Satire not needed re fanatics proudly embracing medieval interpretations of Islam and thus exposing their dangerously mindless inability to grasp their own backwardness, hatefulness and barbarity.

Satire not needed re fanatics proudly embracing medieval interpretations of Islam and thus exposing their dangerously mindless inability to grasp their own backwardness, hatefulness and barbarity.·

As Western media outlets decide how they will treat Geert Wilders' film, "Fitna" (released yesterday, March 27, 2008), the question arises: Will classical Western liberalism exhibit resistance or submission? Courage or capitulation? The same question must be asked about how Islamic media outlets that claim to disavow such fanaticism will treat it. There are not grounds for serious optimism regarding the latter, and it remains to be seen how much courage will be exhibited by the former. Update: Now we know-- LiveLeak removed Fitna from it's servers in response to receipt of serious threats to its staff members. Go here for LiveLeak's explanation. Regarding he "Anatomy of a Face in Fitna" (see image below-left), it's not the Fitna video, but it's relevant to it-- to learn why, scroll further down for more information about it and for viewing it or click here.

But trusty Rusty has uploaded it to Google Video for direct viewing here (or for embedded viewing using the embedded Google version at Jawa Report or below on this page). How long before Google caves to threats? (Gentlemen, start your stopwatches.) Furthermore, the fact that the version uploaded to Google Video still displays the LiveLeak logo provides an easy, lame excuse for Google Video to cave. How long will Google stand up to the terrorists? As long as they've stood up to Chinese censors? How long before Google changes its mission statement from "Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" to "Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful except, of course, for information offensive to fanatical adherents to medieval, tyrannical and barbaric interpretations of Islam or to any official of the Peoples' Republic of China or anyone else more serious and threatening about their ideology than we at Google are loyal to our originally stated 'mission.'"

This is a time when every media outlet professing to favor liberty over tyranny should encourage facilitation of access to the film to make it ubiquitous in order to facilitate public understanding of not only the film but the reasons for which Wilders made it. Thus far, too few have been willing to do so and too many are cowed by fear of the fanatics. What is the current "slogan" of America's self-described "liberals" demanding "non-partisanship" in politics? "Divided we fall" is it not? Will they show their willingness to "unite" on the side of freedom against terroristic tyranny? Don't hold your breath. Too many in the West are still living in a dream world leaving them as naively oblivious to the threat of the fanatical variety of Islamic ideology as was Neville Chamberlain to the fanatical, ruthless and barbaric nature of Nazism.

Fitna removed by LiveLeak after threats against staff:

[http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103]

Too many in the so-called "mainstream" media who profess to worship the rights of free speech and free press as vital to the survival of liberty paradoxically and incorrectly think adherence to such principles obliges them to be "neutral" about the conflict between the forces of liberty and tyranny. They don't seem to understand that on the issue of freedom, they can't be "neutral" and must, instead, "take sides." That's what classical Western liberalism did. It "took sides" with liberty against tyranny. Today, too many people claiming to be "liberal" are merely liberal poseurs vacuously frolicking in the insulated bubble most of the rest of us recognize as the "Hollywood Left." Those liberal poseurs are blind to the fact that those whom they deride as "NeoCons" are in fact classical Western liberals who understand the reality that anyone professing to favor freedom can't be "neutral" about the struggle between liberty and tyranny. ^···

Too many modern Christians are still oblivious to the historical similarities between medieval Christianity, which burned heretics at the stake, and Islamic fanaticism today, which remains in a medieval form of stunted cultural evolution. Ayaan Hirsi Ali -- no shrinking violet in confronting Islamic fanatics (see Submission here or here) and certainly no apologist for medieval Christianity has correctly pointed out that "the enlightenment [reformed Christianity]" -- not to imply modern Christianity is perfect but to make a point to which Secular Fundamentalists are blinded by their anti-religious bigotry: That modern Christianity embraces the enlightenment view that heresy not be punished by violence but rather be opposed by persuasion. (Update-- Hirsi Ali's website has extensive commentary about Fitna.) Those who say Islam can't be reformed are ignoring the history of the enlightenment and reformation of Christianity, but it certainly can't be reformed without first being exposed for what it is: a culturally backward-looking, patriarchal religion founded on doctrines threatened by modernity and fundamental human rights known as "liberty" gradually recognized in the course of the enlightenment in the West and formally declared in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution (despite tragic moral flaws in both with respect to slavery). To the credit of Barack Obama (of whom I am NOT a supporter), his speech in Philadelphia -- though seriously flawed in many ways-- correctly rejected his preceding generation's grievance agenda against America for her past sins in favor of his generational agenda of seeking further improvement -- i.e., traveling the "road to perfection"-- by being willing to recognize, appreciate and build upon improvements made. This is the genius of the system created by Founding Fathers despite the blindness caused by their own bigotry.

Too many western secularists are too blinded by their bigoted hatred for Christianity to comprehend the nature and scope of the threat to liberty posed by the spread of fanatical versions of Islam. They seem not to understand that medieval Islam views non-believing infidels to be every bit as evil as Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. This is especially true of the liberal poseurs in the Hollywood Left. ··

·Embed to show Anatomy of a Face in Fitna Video·

·Global Web Solutions, Inc.·

·Embed YouTube/Google version of

this Anatomy of a Face in Fitna video·

· (for highest-speed connections)·

·Global Web Solutions, Inc.·

Regarding the "Anatomy of a Face in Fitna" video (wmv and flash versions embedded at the right), it analyzes the assertion by Sugerio that Geert Wilders may have mistakenly used the wrong image for the face depicted in Fitna as that of the murderer of the director, Theo Van Gogh. Since anatomy-changing distortion would be necessary for that image to be deemed to match that of another person, it's debatable whether such other person would even have a legal case against Wilders. Even if it were to be proved that Wilders made errors with respect to one image in the entire film, his error in doing so is dwarfed by the widespread derelictions of duties to freedom by so many in the Western media claiming to be champions of "free speech" who refused to host or link-to Wilders' video. To paraphrase HotAir.Com's AllaPundit, the timidity of Western media in the face of terrorist threats sort of proves the point Wilders made in Fitna, doesn't it?

Update-- Additional questions: Does Fitna paint non-fanatical Muslims with the same brush as fanatical Muslims? Not if one understands that it is in part directed at the reluctance (outright fear?) of non-fanatical Muslims to unequivocally confront, reject and defeat the fanatical Muslims. The fanatics are screaming their hatred but the non-fanatics are whispering their disapproval. The non-fanatics need to raise their voices. They need to stop being apologists for medieval practices such as "honor killings" and demands that religious theology be made the "law of the land."

Meanwhile, the Hollywood Left needs to overcome its naive embrace of the hackneyed and flawed cliché "might doesn't make right" and instead embrace the reality that right without might loses to wrong armed with might. The Ghandi/MLK non-violent approach only works against a power structure which despite serious flaws remains fundamentally committed to civilized norms but not against violent, totalitarian ideologies such as Nazism, Stalinism and Islamo-Fascism. To view a picture that is emblematic of what is the best hope for human society in the current struggle between modernity/enlightenment and medievalism go to Michael Yon's November 6, 2007 installment (and make a donation while you're there.).