"I never worry about action, but only about inaction." - Sir Winston Churchill
Jews flee their homes amid increasing state persecution. A belligerent little dictator arms his nation against the will of the international community, promising genocide. The Western powers, befuddled by their own notions of “keeping the peace” and cultural deference, do nothing.
Seventy years since, is it 1938 all over again?
Following your perusal of the links above regarding Appeasement 2008, we invite you to sample from the following collection of links regarding Appeasement 1938. See if you cannot smell any similarities between the ineptitudes of then and now in the face of gathering storms.
We do. And it is not at all a pleasant smell.
APPEASMENT 1938
What is Appeasement?
The Munich Agreement: The quintessential example of Appeasement.
Further details regarding The Munich Agreement
The Munich Agreement itself - Sept 29 1938
The subsequent debate in British House of Commons, October 3, 1938
(Sir Winston’s chillingly brilliant denouncement of the Agreement begins roughly halfway into the document. A MUST read!)
“This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.”
Jews flee their homes amid increasing state persecution. A belligerent little dictator arms his nation against the will of the international community, promising genocide. The Western powers, befuddled by their own notions of “keeping the peace” and cultural deference, do nothing.
Seventy years since, is it 1938 all over again?
Following your perusal of the links above regarding Appeasement 2008, we invite you to sample from the following collection of links regarding Appeasement 1938. See if you cannot smell any similarities between the ineptitudes of then and now in the face of gathering storms.
We do. And it is not at all a pleasant smell.
APPEASMENT 1938
What is Appeasement?
The Munich Agreement: The quintessential example of Appeasement.
Further details regarding The Munich Agreement
The Munich Agreement itself - Sept 29 1938
The subsequent debate in British House of Commons, October 3, 1938
(Sir Winston’s chillingly brilliant denouncement of the Agreement begins roughly halfway into the document. A MUST read!)
“This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.”
– Sir Winston Churchill
A bit of educational background and exercise regarding the matter
Interesting public opinion poll from England, 1938 regarding the matter
(So much for the wisdom of the people, eh?)
Splendid essay on Appeasement 1938
A bit of educational background and exercise regarding the matter
Interesting public opinion poll from England, 1938 regarding the matter
(So much for the wisdom of the people, eh?)
Splendid essay on Appeasement 1938
Free Republic collection of Sir Winston quotes regarding the travesty of Appeasement (and then some!) (Prepare to fall in love all over again!)
There's more to come, for we intend to "celebrate" this 70th anniversary of Appeasement the year through!
Cheers,
Charlie
Charlie
2 comments:
Just before New Year, and after several several years of drafts and debate, the UN General Assembly passed what is called the Resolution on Combating Defamation of Religions. The name sounds noble enough, and many of the articles contained herein also sound noble if not inocuous. The problem is, however, that it is only aimed at the defamation of one religion-Islam. There is no mention of any other religion being subject to persecution or defamation. There is also no mention of the true perpetrators of religious intolerance in the world today-radical Islam. As it is, it is just another example of the moral corruption epitomized by the United Nations.
I won't bother to reprint the entire document-rather, I will leave that to the reader to look it up. I will, however, list some of the paragraphs-those that single out the one religion that, according to the UN, is being subjected to defamation and persecution.
"The General Assembly,...."
* "Noting with deep concern the increasing trend in recent years of statements attacking religions, Islam and Muslims in particular, especially in human rights forums."
* "Notes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamtion of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001."
* "Expresses its deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism."
* "Deplores the use of print, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet and any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination against Islam or any other religion."
* "Alarmed at the continuing negative impact of the events of September 11, 2001 on Muslim minorities and communities in some non-Muslim countries and the negative projection of Islam in the media and the introduction and enforcement of laws that specifically discriminate against and target Muslims."
What is so striking about this resolution is that only one religion is singled out as being defamed/persecuted- Islam. There are only a couple of references to "the tragic events of September 11 2001-with no mention of who carried those events out and for what motive. There are only a couple of references to defamation of "any other religion".
Yet, nowhere is there a word about true acts of violence, murder and terror being carried out by Muslims in the name of Jihad virtually every day against non-Muslims.
Nor is there a word about the daily acts of violence, murder and terror being carried out by Muslims against other Muslims (e.g- Shia against Sunni and vice-versa).
Not a word about why 9-11 was carried out or by whom.
Not a word about the London bombings, who did it and why.
Not a word about the Madrid bombings-who did it or why.
Not a word about the bombing in Bali-who did it or why.
Not a word about Darfur.
Not a word about the beheadings of Daniel Pearl or Nick Berg as their killers shouted "Allahu Akbar".
Not a word about Saudi law that makes it illegal to openly practice any other religion in the Kingdom.
Not a word about the persecution of members of the Ba'hai faith in the Islamic Republic of Iran-persecution that includes murder.
Not a word about demonstrations by UK Muslims calling for the beheadings or slaughter those who defame Islam.
Not a word about the proclamations of Imams and their followers calling for the imposition of Islam and Shariah law in their adopted Western countries-and indeed, all over the world.
Not a word about Fatwas-orders for the killing of people in the west, like Salmon Rushdie for defaming Islam.
Not a word about the riots and killings carried out by Muslims in reaction to a bunch of silly Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed in a negative light.
Not a word about the rise of anti-Semitism (Jewish)fomented by western Muslims.
Not a word about the desecration of Jewish synagogues and cemeteries by Muslim immigrants in France.
Not a word about so-called "honor killings"-sometimes practiced in Muslim families in the West in contravention of law.
Not a word about forced female circumcision, also often practiced in Muslim enclaves in the West, in contravention of law.
Not a word about the stoning or hanging of women in places like Iran or Saudi Arabia-who were unfortunate enough to have been raped-thus becoming in the eyes of those societies, "impure".
Not a word about the Taliban executions of women in soccer stadiums for the crime of adultery.
Not a word.
Below are listed the countries on the UN Commission on Human Rights that authored this resolution, and how they voted.
Voting in favor:
Argentina
Bahrain
Bhutan
Brazil
Burkina Faso
China
Congo
Costa Rica
Cuba
Egypt
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gabon
Honduras
Indonesia
Mauritania
Nigeria
Pakistan
Paraguay
Qatar
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Sierra Leone
South Africa
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Togo
Uganda
Zimbabwe
Voting against:
Australia
Austria
Croatia
Domincan Republic
France
Germany
Guatemala
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Netherlands
Sweden
Ukraine
United Kingdom
USA
There are two ways to interpret the identification of the countries involved in this resolution. Some would interpret it (with a few exceptions) as white vs non-white or East vs West. I would interpret it(with few exceptions) as free vs non-free.
My point is three-fold: First, this is just another example of the moral rot in the UN-a corrupt organization made up mostly of corrupt, non-democratic nations, hostile to the West and hostile to true democracy.
Second: This is just another example of the UN's desire to accommodate Islam-a form of Djimmitud, if you will, that will only lead to the creeping authority of the Muslim world and the loss of our own hard-earned freedoms.
Third: Notice how much of the resolution's language is focused not just on laws and discriminatory practices, but words and thought, for example the press and Internet. Does the United Nations want its member countries to crack down on any criticism of Islam and its terroristic elements? Is any criticism of Islam to be outlawed? Ar we to have censureship?
I hope this resolution gets the widest publicity possible. Maybe someday, America will wake up to the fact that the United Nations is a failed experiment that no longer deserves the financial support or the membership of the US-or any other free and democratic nation.
gary fouse
fousesquawk
My Dear Mr. Fouse,
A profound, eloquent, and somewhat horrifying addition to our "70th Anniversary of Appeasement" celebration. Our thanks to you. This is very good work on your part and is to be shared far and wide.
Cheers,
Charlie
Post a Comment