it if it makes itself known. We see them gunning for Marine Le Pen the leader of France's National Front (FN) party who has dared to criticize the presence of so many Muslims in France,

French far-right leader, Marine Le Pen, could face criminal charges for inciting racism . . .  French authorities opened a case against Mrs Le Pen in 2011 after she likened the sight of Muslims praying in the streets to the Nazi occupation of France. As a European Parliament member (MEP), she enjoyed immunity from prosecution. However, this protection was removed by a European parliamentary committee in a secret vote this week.

There is so much wrong with this little excerpt from the BBC report, so very much. We see the catch-all "far-right leader" line; the same one used when mentioning the EDL in England or the Tea Party in the US. What is it about her party that makes it "far right"? The BBC, like the rest of the lefty media everywhere in the world, doesn't tell us; it uses the term as a handy epithet to remove sympathy from the person or party under assault. As I did with the EDL, I read what the FN proposes as French domestic and foreign policy, and while as a conservative American I would not necessarily agree with it all, e.g., it advocates fairly robust public assistance for certain sectors, it does not strike me as anything extreme, much less "far right." The FN has a healthy skepticism about the EU; wants to preserve France's sovereignty and culture; has serious questions about France's immigration and public assistance policies; worries about the dramatic rise in crime; and sees Israel as having the sovereign right of self-defense. OK. We see that this leader of a "far right" party is being brought up on charges for comparing crowds of Muslims, most of them foreign, praying in the streets to the presence of foreign Nazi occupation troops. OK. So a "far right" leader doesn't like Nazis . . . I see. Does this mean that the French socialists and the BBC have finally realized that Nazis were leftists? Or is there some doubt about whether the insulted parties are the Nazis or the Muslims? Is Pétain back in charge?

How convenient that the establishment politicians can target and try to neutralize a prominent opposition leader--the FN draws almost 20% of the vote--by using the courts and wrapping themselves in the rainbow flag of multiculturalism. France becomes Venezuela? No dissent allowed to the official line.

Dear friends, before we get too critical and mocking of the French Republic, we see something similar afoot right here in our own beloved and horribly misgoverned American Republic. I am not even talking about the use of the IRS and the DOJ to target conservatives. This is a new affront to our traditions and values. Josh Gerstein of Politico lets us know that in Tennessee we see some spectacular lunacy by the US Attorney for the eastern district of that fine state,

A U.S. attorney in Tennessee is reportedly vowing to use federal civil rights statutes to clamp down on offensive and inflammatory speech about Islam. Bill Killian, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, was quoted by the Tullahoma News this week suggesting that some inflammatory material on Islam might run afoul of federal civil rights laws.

Killian pointed to a recent controversy where a local Tennessee politician posted a photo of a man aiming a shotgun at the camera with the caption "How to wink at a Muslim."

"We need to educate people about Muslims and their civil rights, and as long as we’re here, they’re going to be protected," Killian [said] . . . "If a Muslim had posted ‘How to Wink at a Christian,’ could you imagine what would have happened?" Killian asked, according to the newspaper.

The Department of Justice did not respond Friday to a question about what guidelines it draws concerning offensive speech and Islam, or whether the department believes that civil rights statutes could be used to stifle criticism of Islam.

Think about that for a bit. It is so repellent, it is hard to comment rationally. It would seem, according to this fine, fine "law giver" of the Holder variety, that other folks such as Pamela Geller, Daniel Pipes, and on and on, including this humble blog and its nine readers, could be brought up on charges.  I, furthermore, would note that had "a Muslim posted ‘How to Wink at a Christian’" nothing would have happened: Mr. Killian's office would have done nothing, and had it done something, a legion of lawyers would have defended, pro bono, that Muslim's right to freedom of expression.

In the 1930s, it took people with a clear vision and guts to speak up against the Nazi and Soviet threats to the West. Now, we need people to speak up again for the values of the West; people who understand that in the U.S. our Constitution is not a suicide pact, and that we, the French, the English and the Swedes, for example, have the right to national defense from a murderous totalitarian ideology that passes itself off as just another religion. We are being led by a bunch of cowardly Dhimmis. Do they really believe that nonsense about how tolerant the Muslims once were in Spain and elsewhere towards Christians and Jews? When will our "leaders" realize that we are dealing with an enemy who considers any place where Islam once was or now is, as part of the Muslim world. That, in fact, the entire world belongs to Islam, and those of us who are not Muslim are to be converted, enslaved, or killed.

One of my favorite books, for many reasons, is Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus. It is a work of true genius. It is also one of the most famous books that is hardly read; most people rely for their "knowledge" of the story on a stream of horrible Hollywood depictions of this masterpiece. One character in the book always has stayed with me; one who does not get much if any attention in the filmed versions. That is Safie, a woman fleeing the oppression of the Ottoman empire for the relative freedom of Europe at the end of the 18th century, and who seeks refuge with the kindly De Lacey family. Mary Shelley, two hundred years ago, barely out of her teens, recognized that for all its problems, especially for women in that era, western civilization was still better and freer than its Islamic counterpart, yet our political class cannot do the same. It cannot stand up for our values and say "Enough!" In fact, it does something even worse than that failure; when it acts, as we see in France and Tennessee, it  does so against people with the courage to stand up against the totalitarians.

We are going to lose this fight, and it won't be the Muslims who defeat us.