According to TNS Nipo (a marketing and statistical research firm), Geert Wilders and his Partij voor de Vrijheid enjoy 40 percent popular support in the Netherlands and will take the plurality of the nation’s 25 seats come June. Indeed, even the most out-of-date and statistically questionable polls show his level of support at approximately 18 percent. In other words, Wilders will be one of this election’s biggest winners, which is excellent news. The PVV is one of the only parties that is steadfast in its commitment to defending Western civilization from the Islamist threat without relying on Christianity as a crutch. Although Wilders has given an expected nod to the Judeo-Christian heritage of Europe more than once, he has just as readily noted the humanist character of the continent that is rooted in pre-Christian Rome and Greece. Equally important, in his view, defending Europe means standing up for minority rights, enhancing economic liberty and reducing the size of the EU. One particular platform point often overlooked, yet really quite positive, is the PVV’s aim of having Bulgaria and Romania, both politically repressive economic wastelands, booted from the EU.

Likewise, Czech voters appear prepared to vote in their finest, with opinion polls showing the Občanská demokratická strana likely to receive one-third of the nation’s 22 seats. The party of Václav Klaus and Mirek Topolánek is one of the only parties in Europe boldly fighting the anti-civilizational eco-hysteria that is currently en vogue, while simultaneously advocating loudly for economic liberalization, EU devolution and Russoscepticism. The party is keenly aware of the threats that communism, Russian aggression and loss of sovereignty to outdated institutions and new liberal fads pose to the Czech Republic as a nation and Europe as a continent. And so their continued electoral support at home, which by all accounts should be sustained through the European Parliament elections, is a very encouraging sign.

Unfortunately, not all of the EU members seem interested in building a better Europe or even standing up for their own true interests. Most visibly, the United Kingdom is preparing for a return to the dark ages by welcoming the anti-semitic, anti-immigrant, anti-gay British National Party into the European Parliament for the first time ever. The anti-capitalist, pro-conscription lunatics have thus far always fallen short of entry, but are projected to earn at least three seats and by some accounts, even more. The BNP bears the rare distinction of being branded by the European Parliament as an “openly Nazi party.” What is especially disturbing is that they, alongside some of the offensively liberal British parties, are gaining at the expense of the U.K. Independence Party, which has been an exemplary defender of British sovereignty, individual liberty and reduced taxation.

With the elections still six weeks away, there is ample time for popular opinion to shift. But, at least with the information we currently have, it seems reassuring that several nations seem intent on enhancing the quality of the alarmingly powerful EU. We can only hope that in those nations instead inclined to shift support toward parties that embarrass the human species, a last-minute change of heart will prevent them from making such egregious errors.

The controversy as most people understand it has focused around the words of Williamson, who quite recently on Sweden’s STV network declared, “I believe there were no gas chambers … I think that 200,000 to 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps but none of them by gas chambers. There was not one Jew killed by the gas chambers. It was all lies, lies, lies!” Forgetting for a moment that Holocaust denial is as much a favorite pastime of anti-Semites as oppressing satellite nations was of the USSR, one might be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. After all, that he believes there is more evidence that God exists, and he had a son who walked the Earth, before being crucified and resurrected than there is found in the established historical fact of well-documented Nazi genocide that happened in his lifetime, merely suggests he is mentally unbalanced, not a bigot, right? Well, his involvement in the Society of Saint Pius X says otherwise.

Born in 1970 as a means of giving shelter to archaic Catholic dogma, the Society is best understood for its steadfast opposition to all of the Vatican II reforms that moderated the Church. As part of their rejection of the changes made by the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, they naturally disregarded Nostra Aetate, the declaration that formally established that the Jews were no more responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus than any other peoples. This was groundbreaking precisely because for centuries after the rise of Christianity, anti-Semitic violence and legal discrimination in the West was often justified by the suggestion of Jewish culpability in the death of Jesus. Lest one suggest that that this was not a purposeful rejection of said concept by the Society, but was instead part of a broader stance against doctrinal reformation, let us look at what else the Society has to say. Their Web site still proudly carries an article entitled “The Mystery of the Jewish People” wherein they declare that “Judaism is inimical to all nations in general, and in a special manner to Christian nations.” They continue, “Jews must not live together with Christians…because their errors and material superiority have virulent consequences among other peoples.” How these statements may be construed as anything other than outright anti-Semitism is entirely beyond comprehension, especially when placed in the broader context of their essay, which sounds like it was written by the Ustaša clergy rather than enlightened men of character.

Many will suggest, perhaps correctly, that the Pope’s intentions here are noble. Rather than hoping to stoke the flames of anti-Semitism at a time when rates are already skyrocketing, he is seeking unity among Catholics. That may be, but it does little good for the Church to welcome back a movement that is fundamentally opposed to key points of theology, and does nothing but create tension with the Jewish community, who the Catholic church was finally starting to improve relations with after centuries of complicity in unspeakable crimes against them. The Society has shown no change in ideology, and has no intention of ceasing its shameful proliferation of hate and dishonesty, suggesting that there is no place for it in civilized society. And while I certainly don’t hold the Church in high regard given its actions throughout its long and troublesome history, actions like this make myself and others even less inclined to regard the Church as an institution that still has a place in our modern and rational society. That such ideas would even be seriously considered, much less actualized, suggests quite strongly that those of us skeptical of the Church have due cause to be.

Caleb is a sophomore in Arts & Sciences. He can be reached via e-mail at csposner@artsci.wustl.edu.

Editor’s Note: This deadline for this column was before the Vatican called upon Bishop Williamson to “unequivocally” distance himself from his statements  on the Holocaust before he can serve the Church in an official capacity.

As the leader of the Partij voor de Vrijheid, it would be entirely within reason to describe Mr. Wilders as the most important political figure in Holland, and one of the fastest rising stars of Western Europe. His party is more libertarian in character than anything else, with a platform that calls for tax cuts but also recognizes the importance of secular humanism. What makes the party particularly controversial, though, is the party’s view of Islam. It was summarized to a large degree in the famously controversial short film Fitna, for which Mr. Wilders has received a great many death threats. Essentially, they realize that Islam as a matter of basic theology, and thus practice, embraces violence. Individual Muslims may choose to reject this component of their faith, which he urges them to do. If they do, and further wish to assimilate in Dutch society, Mr. Wilders is content to let them be. But, as is glaringly apparent from Dutch news, the vast majority have opted not to become a part of the larger Dutch society or to adopt a moderate tone. There has been no large scale repudiation of violence in the Islamic world among the scripturally versed, only some vague rejections from their political front groups in the West. And so he continues to draw attention to this, and to the threat it poses to the long term survival of a free and democratic Europe.

It seems though that in Dutch politics, honesty is rarely the best policy. The day after we installed a spineless snake oil salesman in the highest office of the land, the courts of a country supposedly known for its liberal permissiveness has decided to try a man for the “insult of Islamic worshipers.” If this is to be par for the course, we may as well do away with democracy. When politicians who are loyal to the nation in whose government they serve run the risk of legal action not for slander, but for bruising the egos of the hypersensitive, no real debate can occur and the entire political process becomes little more than a façade. That this should happen is alarming enough. That it is happening to one of the few competent politicians in the world for the crime of honesty should inspire the fury of all freedom-loving peoples.

//

The political significance of the event has not been lost on that party, as is evident by their most recent campaign efforts. In the Hindustan Times, they took out a front-page ad decrying the weakness of the current government, which they declared had taken inadequate steps to combat terror and provide for India’s security. As this event is not particularly isolated, in that India has been victim to more Islamic terrorism than nearly any other nation in existence, many are seeking a party that can bring about meaningful reform. And it would seem that the Indian People’s Party is the logical front-runner in that sense.

They have proposed considerably tougher anti-terrorism laws, and have a detailed plan to overhaul the national security apparatus, making it much more effective. There is due cause to take them seriously on matters of defense and security, as during their brief time in power in earlier years, it was they who conducted Operation Shakti, giving India nuclear weapons.

This attack, which has re-oriented the national political mindset, must be put into perspective. At this point, the evidence suggests that the Pakistan-based Islamic terrorist organization Lashkar-e-Taiba carried out the attacks. Further, some in the U.S. intelligence community are suggesting that direct training of the terrorists was handled by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency. Whatever the exact details may prove to be, it is quite clear that major fault for this unspeakable atrocity rests on Pakistan in some capacity. The Congress Party has proven over time unable to appropriately confront this threat, or to realize and act on the obvious links between the Pakistani government and the terrorists causing death and civil unrest in India. It is thus imperative that they not be left in charge, as their likely failure to respond will only send the signal that India is cowardly and cannot act when threatened.

Whatever one might wish to say about the Indian People’s Party, which based on their track record ought to be mostly positive, there is no disputing that they are, as evidenced in rhetoric and their track record, keenly aware of the true security problems, and are intent on rectifying them.

So, while the loss of innocent life at the hands of deranged Islamic terrorists is deeply upsetting, it is important that this be used as a lesson more than anything else. People realize once more, as they always should have, that the Congress Party is incapable of protecting India, and that any long-term solution involves dealing with Pakistan in a much harsher way is presently done. The Indian People’s Party has a message perfectly in sync with this, and is thus well positioned to return to power, thereby giving India a chance to properly secure itself from internal terrorist threats and the greater Pakistani problem.

So, as with all things, there is a silver lining to this horrific chapter of Indian history: the chance for genuinely positive change that will prevent such occurrences in the future. Let us hope then that when the polls open, the voting public has the intellectual clarity needed to take advantage of this second chance and elect a government actually capable of preserving their life and liberty.

Bosnia is not a nation of historic validity, but a disputed buffer region between the competing Serbian and Croatian nations, each of whom have legitimate claims to substantial portions of the land. Accordingly, it has been of a multi-ethnic character for centuries, and remains so today. However, this fuels substantial conflict in a region where multi-ethnic states have often proven themselves to be breeding grounds for violence and genocide, the overwhelming majority of which has always been directed against the Serbs. In a half-baked effort to pacify this battleground nation, the Dayton Accords created a federal system wherein there is a relatively weak national government, and two much stronger state governments. Republika Srpska hosts the nation’s sizable Serbian population, while the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina hosts the remaining Bosniak and Croat populations.

After many years of brutal warfare and chaos, both sides set national ambitions aside and worked together to rebuild. But, as seemed fairly obvious to any individual with a grasp of the true nature of the Balkans, this was short lived. Though we have not yet seen war, the rhetoric has become increasingly polarized. Those in the Federation have been pushing for drastic reforms that would shift all of the power into a strong central government, where they would make up the majority of the population and could thus run roughshod over the rights of the Serbian minority. In turn, this has inspired the highly moderate government of Republika Srpska to extend legitimacy to the idea of ending Bosnia, by way of becoming independent (or more reasonably merging with Serbia), should the need arise.

As the nation exists today, it is a tense union between two unlike factions with highly divergent agendas and interests. So why continue to prop it up? If the only justification is Balkans stability then the answer is not to add to the hasty patchwork keeping Bosnia as one nation, but to proactively develop and implement a more rational and permanent solution. That means separating Republika Srpska from the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina immediately, merging the former with Serbia. But what to do with the latter? Allowing it to become independent as is would be dangerous, since quite naturally the Croats would seek reunion with the motherland, and inspire yet another bloody conflict. As it happens, the ethnic divisions are presently such that the Croatian-dominated portions could be given to Croatia without much issue, allowing the Bosniaks to have a new state of their own. Wedged between the powers of the region, it would be kept in check, and its ability to provide a breeding ground for jihad and Islamism would be reduced by threat of invasion from the concerned neighbor states (this will be elaborated on in a future column).

With the major parties unwilling to defend the national interest and stand up against radical Islam, that role has fallen to fringe parties on the far right wing of the political spectrum. A number of parties have gained greatly from this. Some, such as Vlaams Belang (Belgium) and Partij voor de Vrijheid (Denmark), are guilty of nothing other than poor PR efforts. But many of the parties making gains, such as the British National Party (UK) and the National Front (France) are populist hate machines who, in between their occasionally legitimate complaints about the EU, spew some of the most racist bile in the Western world. This was illustrated quite recently when Austria held elections on September 28 for the National Council. Together, Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs and the Bündnis Zukunft Österreich earned almost a third of the vote. Both of these parties are of the racist variety, BZO especially.

In recent days, this has again made headlines because BZO leader Jörg Haider died in a car accident this past Saturday. His party is, not surprisingly, in great distress since he was the most iconic bigot in European politics, and helped make extremism socially acceptable in Austria. Of course, for that very same reason, there aren’t many people elsewhere shedding tears over it. What matters is not so much the exact policy goals of his now mainstream racist party, but what allowed it to gain so much ground. And that is the unwillingness of the mainstream to take up the great issue of our lifetime: violent political Islam.

While our two-party system will prevent against a hardline xenophobic party from gaining serious political clout, both of the main parties in our nation have generally been ignoring the underlying issue. There are, of course, a few vigilant individuals, such as Senator McConnell and Senator Brownback, who deserve praise for their strong and factually-supported positions. But sadly, senators like them are too few and far between. To make sure that this grave international security issue is not highjacked by bigots, but is instead part of the standard political discourse of the mainstream, greater awareness must be raised.

Take, for instance, his early years in South Africa. While he pushed strongly for the extension of full rights to the nation’s Indian population, he had little concern for the unequal treatment of his black countrymen. Indeed, he described the native black population as those “whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with and, then, pass his life of indolence and nakedness.” He argued that “ours [the Indians’] is one continual struggle against a degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the Europeans, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir [racial slur for blacks].” So pronounced was his distaste for the blacks, he sought to keep subjugated that pre-pacifism—Gandhi actually organized an Indian military brigade to put down African rebellion against the British, earning himself a medal for his service.

This is the point where many defenders argue that this was before he underwent great personal growth and came to be a friend to the oppressed and a symbol of justice. Unfortunately, his record proves otherwise. What he wrote with regards to the Holocaust is itself quite telling. After declaring in 1941 that Hitler was not “the monster described by [his] opponents,” Gandhi later went on to state that “Hitler killed 5 million Jews…But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.” Whether that qualifies as anti-Semitism or just insanity is subject to debate. But certainly this is not the response of a rational individual to the horrors of the 20th century’s worst genocide.

I expect, of course, that many will argue that it was merely a case of extreme pacifism, which is what defined him among the masses. But why then did he endorse the Polish army’s resistance to the German invasion at the onset of the World War II? Surely they weren’t there greeting the Germans with roses.

Of course, bigotry was not the only thing overlooked about Gandhi that ought to be given more coverage when he is held up as an example of all that is right and good. I have yet to see much in the way of public objection to the reckless nature of his actions. During World War II, when the Japanese had taken Burma and were closing in on India, he launched some of the most disruptive non-military actions against the British that had ever taken place, thereby delaying an Allied victory that could have dramatically decreased the death toll. His actions very nearly led to the Axis gaining control of India, something which would have brought about the intense civilian slaughter he seemed to so often fantasize about in his writings. For a man concerned with peace, he had a truly alarming tolerance for large-scale extermination.

While I could go on at length about Gandhi’s many other issues, from the awful way in which he treated his wife and children to his designs of imposing strict religious rules as the law of the land, I will end my piece here. After all, I should think the problems already explored would be sufficient cause for alarm. Sadly though, in a world where sound bytes and myth trump in-depth analysis and reality, Gandhi will continue to be revered, inappropriate as it may be. So, I merely ask that the next time somebody mentions his name in reverence, in the back of your mind you remember that Gandhi wasn’t great.

As is so often the case, the American people are being forced to choose between two poor presidential candidates, neither of whom is truly fit to hold the highest office in our nation. On the one hand, we have a senator with the most liberal voting record this session and no substantive experience to report. On the other is a man who typically holds the Republican line, which might be fine, if it were still the party of small government and personal liberty. But, when it instead morphs into the party of warrantless wiretapping and the denial of evolution, that is hardly something we ought to get excited about. More alarming, when he does break with the party, it is usually to back populist positions that play well in the polls but hurt us, like “taking on big oil” as though it were some monolithic force of evil, rather than the engine of modern civilization.

So, with neither candidate deserving of the office for which he is running, how is the average voter to decide? In my mind, it ought to be based on the one area of great importance where there is a real difference, which is national security. And no, I don’t mean the alarmist “no liquids or gels in excess of three ounces” variety. Rather, now that the era of unipolarity is all but over, we very seriously need to consider which candidate has a more rational foreign policy, one that will ensure the safety of the American people. In that regard, it seems quite clear to me that the better man is Sen. John McCain.

While the War on Terror might be misnamed, as terrorism is a tactic and not an entity, the underlying idea is important. The greatest threat of the 21st century thus far appears to be Islamism. Now, to be clear, Islamism is distinct from the brand of Islam practiced by the majority of Muslims in that it has specific political ambitions, including the recreation of a caliphate governed by Sharia law. Whatever textual support exists for their beliefs, they make up a minority among a largely peaceful bunch. But with between 10 and 15 percent of the Muslim world being radical, as Dr. Daniel Pipes estimates, that translates to more than 130 million such individuals. Even if just one percent of that group takes up arms, they pose an exceptional threat. And which candidate is more aware of this threat? If the reaction by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which Sen. Charles Schumer said “has ties to terrorism” (Sept. 2003 Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism) to the GOP convention is any indication, then clearly it is John McCain. If not, we could simply ask which candidate was endorsed by the leadership of the infamous terrorist organization Hamas. Unsurprisingly, it is the dangerously naïve Barack Obama they picked as the preferable candidate.

But, though the threat posed by global jihadists is great, it is not the only national security issue that must be considered. Rather, we must also look to the recent Russian action in Georgia. It ought to have served as a wake-up call that Russia would no longer be relegated to the sidelines but would instead re-assert itself as a world power. In the hours after the unlawful incursion into sovereign Georgia, the two candidates had very different, and very telling, reactions. McCain was quick to realize that Russia was the aggressive power and demanded an immediate and complete withdrawal from Georgian land. Obama on the other hand, until he’d had enough time to rephrase what McCain uttered, was essentially too flustered to handle it, and suggested turning the situation over to the United Nations. He of course failed to realize that the only U.N. body of any power, the Security Council, contains a veto-wielding Russia to block any action that would undermine their attempt to create instability in the former Soviet republics that were starting to look westward. This was the sort of 3 a.m. scenario that Hillary Clinton alluded to in her well-known campaign ad. And guess who failed the test?

What we must realize is that, more than ever, power over security issues is concentrated in the hands of the executive branch, with the president having ultimate say. Biden’s long record of making the wrong decisions and capitulating to Iran doesn’t help excuse Obama’s foreign policy ineptitude. Nor does Palin’s relative inexperience on matters of defense count for much. This is because, at the end of the day, we are voting for a president. In either administration, he will be the one making the decisions, with minimal regard for what the bottom half of their ticket has to say. We therefore must back the candidate who can, on his own, handle these consequential security threats from day one. And in this case, the only candidate capable of doing so is John McCain.

Correction
An earlier version of this column incorrectly listed the number of radical Muslims in the world as 30 million; in fact, it is 130 million.

On August 29, leaders of the South Ossetian independence movement informed members of the Western press that they would be absorbed into Russia in the near future. In part, there was a demand for it among the non-Georgian population within the region. But more relevant is that Russia would actually consider such a move.

While Russia has tried, unsuccessfully, to build an image as a source of regional stability, it has simultaneously been acting to advance its own agenda at the expense of the neighboring states it purports to be helping. Their willingness to essentially conquer the land that belongs to another sovereign state without due provocation or security concern, for seemingly no purpose other than to scare former Soviet states into submission, reflects what many feared: Russia plans to re-establish itself as a world power.

At the end of the Cold War, Russia was clearly weak. The economic collapse that helped bring about the demise of the Soviet Union left former member states feeling crippled. Russia, the country which retained control over the vast nuclear arsenal and the UN Security Council seat, was reduced from being the heart of a great power to a nation barely able to sustain itself without significant outside aid. So naturally, its influence in the world dropped, and it took fewer opportunities to advance an anti-Western agenda. But now, with dramatic economic growth driven by oil, and restored military confidence after successfully crushing the Islamist insurgency of Chechnya and Ingushtia, Russia has shattered its image as a diminished power, and has made clear that it is a force to be reckoned with.

While the United States cannot directly confront Russia using military means, our lack of response to their invasion of Georgia is outrageous. A number of options to contain the Russian threat, and indeed help push Russia back on to an acceptable path, are available to us. For instance, returning to a G7 configuration over the recently created G8 model, or permanently ending all NATO-Russia dialogs would be worthwhile first steps. By isolating it from the West, we send the unequivocal message that the reckless disregard for internationally recognized borders and the unjustified slaughter of civilians to advance a radical political agenda is unacceptable.

If Russia’s economic and diplomatic opportunities are limited, and it is not allowed to advance in the direction it presently wishes, it will be more inclined to moderate its behavior. It may never be a reliable ally in the same way that Israel or Poland are, but it can cease to become a disruptive force that creates chaos in the surrounding region.

Undoubtedly some shrug off this assault as inconsequential. After all, there are literally millions of pornographic Web sites on the Internet and thousands of new adult titles make it to DVD every year. Moreover, few people can name a single person or company that has been subject to this absurd attempt to regulate commerce and free expression by religious zealots and their leaders. The reason for this is that pornography is constitutionally protected, but “obscenity” is not, according the precedent-setting verdict of Miller v. California (1973). Incapable as our government often proves to be, those in charge of the “obscenity” prosecution for the Department of Justice are smart enough to realize that they will not be able to convince the average jury that mainstream pornography should fall outside the scope of the First Amendment. Instead, they opt for easier targets, going primarily after fetish material. Because such content has a relatively small consumer base, and contains material that is both foreign and shocking to the average person, it is far easier to win a case against such content.

The government has license to target anybody they want, for any vague reason, in whatever venue is most sympathetic to their anti-pornography position.

Even more unsettling is that there is nothing the industry can do to protect itself, short of shutting down completely. There is no list of things that are considered obscene; the community sets standards. As such, the government has license to target anybody it wants, for any vague reason, in whatever venue is most sympathetic to their anti-pornography position. Consequently, a pornographer may make a title and then be brought to court over it several years after its release, being told that if his work is deemed obscene, he faces substantial time in jail. Each conviction carries with it a potential of five years in jail, with cases often involving enough counts to ensure the offender spends decades behind bars.

If we, as a society, value liberty, it is incumbent upon us to express our outrage over this campaign to quash freedom of expression and freedom of commerce, regardless of our own feelings about pornography. Whether we enjoy the material specifically under attack, or we’ve never seen so much as full-frontal nudity, is irrelevant. What matters is that the protection of constitutionally ensured minority rights and personal empowerment is not done away with because of the myopic views of a few faith-inspired extremists. At the end of the day, how we as a people respond to this siege on what our founding fathers fought for will determine whether we can begin to reclaim the freedom lost to two centuries of governmental overstretch, or whether we sacrifice what little we have left of it.