In fact Boudicca/platform 13 is a fascinating fashion house
By Naomi Klein, The Nation
Ever since deregulation caused a worldwide economic meltdown in September 2009 and everyone became a Keynesian again, it hasn’t been easy to be a fanatical fan of the late economist Milton Friedman. So widely discredited is his brand of free-market fundamentalism that his followers have become increasingly desperate to claim ideological victories, however far-fetched.
A particularly distasteful case in point. Just two days after Chile was struck by a devastating earthquake, Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens informed his readers that Milton Friedman’s “spirit was surely hovering protectively over Chile” because, “thanks largely to him, the country has endured a tragedy that elsewhere would have been an apocalypse…. It’s not by chance that Chileans were living in houses of brick–and Haitians in houses of straw–when the wolf arrived to try to blow them down.”
According to Stephens, the radical free-market policies prescribed to Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet by Milton Friedman and his infamous “Chicago Boys” are the reason Chile is a prosperous nation with “some of the world’s strictest building codes.”
There is one rather large problem with this theory: Chile’s modern seismic building code, drafted to resist earthquakes, was adopted in 1972. That year is enormously significant because it was one year before Pinochet seized power in a bloody U.S-backed coup. That means that if one person deserves credit for the law, it is not Friedman, or Pinochet, but Salvador Allende, Chile’s democratically elected socialist President. (In truth many Chileans deserve credit, since the laws were a response to a history of quakes, and the first law was adopted in the 1930s).
It does seem significant, however, that the law was enacted even in the midst of a crippling economic embargo (”make the economy scream” Richard Nixon famously growled after Allende won the 1970 elections). The code was later updated in the nineties, well after Pinochet and the Chicago Boys were finally out of power and democracy was restored. Little wonder: As Paul Krugman points out, Friedman was ambivalent about building codes, seeing them as yet another infringement on capitalist freedom.
As for the argument that Friedmanite policies are the reason Chileans live in “houses of brick” instead of “straw,” it’s clear that Stephens knows nothing of pre-coup Chile. The Chile of the 1960s had the best health and education systems on the continent, as well as a vibrant industrial sector and rapidly expanding middle class. Chileans believed in their state, which is why they elected Allende to take the project even further.
After the coup and the death of Allende, Pinochet and his Chicago Boys did their best to dismantle Chile’s public sphere, auctioning off state enterprises and slashing financial and trade regulations. Enormous wealth was created in this period but at a terrible cost: by the early eighties, Pinochet’s Friedman-prescribed policies had caused rapid de-industrialization, a ten-fold increase in unemployment and an explosion of distinctly unstable shantytowns. They also led to a crisis of corruption and debt so severe that, in 1982, Pinochet was forced to fire his key Chicago Boy advisors and nationalize several of the large deregulated financial institutions. (Sound familiar?)
Fortunately, the Chicago Boys did not manage to undo everything Allende accomplished. The national copper company, Codelco, remained in state hands, pumping wealth into public coffers and preventing the Chicago Boys from tanking Chile’s economy completely. They also never got around to trashing Allende’s tough building code, an ideological oversight for which we should all be grateful.
Thanks to CEPR for tracking down the origins of Chile’s building code.
Naomi Klein is an award-winning journalist and syndicated columnist and the author of the international and New York Times bestseller The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (September 2007); an earlier international best-seller, No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies; and the collection Fences and Windows: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Globalization Debate (2002). Read more at Naomiklein.com.
Today’s breaking news comes from Pakistan:
KARACHI, Pakistan — The American-born spokesman for al-Qaida has been arrested by Pakistani intelligence officers in the southern city of Karachi, two officers and a government official said Sunday, the same day Adam Gadahn appeared in a video urging U.S. Muslims to attack their own country.
The arrest of Gadahn is a major victory in the U.S.-led battle against al-Qaida and will be taken as a sign that Pakistan, criticized in the past for being an untrustworthy ally, is cooperating more fully with Washington. It follows the recent detentions of several Afghan Taliban commanders in Karachi, including the movement’s No. 2 commander.
Gadahn has appeared in more than half a dozen al-Qaida videos, taunting and threatening the West and calling for its destruction. A U.S. court charged Gadahn with treason in 2006, making him the first American to face such a charge in more than 50 years.
He was arrested in the sprawling southern metropolis of Karachi in recent days, two officers who took part in the operation said. A senior government official also confirmed the arrest, but said it happened Sunday. The discrepancy could not immediately be resolved.
They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release the information.
The intelligence officials said Gadahn was being interrogated by Pakistani officials. Pakistani agents and those from the CIA work closely on some operations in Pakistan, but it was not clear if any Americans were involved in the operation or questioning.
In the past, Pakistan has handed over some al-Qaida suspects arrested on its soil to the United States.
Gadahn grew up on a goat farm in Riverside County, California, and converted to Islam at a mosque in nearby Orange County.
He moved to Pakistan in 1998, according to the FBI, and is said to have attended an al-Qaida training camp six years later, serving as a translator and consultant. He has been wanted by the FBI since 2004, and there is a $1 million reward for information leading to his arrest or conviction.
The treason charge carries the death penalty if he is convicted. He was also charged with two counts of providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization.
The 31-year-old is known by various aliases including Yahya Majadin Adams and Azzam al-Amriki.
His most recent video was posted Sunday, praising the U.S. Army major charged with killing 13 people in Fort Hood, Texas, as a role model for other Muslims. The video released Sunday appeared to have been made after the end of the year, but it was unclear exactly when.
“You shouldn’t make the mistake of thinking that military bases are the only high-value targets in America and the West. On the contrary, there are countless other strategic places, institutions and installations which, by striking, the Muslim can do major damage,” Gadahn said, an assault rifle leaning up against a wall next to him.
Pakistan joined the U.S. fight against Islamist extremists following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and several high-ranking al-Qaida and Taliban have been arrested. But critics have accused the country of not fully cracking down on militants, especially those who do not stage attacks in Pakistan, all the time while receiving billions of dollars in U.S. aid.
Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding somewhere in the country, most likely close to the Afghan border.
Al-Qaida has used Gadahn as its chief English-speaking spokesman. In one video, he ceremoniously tore up his American passport. In another, he admitted his grandfather was Jewish, ridiculing him for his beliefs and calling for Palestinians to continue fighting Israel.
Dawud Walid, the executive director of the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Southfield, Mich., condemned Gadahn’s call for violence, calling it a “desperate” attempt by Al-Qaida’s spokesman to provoke bloodshed within the U.S.
Walid, a Navy veteran, said Muslims have honorably served in the American military will be unimpressed by al-Qaida’s message aimed at their ranks.
“We thoroughly repudiate and condemn his statement and what we believe are his failed attempts to incite loyal American Muslims in the military,” he said.
Imad Hamad, the senior national adviser for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, based in Dearborn, Mich., condemned al-Qaida’s message and said it would have no impact on American Muslims.
“This a worthless rhetoric that is not going to have any effect on people’s and minds and hearts,” he said.
The last person in the U.S. convicted of treason was Tomoya Kawakita, a Japanese-American sentenced to death in 1952 for tormenting American prisoners of war during World War II. President Eisenhower later commuted his sentence to life imprisonment.
Gadahn was last known to be in Southern California in 1997 or 1998. His mother last spoke to him by phone in March 2001. At the time he was in Pakistan, working at a newspaper, and his wife was expecting a child.
Appearing in 2006, in a 48-minute video along with al-Qaida’s No. 2 leader, Ayman al-Zawahri, Gadahn called on his countrymen to convert to Islam and for U.S. soldiers to switch sides in the Iraq and Afghan wars.
The Beagle project is a Dutch initiative of the VPRO (Dutch radio & television organization) and a remake of the Beagle’s survey with Charles Darwin on the sailing clipper “Beagle” with a international crew and scientific team. Descendants from Charles Darwin (also being scientists) are on board. The ship is the Dutch clipper “Stad Amsterdam”.
The program is in the Dutch language, but the language spoken in the reports and on board is English.
on top from left to right:
bottom clocks from left to right:
On this issue I give some quotes from Wikipedia:
By mid-March [1837], Darwin was speculating in his Red Notebook on the possibility that “one species does change into another” to explain the geographical distribution of living species such as the rheas, and extinct ones such as the strange Macrauchenia which resembled a giant guanaco. His thoughts on lifespan, asexual reproduction and sexual reproduction developed in his “B” notebook around mid-July on to variation in offspring “to adapt & alter the race to changing world” explaining the Galápagos tortoises, mockingbirds and rheas. He sketched branching descent, then a genealogical branching of a single evolutionary tree, in which “It is absurd to talk of one animal being higher than another”, discarding Lamarck’s independent lineages progressing to higher forms.
…
In January 1842 Darwin sent a tentative description of his ideas in a letter to Lyell, who was then touring America. Lyell, dismayed that his erstwhile ally had become a Transmutationist, noted that Darwin “denies seeing a beginning to each crop of species”.
Darwin’s book The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs on his theory of atoll formation was published in May after more than three years of work, with Part 4: Fish of Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle also going to print. Illness was a continuing problem, and he and Emma left London on 18 May, visiting her parents at Maer Hall before moving on to Shrewsbury on 15 June for rest and quiet. Now Darwin “first allowed myself the satisfaction of writing a very brief abstract of my theory in pencil in 35 pages”, the ‘”Pencil Sketch”‘ of his theory. This discussed farmers breeding animals, gave the analogy of overpopulation and competition leading to “Natural Selection” through the “war of nature” and the mechanism of descent. Every living thing was related in a branching pedigree, not ascending a Lamarckian ladder, and this pedigree was the proper basis for classification. He thought it “derogatory” to argue that God had made every kind of parasite and worm on an individual whim. Already, a rough form of the phrasing and ideas which he went on to publish 17 years later in the closing paragraph of On the Origin of Species can be seen in his conclusion in this first draft:
From death, famine, rapine, and the concealed war of nature we can see that the highest good, which we can conceive, the creation of the higher animals has directly come. Doubtless it at first transcends our humble powers, to conceive laws capable of creating individual organisms, each characterised by the most exquisite workmanship and widely-extended adaptations. It accords better with [our modesty] the lowness of our faculties to suppose each must require the fiat of a creator, but in the same proportion the existence of such laws should exalt our notion of the power of the omniscient Creator. There is a simple grandeur in the view of life with its powers of growth, assimilation and reproduction, being originally breathed into matter under one or a few forms, and that whilst this our planet has gone circling on according to fixed laws, and land and water, in a cycle of change, have gone on replacing each other, that from so simple an origin, through the process of gradual selection of infinitesimal changes, endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been evolved.
…
The Great Exhibition heralded the success of free trade and modern science in improving prosperity. There was a new appetite for liberal, progressive reforms. An alliance of thinkers began recasting nature as a competitive market-place. The Westminster Review recently acquired by John Chapman became their focus, and an early article by Herbert Spencer set out a Malthusian view that people who multiply beyond their means take “the high road to extinction”, while “the select of their generation” remained to ensure progress. Spencer became a close friend and ally of Thomas Huxley, an ambitious naturalist who had returned from a long survey trip but lacked the family wealth or contacts to find a career. Huxley had sent papers to Darwin which began a correspondence, and Darwin sent him a copy of the first volume of Barnacles when it was printed. Huxley called it an exemplary work, all the more remarkable for coming from a distinguished geologist rather than an anatomist.
In recognition of his work on South American geology, invertebrate research and particularly his work on Barnacles, Darwin was awarded the Royal Medal of the Royal Society and received it at their meeting on 30 November 1853. The excitement brought back illness and he resumed the water treatment. This time it was successful and his health improved. He finished the second volume of Barnacles, completing almost eight years of work which had made him the world’s foremost authority on the subject.
In the spring of 1854 he joined the Royal Society’s Philosophical Club. To his surprise his stomach was not troubled and he greatly enjoyed visiting London regularly and meeting with the new generation of scientists, in particular John Tyndall, Hooker and Huxley. Darwin supported them in gaining gold medals from the Society, saying that they would become “scientific giants” and he thought it only right that they should get the accolades to spur them on. Tyndall had taken the chair of natural philosophy at the Royal Institution in 1853 and was now helping Huxley run the science section of The Westminster Review. Huxley began teaching at the Royal School of Mines in November, then “sick of the dilettante middle class” began his famous working men’s lectures a year later, and Hooker became ensconced at Kew Gardens.
Biology was becoming liberalised, even among some churchmen. The Reverend Baden Powell, a mathematics professor at the University of Oxford, applied the theological argument that God is a lawgiver, miracles break the lawful edicts issued at Creation, therefore belief in miracles is atheistic.
By September 1854 his second volume of Barnacles had been printed and dispatched, and he turned his attention to Species, telling his cousin William Darwin Fox that he planned to “view all facts that I can master..to see how far they favour or are opposed to the notion that wild species are mutable or immutable”. All available information was examined for “hostile facts” and discussed with Hooker, who had resisted what he called Darwin’s “Elastic theory” but who was now developing an “utter disbelief of my own Genera and species”.
In the Spring of 1855, as the Crimean war developed, Darwin was pondering the war of nature, taking the then current analogy with an industrial economy further than others, and wondering how species spread. He was dismissive of the ideas that others had put forward of sunken continents like Atlantis, and began experimenting in his house with soaking seeds in brine then seeing if they could germinate. He reported his results in Gardeners’ Chronicle and roped in his curate friends including Henslow. The consul in Norway sent seed pods which had washed ashore. Hooker was able to identify them as coming from the Caribbean and get them to germinate at Kew. Investigation of variation brought him back to animal husbandry. He now began dissecting domestic animals and breeding pigeons, joining a pigeon fancier’s club: very unorthodox behaviour for naturalists at that time.
Huxley had obtained a position and his friends had been having an impact on the establishment. In particular Huxley had strongly dismissed the transmutationist thesis of Chambers’ Vestiges. He also argued vociferously against the dominant Owen who had demonstrated fossil evidence of an evolutionary sequence of horses as supporting his idea of development from archetypes in “ordained continuous becoming”, and who had in 1854 given a British Association talk on the impossibility of bestial apes such as the recently discovered gorilla standing erect and being transmuted into men. Darwin tried at a gathering at Downe on 22 April 1856 to amiably argue Huxley and Hooker round towards accepting evolution as a process, without going into the mechanism.
Darwin intended to write human beings into Natural Selection through mid-1857. But his work required a tremendous amount of evidence and facts. He left humans out in part because “mutiny in India” had stopped his correspondence with Edward Blyth in Calcutta. Had he included sexual selection, at that time it would have been only the male competition element and not female choice.
It was at this stage that Alfred Russel Wallace became involved and Darwin’s work took on a new urgency. While Darwin continued to amass knowledge and carry out experiments, he now became committed to publication.
…
In the spring of 1856 Lyell was shaken by a paper on the “introduction” of species published in Annals and Magazine of Natural History written by Alfred Russel Wallace, a naturalist working in Borneo. This started Lyell rethinking his opposition to evolution, and he tipped off Darwin who appears to have taken little notice of Wallace’s guarded comments at this point. Darwin was now working out a strategy for presenting his theory, and he finally spelt out the full details of Natural Selection to Lyell. While Lyell could not fully accept this, he urged Darwin to publish to establish priority. Darwin was now torn between the desire to set out a full and convincing account, and the pressure to quickly produce a short paper. He ruled out exposing himself to an editor or counsel, as would have been required to publish in an academic journal. On 14 May 1856 he began a “sketch” account.
By July Darwin had decided to produce a full technical treatise on species. Lyell seemed to be coming round to Darwin’s ideas, but in private was agonising over the social implications if humans had animal ancestry, particularly now that race was becoming an issue, with Robert Knox describing races as different species and warning of racial wars. Hooker’s verdict on the growing manuscript was “incomparably more favourable” than Darwin had anticipated, while Darwin tried to put over the point that “external conditions do extremely little”, it was the selection of “chance” variations that produced new species.
Darwin’s experiments on how species spread were now extended to considering how animals such as snails could be carried on birds’ feet, and seeds in birds’ droppings. His tenth child, Charles Waring Darwin was born on 6 December apparently without his full share of intelligence, renewing fears of inbreeding and hereditary defects, a topic that he covered in principle in his book.
On 23 February 1857 the Darwins were visited for lunch by Robert FitzRoy, who had been the captain of HMS Beagle during Darwin’s voyage, together with his second wife, his first wife and his only daughter having died.
Darwin’s cousin William Darwin Fox remained a mainstay, warning him against overworking on his huge book and recommending a holiday, but Darwin was immersed in his experiments and his writing. “I wish I could set less value on the bauble fame, either present or posthumous… yet, if I know myself, I would work just as hard, though with less gusto, if I knew that my Book would be published for ever anonymously.”
Alfred Tennyson wrote his great poem “In Memoriam A.H.H.” which introduced the phrase “Nature, red in tooth and claw”, and Darwin worked on The Struggle for Existence. A discussion with Thomas Huxley on how jellyfish might cross-fertilise got the witty response that “the indecency of the process is to a certain extent in favour of its probability”. Darwin passed Huxley’s remark on to Hooker with the comment, “What a book a Devil’s chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low & horridly cruel works of nature!”, apparently a reference to the nickname given to the Radical Revd. Robert Taylor who had visited Cambridge on an “infidel home missionary tour” when Darwin was a student there (though the term goes back to Chaucer’s Parson’s Tale). Working class militants were seizing on the popularity of gorillas (which were now appearing in travelling menageries) to trumpet man’s monkey origins. To crush these ideas, Richard Owen as President-elect of the Royal Association announced his authoritative anatomical studies of primate brains showing that humans were not just a separate species, but a separate sub-class. In July1857, Darwin commented to Hooker, “Owen’s is a grand Paper; but I cannot swallow Man making a division as distinct from a Chimpanzee, as an ornithorhynchus from a Horse: I wonder what a Chimpanzee wd. say to this?”.
Darwin pressed on, overworking, until in March 1857 illness began cutting his working day “ridiculously short”. He took a fortnight’s water treatment at the nearby Moor Park spa run by Dr. Edward Lane, and this revived him. Wallace had contacted Darwin earlier and was now working for him, sending domestic fowl specimens from Indonesia. Darwin wrote to Wallace from the spa “I can see that we have thought much alike & to a certain extent have come to similar conclusions…This summer will make the 20th year (!) since I opened my first note-book, on what way do species & varieties differ from each other…I am now preparing my work for publication…do not suppose I shall go to press for two years…I have slowly adopted a distinct & tangible idea,– whether true or false others must judge”. On his return a cold and social pressure set back the recovery. He had to return to the spa, finishing “variation” in July and posting pages to Huxley for checking.
Others helped with providing information, including Asa Gray on American plants. Darwin wrote to Gray saying that he had “come to the heterodox conclusion that there are no such things as independently created species – that species are only strongly defined varieties. I know that this will make you despise me”. An intrigued Gray admitted to his own belief that there was some law or power inherent in plants making varieties appear, and asked if Darwin was finding this law. Realising that Gray had not grasped what he was suggesting, Darwin sent him a letter on 5 September 1857 giving a brief but detailed account of his views. He included a copy made by the schoolmaster of his draft book which he had named Natural Selection. Gray responded, warning against personifying natural selection which simply described ways of winning life’s race rather than being “nature’s guiding hand”. Darwin asked Gray to maintain secrecy. The young guard of naturalists were now putting the “mode of creation” openly on the agenda, even in addresses to the Geological Society, but Darwin wanted his case to be fully prepared.
Joseph Dalton Hooker, John Tyndall and Thomas Huxley now formed a group of young naturalists holding Darwin in high regard, basing themselves in the Linnean Society of London which had just moved to Burlington House, Piccadilly, London, near the Royal Society. Huxley had not yet understood natural selection despite Darwin’s hints about pedigree and genealogical trees. Huxley’s attention was focused on defeating the dominant orthodoxy of the arrogant Owen.
Darwin’s attention turned from pigeons to seedlings, experimenting with subjecting plants to conditions which might produce variation. His family helped with this and with tracking bees, experimenting (unsuccessfully) to try to find out what would influence their flight path.
His wife Emma Darwin was now known throughout the parish for helping in the way a parson’s wife might be expected to, and as well as providing nursing care for her own family’s frequent illnesses she gave out bread tokens to the hungry and “small pensions for the old, dainties for the ailing, and medical comforts and simple medicine” based on Dr. Robert Darwin’s old prescription book. Charles Darwin also took on local duties, increasing his social standing by becoming a Justice of the Peace and a magistrate. To accommodate the needs of his large family and accommodate visiting cousins further house extensions got under way. In November he escaped the worries for a week’s recuperation at Dr Lane’s Moor Park spa.
Darwin planned through mid-1857 to write the descent of human beings in Chapter 6 of Natural Selection. Had he included sexual selection which he first described in 1856, he would have omitted female choice which he developed later, and would have instead concentrated on male competition. As Darwin pressed on with his Natural Selection manuscript in December 1857, Wallace wrote to ask if it would delve into human origins. Sensitive to Lyell’s fears on this, Darwin responded that “I think I shall avoid the whole subject, as so surrounded with prejudices, though I fully admit that it is the highest & most interesting problem for the naturalist”. He encouraged Wallace’s theorising, saying “without speculation there is no good & original observation”, adding that “I go much further than you”.
Huxley used his March 1858 Royal Institution lecture to claim that structurally gorillas are as close to humans as they are to baboons. He added “Nay more I believe that the mental & moral faculties are essentially & fundamentally the same kind in animals & ourselves”. This was a clear challenge to Owen’s lecture claiming human uniqueness, given at the same venue. In a subsequent lecture Huxley stated that if there was a solution to the problem of species, it “must come from the side of indefinite modifiability”, an indication that he was moving towards Darwin’s position. In June he used his lecture at the Royal Society to attack Owen’s “etherial archetype”. Having gained a foothold in science with the aid of the Westminster Review group led by John Chapman and Herbert Spencer, Huxley was out to dislodge the domination of science by wealthy clergymen– led by Owen– instead wanting to create a professional salaried scientific civil service. To Spencer, animal species had developed by “adaptions upon adaptions”. Huxley was using arguments on origins to split science from theology, arguing that “it is as respectable to be modified monkey as modified dirt”.
Darwin was throwing himself into his work and his book on Natural Selection was well under way, when on 18 June 1858 he received a parcel from Wallace. It enclosed about twenty pages describing an evolutionary mechanism, an unexpected response to Darwin’s recent encouragement, with a request to send it on to Lyell. That day, Darwin wrote to Lyell:
Some year or so ago you recommended me to read a paper by Wallace in the ‘Annals,’ which had interested you, and, as I was writing to him, I knew this would please him much, so I told him. He has to-day sent me the enclosed, and asked me to forward it to you. It seems to me well worth reading. Your words have come true with a vengeance–that I should be forestalled. You said this, when I explained to you here very briefly my views of ‘Natural Selection’ depending on the struggle for existence. I never saw a more striking coincidence; if Wallace had my MS. sketch written out in 1842, he could not have made a better short abstract! Even his terms now stand as heads of my chapters. Please return me the MS., which he does not say he wishes me to publish, but I shall, of course, at once write and offer to send to any journal. So all my originality, whatever it may amount to, will be smashed, though my book, if it will ever have any value, will not be deteriorated; as all the labour consists in the application of the theory.
I hope you will approve of Wallace’s sketch, that I may tell him what you say.
There were differences, though these were not evident to Darwin on reading the paper. Wallace’s idea of selection was the environment eliminating the unfit rather than cut-throat competition among individuals, and he took an egalitarian view of the Dayak natives he was among, while Darwin had seen the Fuegians as backwards savages, albeit capable of improvement.
It had come at a bad time, as his favourite retreat at Moor Spa was threatened by Dr Lane being put on trial accused of adultery, and five days later Darwin’s baby Charles Waring came down with scarlet fever. Darwin’s first impression had been that though it meant losing priority, it would be dishonourable for him to be “induced to publish from privately knowing that Wallace is in the field”, but Lyell quickly responded strongly urging him to reconsider. Darwin’s reply of 25 June was a plea for advice, noting that the points in Wallace’s sketch had been fully covered in his own Essay of 1844 which Hooker had read in 1847, and that he had also set out his ideas in a letter to Asa Gray in 1857, “so that I could most truly say and prove that I take nothing from Wallace. I should be extremely glad now to publish a sketch of my general views in about a dozen pages or so. But I cannot persuade myself that I can do so honourably… I would far rather burn my whole book than that he or any man should think that I had behaved in a paltry spirit”. He added a request that Hooker be informed to give a second opinion.
Darwin was overwrought when baby Charles Waring Darwin died on 28 June, and the next day acknowledged Hooker’s letters saying “I cannot think now on the subject, but soon will.” That night he read the letters, and to meet Hooker’s request, though “quite prostrated”, got his servant to deliver Wallace’s essay, the letter to Asa Gray and “my sketch of 1844 solely that you may see by your own handwriting that you did read it”. He left matters in the hands of Lyell and Hooker, writing “Do not waste much time. It is miserable in me to care at all about priority.”
Lyell and Hooker agreed on a joint paper to be presented at the Linnean Society – Lyell, Hooker and Darwin were all fellows of the society and council members, and Hooker had been closely involved in reviving the fortunes of the society and running its journal. Other venues were either inappropriate, or in the case of the Zoological Society of London, potentially hostile under the leadership of Richard Owen. It was now time for the summer break but, as they knew, its meeting had been postponed due to the death of former president Robert Brown on 10 June 1858, and the Council had arranged an extra meeting on 1 July.
At the last minute, late in the evening of 30 June, Lyell and Hooker forwarded the Wallace and Darwin papers to the Secretary John Joseph Bennett, to be read at the meeting the next day. Mrs. Hooker had spent the afternoon copying out extracts from the handwritten documents Darwin had sent with his letter of the previous night, presumably chosen by Hooker to suit the verbal presentation, and Lyell and Hooker wrote a short introductory letter. The papers entitled respectively On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection, incorporated Wallace’s pages; and extracts from Darwin’s 1844 Essay and his 1857 letter to Gray. At the meeting the Secretary read the papers out, before going on to six other papers, and there was no discussion of them at the end of the meeting, perhaps because of the amount of business that had been dealt with including an obituary notice for Robert Brown given by Lyell, or possibly due to reluctance to speak out against a theory supported by the eminent Lyell and Hooker. Thomas Bell, who had written up the description of Darwin’s reptile specimens from the Beagle expedition, presided over the meeting. He apparently disapproved, and in his annual presidential report presented in May 1859 wrote that “The year which has passed has not, indeed, been marked by any of those striking discoveries which at once revolutionize, so to speak, the department of science on which they bear”. However, the Vice-President promptly removed all references to immutability from his own paper which was awaiting publication.
As might be expected, the joint paper alerted those subscribers who met the argument for the first time in print, and whose minds were prepared by prior struggles with the species question. Alfred Newton, who held the chair in Zoology and Comparative Anatomy at Cambridge from 1866 to 1907, wrote this: “I sat up late that night to read it [the Linnean Society paper]; and never shall I forget the impression it made upon me. Herein was contained a perfectly simple solution of all the difficulties which had been troubling me for months past. I hardly know whether I at first felt more vexed at the solution not having occurred to me than pleased that it had been found at all” (he was not alone in that thought!—see T.H. Huxley). Newton remained a Darwinian for the rest of his life. (Wollaston 1921 p112; see also Newton 1888)
While the meeting took place, Darwin was attending his son’s funeral. His family moved to his sister-in-law’s in Sussex to escape the fever, which eventually killed six children in the village of Downe. It had been a frightening and miserable fortnight, but he was “more than satisfied” with the outcome of the meeting. He then took his children to the seaside at the Isle of Wight and pushed ahead with an “abstract” of Natural Selection which again began growing to book size. He returned to the Moor Park spa with stomach ailments.
Wallace’s reaction, delivered in January 1859, was that he was gratified to have spurred Darwin into making the announcement and that it would have caused him “much pain & regret” if his papers had been published on their own, without Darwin’s papers. Darwin was still sensitive on the point, and assured Wallace that he “had absolutely nothing whatever to do with leading Lyell and Hooker to what they thought was a fair course of action”. He responded to Wallace’s enquiry about what Lyell thought of the theory by saying that “I think he is somewhat staggered, but does not give in and speaks with horror [of] what a job it would be for the next edition of “The Principles” [of Geology] if he were “perverted”. But he is most candid and honest, and I think he will end up by being “perverted”.” Lyell was still struggling to come to terms with the idea of mankind, with immortal soul, originating from animals, but “Considering his age, his former views and position in society, I think his conduct has been heroic on the subject.”
Darwin was now working hard on an “abstract” trimmed from his Natural Selection, writing much of it from memory. The chapters were sent to Hooker for correcting as they were completed, which led to a minor disaster when a large bundle was put by accident into the drawer Hooker’s wife used to keep paper for the children to draw on. Lyell made arrangements with the publisher John Murray, who had brought out the second edition of The Voyage of the Beagle. Darwin fretted, asking “Does he know all the subject of the book?”, and saying that to avoid being more “un-orthodox than the subject makes inevitable” he did not discuss the origin of man, or bring in any discussion about Genesis. Unusually, Murray agreed to publish the manuscript sight unseen, and to pay Darwin two-thirds of the net proceeds. He anticipated printing 500 copies.
Darwin had decided to call his book An Abstract of an Essay on the Origin of Species and Varieties through Natural Selection, but with Murray’s persuasion it was eventually reduced to the snappier On the Origin of Species through Natural Selection. The full title reads On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, with races referring to varieties of domestic and wild organisms and not to human groups.
By the end of May, Darwin’s health had failed again, but after a week’s hydrotherapy he was able to start correcting the proofs. He struggled on despite rarely being able to write free of stomach pains for more than twenty minutes at a stretch, and made drastic revisions which left Murray with a huge £72 bill for corrections. Murray upped the print run to 1,250 copies, with a publication date in November. A copy was sent to Lyell, with a “foolishly anxious” Darwin hoping that he would “come round”. An eager Lyell gave Darwin “very great kudos“, though he was still concerned that “the dignity of man is at stake”. One of Lyell’s relatives commented that it was “sure to be very curious and important… however mortifying it may be to think that our remote ancestors were jelly fishes”. Darwin was “sorry to say that I have no ‘consolatory view’ on the dignity of man. I am content that man will probably advance, and care not much whether we are looked at as mere savages in a remotely distant future.”
On 1 October Darwin finished the proofs, suffering from fits of vomiting. He then went off for a two month stay at Ilkley Wells House, a spa in the town of Ilkley. He was joined by his family for a time of “frozen misery” in the unusually early winter. Darwin wrote “I have been very bad lately, having had an awful ‘crisis’ one leg swelled like elephantiasis – eyes almost closed up – covered with a rash & fiery Boils; but they tell me it will surely do me much good – it was like living in Hell.” On 2 November he was pleased to receive from Murray a specimen copy bound in royal green cloth, price fifteen shillings. Nine days later, still at the spa, he wrote notes to go with the complimentary copies, disarmingly anticipating their reactions: to Asa Gray “there are very many serious difficulties”, to the Revd. John Stevens Henslow “I fear you will not approve of your pupil”, to Louis Agassiz “[not sent in] a spirit of defiance or bravado” and to Richard Owen “it will seem ‘an abomination’.”, amongst others. For Wallace’s copy he wrote “God knows what the public will think”.
On the Origin of Species was first published on 24 November 1859, priced at fifteen shillings. The book had been offered to booksellers at Murray’s autumn sale on 22 November, and all available copies had been taken up immediately. In total, 1,250 copies were printed but after deducting presentation and review copies, and five for Stationers’ Hall copyright, around 1,170 copies were available for sale. By then the novelist Charles Kingsley, a Christian socialist country rector, had sent Darwin a letter of praise having been given a review copy: “It awes me…if you be right I must give up much that I have believed”, it was “just as noble a conception of Deity, to believe that He created primal forms capable of self development…as to believe that He required a fresh act of intervention to supply the lacunas which He Himself had made.” In the second edition Darwin added these lines to the last chapter, with attribution to “a celebrated author and divine”.
(Transcript provided by Alex Wickersham)
Cenk: Now joining us, Michael Moore, director of ‘Capitalism: A Love Story’, and a couple of other ones you might remember, ‘Sicko’, ‘Fahrenheit 911′,’ Bowling for Columbine’, ‘Roger and Me’–just to name a few. Michael, welcome to The Young Turks.
Michael: Thank you. Don’t forget Blue Hawaii, too, with Elvis.
Cenk: All right, so the DVD is coming out for ‘Capitalism’ soon. My question is– you know I saw the movie–obviously, we agree on a lot of things, including the huge flaws in the system as it currently exists, but do you think that capitalism is fundamentally flawed, and we need to change it entirely? If so, to what?
Michael: Yes, I do believe it’s fundamentally flawed, because I don’t think that in the 21st century the big decisions that need to be made should be based on profit. They should be based on what we need as a society and what the world needs. And when I say that, I don’t mean that I don’t think people should be able to earn money or do well or work hard or have a great idea or whatever. That’s not what I’m talking about.
The kind of capitalism that we have now is a three-card Monte game. And it’s rigged–it’s rigged against the working person, and I just think that until we decide that we have to get away from that and into a more democratic economy–in other words, economic decisions that are made by our elected representatives as opposed to Wall Street, the banks, the Fed, etc., etc.
Cenk: But how do we do it? How do we do it? How do we switch to that system?
Michael: Well, no switch will occur until we remove money from politics. We would have to start a movement where people will be running for Congress and for Senate and signing a pledge that states that they will not accept in their first run for election more than $25 or $50 from a person. And after that, when they get in there, their number one priority is to remove funding of our elections from individuals who have the most money, and have it be federally funded like it is in most democracies.
Cenk: So you think that campaign finance reform is the critical part of this.
Michael: Cenk, there’s nothing else will happen. Look at right now. Here we are guys, we’re a year and a half away from the crash. A year and a half since the big crash. Not one single regulation has been put back in place. Not one rule. And for Wall Street, they’re back to doing the crazy derivatives. They’re back to the credit default swaps. They’re back to all the crazy loony bin casino stuff that got us in the mess that we’re in. And the Congress has not done one single thing to stop it.
Cenk: You know in the movie you talk about Chris Dodd, and of course he’s the head of the Finance Committee. And now he’s retiring. But that might be a worse thing, Michael, because now’s he’s got a payday coming just a couple of months from now. That’s going to give him a lot of incentive to not to be so tough on the banks, isn’t it?
Michael: Well, yeah, I guess that’s one way to look at it. But, a boy can hope.
Cenk: Because part of the problem is the implicit bribe that these guys are getting. The Treasury official just left yesterday, Damon Munchus, I believe is his name. And he’s got a great lobbying gig now with the Cypress Advisory Group. So it’s not just the campaign money they take, it’s not just their advisors that leave, but themselves–they leave at some point and they get huge money. So how do we ever fix a system that’s broken, especially given that it appears that Obama has no intention of doing so?
Michael: Well, you want the honest answer?
Cenk: Yes, definitely.
Michael: It’s not going to get fixed. There’s going to be another crash. The commercial real estate bubble hasn’t burst yet. That’s going to burst. The credit card debt is so huge right now, it will never be repaid. That’s a house of cards waiting to fall. So the crash of ‘08 is going to look like coming attractions. And we’re in for a much, much worse time. That’s how I honestly feel.
But you don’t want to hear that from me, do you? I mean, I’m only the guy who said that there weren’t going to be any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that we were being lied to. And I’m the guy who 20 years ago made his first film saying that General Motors was a piece of crap company that was going to slide down the hill and bring us all down with it. So don’t listen to me.
Cenk: Part of the problem, Michael, is if it does crash–and I have the same fear as you do–right–is that then what the right wing media is going to step in and say “Hey, listen, you know what, it was too much government, and it was too much regulation, and it was the progressives who were the cancer, etc., etc.”
Michael: Oooohhhh, I know I’m so afraid of the right wing saying that. Oooohhhh. Typical Democrats. That’s the way the Democrats think. Oooohhhh, ooohhh, they’re gonna say bad things about us. Oooohhhh, we better not do too much. Oooohhhh.
You know, I tell you, these Democrats are disgusting. Wimps and wusses and weasels. You know, get some spine. This is why I have to admire the Republicans. They at least stand for something. They at least have the courage of their convictions. They get elected to office, they come into town, and they go “Get outta my way, there’s a new sheriff in town. This is the way we’re doing things. Get outta here.” And then they do it. You know. I mean what they do is crazy. But dammit, they are good at it. We should take a page out of their book.
Cenk: I couldn’t agree more with that. So to finish that thought, if you were, for example, Van Jones, how would you have responded to Glenn Beck?
Michael: Fuck off! That’s what I would have said. But again, you mentioned Glenn Beck, and of course, he’s the guy that’s called for my removal from the planet Earth, so…
Cenk: So, it’s someone you’re familiar with, so apparently you had that refrain ready. All right, Michael Moore is the director of ‘Capitalism: A Love Story’, it’s coming out on DVD. Thank you so much for joining us on The Young Turks, we really appreciate it.
Michael: Hey, guys, thanks a lot. I love listening to you, on Sirius. Thanks.
Cenk: Thank you.
Yesterday the leading Dutch politician of the Party of Freedom, Geert Wilders, made it to get a landslide in his favor by the local elections. It is within the period of less than 100 days before the national parliamentary elections following the fall of the Cabinet-Balkenende IV in the end of February. Wilders is broadly supposed to be a very dangerous specimen of populism because of his controversial fights against the Islamic part of the population and their attributes. By now the Muslim part spans about 10% of the Dutch people. But the real danger isn’t in his attacks on a minority adolescent Muslims who expose bad behavior. It is his single sided view, avoiding the fact that Bible and Quran are equal in offensive language against homosexuals, women and dissenters. That’s nothing new, but the difference is that the mainstream of Jews and Christians have gone through the filter of secular humanistic Enlightenment. Many reasonable civilians do understand that, also knowing that most Muslims are full of willingness to assimilate with our cultural customs of freedom of speech and equal rights for everybody, but many are also isolated from the main civilian community. So, the problem is real, but Wilders is abusing the issue to hide his prime politics, the Falange agenda (according to the the Argentinian variant), to realize a corporatist state, which is very rare in the European context today, with the last proponent, Generalissimo Franco, leaving political stage several decades ago in Spain. He is denying the Argentinian economic collapse, preaching the ideals of the Falangists and a Dutch separation from the European Unions, even closing the borders and unilaterally withdrawing treaties, to become isolated from all influences from the neighboring countries. He presents himself as the lonely and only great problem solver. Since he admires Fox News and hates Obama, do I have to say more?
The contemporary Falangists like Wilders are highly infected by Neo-liberalism. In Argentina their unofficial mantra was “stabilize, privatize, and liberalize”. A number of labor market reforms were enacted, including the establishment of new regulations for public employment, the decentralization of social services, the deregulation of the private economy along with weakened labor laws, the partial privatization of the social security system, and the flexibilization of the labor market. Argentina’s foreign debt grew from US $57.6 billion in 1990 to US $144.5 billion in 2001. This debt accumulation, coupled with the immediate devaluation of the Argentine peso, led to hyperinflation, high unemployment, a large informal labor sector, an increase in poverty levels, and basic educational and health service cuts. A reduction in public salaries and numerous lay-offs stemming from privatization resulted in the loss of income of masses of workers, effectively creating a “new poor” among lower- to middle-class Argentines. Argentina’s economy became increasingly uncompetitive due to convertibility, while international debt continued to rise and government corruption became rampant, resulting in the flight of capital and heightened levels of anxiety among the public. This is what Wilders is hiding behind his exaggerating manhunt on Muslims, which is supposed to give him credibility to govern the country. Indeed the cultural inequalities are real and have to be managed and solved. But the PVV’s politics are a foreseeable disaster.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is a privilege and a great honor for me to speak at this fine academic institution, which gave the world so many Nobel Prize winners. As a Dutchman, I am proud that your first Nobel laureate, in 1906, was of Dutch descent: The youngest President of the United States: Theodore Roosevelt.
I thank Columbia University for inviting me, and I also thank the US border police for allowing me to enter this great country of democracy, liberty and free speech.
Ladies and gentlemen, today, the dearest of our many liberties is under attack all throughout Europe. Free speech is no longer a given. What we once considered a natural element of our existence, our birth right, is now something we once again have to fight for.
I would not qualify myself as a free man. 5 years ago I lost my personal freedom. Since then I am under 24-hour police protection. In addition some people tried to rob my freedom of speech: A Dutch Islamic organization tried to stop the appearance of my documentary ‘Fitna’. Because of ‘Fitna’ the most radical Dutch imam claimed 55.000 Euros in compensation for his hurt feelings. The State of Jordan is possibly going to issue a request for my extradition, to stand trial in Amman. I have been charged in France.
In my own country, the Netherlands, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal overruled the decision of the Dutch public prosecutor not to prosecute me. So, now I have to stand trial in my own country, next January.
But, it is not about me. I am not the only European who fights for freedom of speech, there are so many more: The Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard made a Muhammad-cartoon and all of a sudden we were in the middle of the so called ‘Danish cartoon crisis’. The Italian author Oriana Fallaci had to live in fear of extradition to Switzerland because of her book ‘The Rage and the Pride’. An Austrian politician, Susanne Winter, was sentenced to a suspended prison sentence because she spoke bluntly about the prophet Muhammad. The Dutch cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot was arrested by 10 police men because of his drawings. And the Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh was brutally murdered in the streets of Amsterdam by a radical Muslim.
Last February, I was invited by 2 brave members of the British House of Lords - Lord Malcom Pearson and Baroness Caroline Cox - to show ‘Fitna’ in the British Parliament. But upon my arrival at Heathrow airport I was denied entry into the UK, on grounds that I would threaten community harmony and therefore public security.
Of course that was a ridiculous and politically motivated claim by the UK government. I was allowed to show ‘Fitna’ and deliver a speech in the US Senate, in New York, in Florida, in California, in Copenhagen, in Rome, in Jerusalem and next month in the Senate of the Czech Republic. But the British government refused my entrance into the UK, a fellow EU-country. Well, I think it was a splendid American idea, back in the 18th century, to kick the British out.
Last week, my appeal against the refusal by the British government, took place in London; and I won. Freedom finally prevailed! A UK Court ruled that the decision of the British Home Secretary to ban me was unjust, illegal and a violation of freedom of speech. Fortunately the British judges are a lot wiser than the British government. So, last Friday I went to London and met with my friends Lord Pearson and Baroness Cox and we agreed to show ‘Fitna’ in the House of Lords, next March.
But let me tell you what also happened during our press conference. A Muslim mob demonstrated outside, shouting: “Shariah for the Netherlands”, “Enemy of Islam Geert Wilders deserves capital punishment”, “Freedom go to hell” and “Islam will dominate the world”. Welcome to Europe today!
You can see all this for yourself on YouTube. This is exactly what we are fighting against. And it gets even worse. A few days ago British newspaper The Daily Telegraph reported that an Islamic group indeed launched a campaign to impose shariah law in Britain, they will meet later this month in London for a procession to demand the full implementation of shariah law.
Before I want to speak about Islam, I first would like to say this: I have nothing against Muslims. There are many moderate Muslims. The majority of Muslims in our Western countries are law abiding people, who want to live a peaceful life. I know that. Therefore, I make a clear distinction between the people and the ideology, between Muslims and Islam.
What is happening in Europe should not come as a surprise. The reality is that where Islam roots, free speech dies. There is not a single Islamic country in het world where people are really totally free to say what they think. Ever since the so called prophet Muhammad ordered his men to kill the poet Asma bint Marwan, the brave woman who warned her people against this murderous cult, radical Muslims think they have a license to kill anyone, who dares to criticize Muhammad’s word or actions. Free speech is Islam’s enemy. Islam is a threat to the Europe of Socrates, Voltaire and Galileo.
As I said, there are many moderate Muslims. But there is no such thing as a moderate Islam. Islam’s heart lies in the Koran. The Koran is an evil book that calls for violence and murder - Sura 4, Verse 89 and Sura 47, Verse 4 -, terrorism - Sura 8, Verse 60 - and war - Sura 8, Verse 39. The Koran describes Jews as monkeys and pigs - Sura 2, Verse 65 / Sura 5, Verse 60 and Sura 7, Verse 166. It calls non-Muslims liars, miscreants, enemies, ignorant, unclean, wicked, evil, the worst of creatures and the vilest of animals.
The problem is that the provisions in the Koran are not restricted to time or place. Rather, they apply to all Muslims, from all times. Apart from the Koran, there is also the life of Muhammad, who fought in dozens of wars, who spread Islam with the sword, sold imprisoned women and children as slaves, who was in the habit of decapitating Jews and who married and consummated the young girl Aisha before she was ten years of age. The problem is that, to many `Muslims, Muhammad is ‘the perfect man’, whose life is the model to follow. But the facts show that the so called Prophet was not a perfect man but a murderer and a pedophile. And inspired by him jihadists with the promise of a carnal paradise slaughtered innocent people in Washington, New York, Madrid, London, Amsterdam, Bali and Mumbai.
Ladies and gentlemen, some time ago an interview was held in France with the French Muslim student Mohamed Sabaoui, who said the following, and I quote: “Your laws do not coincide with the Koran, Muslims can only be ruled by shariah law”, and “we will declare the town of Roubaix an independent Muslim enclave and impose shariah law upon all its citizens, and “we will be your Trojan Horse, we will rule, Allah Akbar”. End of quote.
Make no mistake: Islam has always attempted to conquer Europe. Spain fell in the 8th century. Constantinople fell in the 15th century. Vienna and Poland were threatened, and now, in the 21st century, Islam is trying again. This time not with military armies, but through migration and demography.
For the first time in world history there are dozens of millions of Muslims living outside the Dar al-Islam, the Islamic world. Europe now has more than 50 million Muslims. It is expected that one fifth of the population of the European Union will be Muslim within 40 years.
In 1974 no one took the Algerian President Boumédienne all too serious when he said to the UN general assembly: “One day millions of men will leave the southern hemisphere of this planet to burst into the northern one. But not as friends. Because they will burst in to conquer, and they will conquer by populating it with their children. Victory will come to us from the wombs of our women”. End of quote.
And Libyan dictator Gaddafi said: “There are tens of millions of Muslims in the European continent and the number is on the increase. This is the clear indication that the European continent will be converted to Islam. Europe will one day be a Muslim continent”. End of quote.
Indeed Gaddafi is telling the truth here, through the Islamic concept of migration - called Al Hijra - Europe is in the process of becoming Eurabia. In Europe churches are emptying out, whereas mosques are shooting up like mushrooms. Muhammad is the most popular name among boys in many European cities. Medieval phenomena as burkas, honor killings and female genital mutilation are becoming more and more prevalent.
In the UK, by now 85 shariah law courts are active, the same country where Islamic organizations asked to stop the commemoration of the Holocaust, and a minister is pleading to change the Red Cross logo, because it might offend Muslims. In Austria, history teachers avoid teaching on the Austrian wars against the Islamic invaders. In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire. In Norway, children are made to sing Islamic songs as “Allah Akbar” and “Little Muslim, do you pray?” In Belgium, a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims, because he was drinking during the Ramadan. Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of antisemitism since World War II.
The rise of Islam also means the rise of shariah law in our judicial systems. In Europe we have it all: Shariah testaments, shariah mortgages, shariah schools, shariah banks, as I said in the UK there are even 85 shariah courts. Islam regards shariah law to be above all man-made laws, including our constitutions. As you know, shariah law covers all areas of life, from religion, hygiene and dietary laws, to dress codes, family and social life and from finance and politics to the unity of Islam with the state. Shariah law does not recognize free speech and freedom of religion.
According to shariah law, killing apostates is a ‘virtue’, but the consumption of alcohol is a crime. The introduction of shariah law elements in our societies creates a system of legal apartheid. Shariah law systematically discriminates groups of people. I never understood why the leftish and liberal politicians are ignoring all this. Historically they were the ones fighting for the rights of women, gays, non-believers and others. All groups that would be the first to pay a high price if and when Islamic values would become dominant. Their silence is frightening. Now, I am fighting their fight. I fight to protect those groups. I fight against the Islamization of our societies and therefore for the protection of the rights of women, homosexuals, Christians, Jews, apostates, non-believers and kafirs: the non-Muslims. I want to protect these victims for shariah law. And we all should. If we ignore the problem it will not go away, if we don’t act now, shariah will be implemented more en more, slowly but gradually and that would mean the end of freedom of speech and democracy in Europe. This is what is at stake, nothing less than our freedom and democracy.
And please make no mistake: Islam is also coming for America. Last July, during a conference in Chicago, organised by Hizb-Ut-Tahrir, the international movement aiming to create an Islamic state under shariah law across the world, the American imam Jaleel Abdul Adil promised to fight “until Islam becomes victorious or we die in the attempt”. When asked: “Would you get rid of the United States Constitution for shariah?” he answered: “Yes, The Constitution would be gone”.
America is facing a ’stealth Jihad’, the Islamic’ attempt to introduce Shariah law bit by bit. Allow me to give you a few examples of Islamization in the United States: Muslim taxi drivers at Minneapolis airport refused over 5,000 passengers because they were carrying alcohol; Muslim students are demanding separate campus housing; Muslim women are demanding separate hours in gyms and swimming pools; schools are banning Halloween and Christmas celebrations - indeed, schools are taking pork off their cafeteria menus to avoid offending Muslim students. Ladies and gentlemen, be aware that this is only the beginning. If things continue like this, you will have the same problems as we are currently faced with in Europe.
It is my opinion that Islam is more an ideology than a religion. To be precise, Islam is a political, totalitarian ideology, with worldwide aspirations, just like communism and fascism, because like those ideologies Islam does not intend to assimilate in our societies but wants to dominate and submit us all. In Islam there is no room for anything but Islam. I think the great Winston Churchill was fully right when he, in his book The Second World War, called Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf the new Koran of faith and war.
But, ladies and gentlemen, Islam is not the only problem. There is a second problem, a problem that is called cultural relativism. Our entire Western elite, whether they are politicians, journalists or judges, has lost its way. Their sense of reality has vanished. Those cultural relativists believe that all cultures are equal. They think that the Islamic culture is equal to our culture which is based on Christianity, Judaism and Humanism. Our culture adheres to freedom, human rights and the equality between men and women and not to violence and hatred.
To the cultural relativists, I proudly say: Our Western culture is far better than the Islamic culture. And we should be proud of that and defend it. Unlike most countries where the Islamic culture is dominant, we have a rule of law, a democracy, a functioning parliament, freedom of speech and a constitution that protects us against the government.
It is clear that not everyone sees the danger. I quote a prominent American, who recently won a Nobel Prize: “Throughout history, Islam had demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance”, and “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism, it is an important part of promoting peace”, and “We celebrate a great religion, and its commitment to justice and progress”. End of quote. I strongly have to disagree with this assessment. Islam has nothing in common with tolerance or peace or justice!
President Obama also celebrated the fact that when the first Muslim-American was elected to Congress, he took the oath using the same Koran that one of the Founding Fathers - Thomas Jefferson - kept in his personal library. It is interesting to know that Thomas Jefferson in 1801 was about to wage war against the Islamic ‘Barbary’ states of Northern Africa to stop the pillaging of ships and enslavement of more than a million Christians.
The ambassador of these Muslim nations told Thomas Jefferson and John Adams that Muslims find the justification for their slaughter and enslavement of kafir in the Koran. Now I ask you, dear friends, could it be that Thomas Jefferson did not keep a copy of the Koran because he admired Islam but because he wanted to understand the ruthless nature of his enemies?
Ladies and gentlemen, I believe in democracy, I believe in the American people and the choices it makes, and normally, as a politician from Holland, I would never judge your President. But these remarks of President Obama, do not only affect America, but Europe too. I am afraid that President Obama’s remarks could be a turning point in history. I fear that serious geo political changes are looming, changes that will alter our foreign policies, our view on free speech, changes that will alter the West, our way of life, and for the worse and not for the better.
In a matter of fact, it is already happening right now. Recently the United States joined Egypt in sponsoring an anti-free speech resolution in the UN Human Rights Council. You know that council that itself is an insult to human rights since the worst human rights offenders of the world like Cuba, Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan are members.
The Obama-administration and Europe supported a resolution to recognize exceptions to free speech to any negative religious stereotyping. This appeasement of the non-free Arab world is the beginning of the end. An erosion of free speech and your own First Amendment. This UN resolution is an absolute disgrace.
As Professor Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University yesterday so rightfully stated in the newspaper USA Today, and I quote: “Criticism of religion is the very measure of the guarantee of free speech - the literal sacred institution of society” - end of quote. That the weak leaders of my own continent Europe supported such a terrible resolution does not come as a surprise to me. But it’s a sad thing that for the first time in history, the American administration has taken a leading role against our right to free speech.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is one Western country that has been forced to fight the forces of jihad for its values since the very first day of its existence: Israel, the canary in the coal mine. Let me say a few words about that wonderful country.
I had the privilege of living in Israel. However, in Europe being pro-Israel makes you an endangered species. Israel is a beacon of light in an area - the Middle East - that is pitch black everywhere else. Israel is a Western democracy, while Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Egypt are medieval dictatorships.
The so-called ‘Middle East conflict’ is not about land at all. It is a conflict about ideologies; a battle between Islam and freedom. It is not about some land in Gaza or in Judea and Samaria. It is about Jihad. To Islam the whole of Israel is occupied territory. They see Tel Aviv and Haifa as settlements too.
I am very much in favor of a two-state solution. I mean Churchill’s 1921 two-state solution, when Palestine was partitioned in a Jewish and an Arab part. Arab Palestine is now called Jordan, and therefore, there is already a Palestinian state. With eighty percent of the population having roots on the other side of the Jordan, there is no doubt Jordan is truly the state of Palestine.
Islam forces Israel to fight, and Israel is not just fighting for itself. Israel is fighting for all of us, for the entire West. Just like those brave American soldiers who landed in Sicily in 1943 and stormed the Normandy beaches in 1944, young Israeli men and women are fighting for our freedom, our civilization.
Ladies and gentlemen, Europe ought to fully back Israel to the hilt in its relentless fight against those that threaten it, whether it is Hezbollah, Hamas or a nuclear Iran. Also, because of its history, Europe certainly has the moral obligation to prevent at all cost another Holocaust against the Jewish people. But most important of all: Israel is fighting the jihad that is meant for all of us. So we all should defend Israel. We all are Israel.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is good news also! Europe might slowly be awakening. More and more people are fed up with cultural relativism and politicians ignoring the negative effects of mass-immigration and the creeping Islamization of Europe.
During the European elections last June the worst cultural relativists, the socialists, lost nearly everywhere: In the Netherlands, in Belgium, in Germany, in Austria, in France, in Spain, in Italy and, perhaps best of all, in the UK.
But, my party, the Dutch Freedom Party was the winner in the recent elections for the European Parliament. Right now, in the polls, we even are number 1. If there would be elections in the Netherlands tomorrow, whether you like it or not, I could very well become the next Prime Minister of The Netherlands.
Ladies and gentlemen, time is running out, we need to act. As I already said, we need less Islam, and more freedom. We have to protect our most important right, our right to free speech. We have to protect our liberties. That is why I propose the following measures, measures to preserve our freedom:
In short, ladies and gentlemen, my main message of today is that we have to start fighting back. No defense, but offense. We have to fight back and demonstrate that millions of people are sick and tired of losing, of giving in, of appeasing. We must make clear that millions of freedom loving people are saying: enough is enough.
Ladies and gentlemen, I leave you with this: I will never give in nor give up. And we should never surrender nor compromise about freedom, the most important right we still have in our free western societies. We have to win, and I am confident: we will win!
Thank you very much.

Well, it will be business as usable. The Taliban entity is rooted in the people of the central and southern territories of the country and over the borders with Pakistan. You can’t win a war against the people, as the Vietnamese Liberation War has approved. By now Vietnam is country where American billionaires most likely invest, more likely than in their own USA.
Cooperation to solve common problems is a better way of life than war and destruction. Al Qaeda is not the same as the Taliban. The Taliban was never involved in any act of terrorism abroad. We have problems with the poppy culture and drugs-traffic and there are sufficient alternatives for the Afghanistan people. Let’s go that way. We have also problems with terrorists who experienced hospitality by the former Taliban-regime. They, those terrorists, are not the people, so, let’s catch or kill them all, without any kind of regime-change. Democracy is a self-help organization, not a product for export.
The Taliban-regime is not that strange for a Dutchman, because the same mentality has ruled in our country from the death of our founding father Johan van Oldenbarnevelt, the statesman who introduced for the first time freedom of religion and the separation of church and state, until the beginning of the 19th century en for some die hards still lingering during somewhat years after the Second World War. During those three-and-a-half dark centuries of dogmatic Calvinism and dogmatic Catholicism the Dutch people was far from free, neither adaptive nor tolerant. E.g. the Calvinistic church leader Gomarus actually was the Osama bin Laden of the 17th century, supporting all kinds of terrorism and piracy against catholics at home and catholic nations all over the world. But our newborn nation was a so-called superpower, despite the intellectual weakness resulting in a lack of diplomacy. The wealthiest with the poorest insight. That’s why Van Oldenbarnevelt was beheaded after a show-trial, because he was supporting local vigilante patrols and armed civilians like Rembrandt’s ‘Night Watch’ to protect fellow citizens against all acts violence. The Dutch democracy, according to Van Oldenbarnevelt and the other great international legislator, Hugo de Groot, was the first modern democracy in the world, but in practice it did not last very long. During a long time catholicism was forbidden, like moreover many other flavors of believing in a non-existing and nearly non-virtual god. Important free thinkers could publish their books in the Netherlands, but only in Latin. Americans will recognize this, because they stay stricken in that idea of the freedom of speak for the bright people, with high intellectual potential, because only the very (elitist) few does understand the language of more than 6000 English words. The all American dummies have their own idols in Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.
That makes me conclude that the real problem is much more in American politics than in Afghanistan politics, also and especial significant in the number of fatal casualties, multiple thousands of death civilian victims since 9/11. The result of Republican Health Care “Reform” is more than 45 thousands of American deaths per year in their homeland and Republican war-policy simple and easily add a thousand young American troopers more to pay for avoiding the risk that a handful of strangers, one day or another, will come with box cutters to defeat NORAD and the whole US-Air-force again and takeover all the power in the USA. To prevent that, Americans are not counting a multyfold of other human beings, women, children and elderly, all overseas of course and also without any, even not the most tiny sign of profit, neither for the own side nor the other’s, civilians without any involvement in the matters of war. It’s all abusing religion with the same principles and practices, but the names and back-numbers are different. It’s not about democracy. Democracy under the Patriot Act is no democracy ands democracy is not something for cowards who are startling angered to deadly shocked by the idea that a single terrorist will be prosecuted under civilian law on American soil, after reading his/her Miranda rights, but without letting him/her free, when he/she is been proven innocent.
The proven innocent is the most feared by the average American, because you have no rational opportunity to kill those individuals.
How far can you sink?
How stupid can you be, not as an ever sleeping marmot or as a blind slug or a coldblooded snake - apart of respected animalism - but as a human being?
Will we, the Dutch people, well learned by our own faults in history, support that stupid thinking?
Not now, not how, no way!
Remember, that the decision to leave Afghanistan already was fallen in the last months of 2007 and the majority in the parliament did not change that stand.
Yes, we like Obama far much better than Bush43, but that can’t mean that we we follow Obama-USA in the Bush43-style. No, it can’t and will not be that simple!
We will continue to go ahead, after we have managed some temporary minor ripples in our own governmental pool. First we have to vaporize a new extreme populist - almost Republican Tea-party-style movement - as I do expect, by giving them the proof of practice for some months, ruling our country (by now the polls are 50-50). They will surely fight and slime themselves out of credibility. That cabinet will fall fast and never regain influence. Thereafter you will hear again from Dutch real progressive politics on the international theater. Wait and shake. The power is in the proof of realism, not in ideology. It’s a dream that will drive us all, but at the end of the day only real results will be counted and the average voting people keeps the book.
Santiago The quake collapsed a number of bridges and damaged buildings, including the national Fine Arts Museum. Several hospitals have been evacuated, and at least 30 people were killed on Saturday. On Sunday, the subway was partially reopened and the main airport landed five flights, though there were no outbound flights. A Chilean television station reported that part of the airport’s ceiling had collapsed but that the runways appeared intact.
Rancagua Thirty-five dead, according to the governor of the region, most from the collapsing of their homes.
Talca All but two of the local hospital’s 13 wings were in ruins, and the Chilean Army is mounting a field hospital in the city. Many historic buildings were flattened, and almost every home in the city’s center was severely damaged. A majority of the 708 deaths known on Sunday were in the Maule region, which includes Talca and Constitución.
Constitución About 350 people were dead in the coastal town, which was also hit by a tsunami, according to state television. Houses have been destroyed, cars flipped and large fishing boats washed onto land.
Talcahuano Huge waves devastated this major port city, and left behind a large fishing boat on city streets more than a block inland.
Dichato Water moved nearly 2,000 feet on shore. At least four people drowned and four others died.
Concepción Thousands of residents in Chile’s second-largest metropolitan area camped out in tents or makeshift shelters. There were at least 64 people killed in the Bio-Bio region, which includes Concepción. A major bridge was destroyed and several buildings collapsed, including a newly opened apartment building, where at least 60 people were feared trapped. Sixty thousand were affected in the city. Tsunami waves hit nearby city of Talcahuano.
Juan Fernández islands Tsunami waves damaged official buildings, schools and houses. Five people were confirmed dead and 11 were missing. A Chilean Navy ship is headed to the archipelago with food and generators.