Yesterday evening Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders spoke at Temple University. If you weren't there, it will probably be a bit hard to figure out what happened. The reason being the hyperbole on both sides and the somewhat overblown news coverage.
Cite ONE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ORnwDS7Deg
The news clip above suggest a calm and rational evening, the intro-text by the person who posted it avers otherwise.
Cite TWO
http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/5125233/__Wilders_in_VS_weggehoond__.html?p=37,2
The article from De Telegraaf (in Dutch) alleges that Geert Wilders was booed off by the crowd of students. The article makes it seem like the crowd massively screamed their disapproval and chased him off stage.
I get the impression that reporters are not familiar with American college campi.
Loud noises, catcalls, and a hypercritical audience for speakers are fairly common.
Geert Wilders, as a politician, should in any case be used to Bronx cheers and rude shouting. Certainly he has been exposed to that in the Dutch parliament.
Other news reports suggest a fairly quiet and low-key response by those who disagreed with his message.
Quote:"About 100 students who came remained silent throughout his 17-minute "Fitna" film, which casts Islam as the culprit behind terrorism since the turn of the century. During a 25-minute speech that followed, he said the increasing Muslim population in Europe is causing a retrenchment of freedom.
[CUT]
Most of the 80 students gathered outside to protest Wilder's appearance quietly held signs or passed out pamphlets.
"We've had to deal with hate speakers before," said Monira Gamal-Eldin of Temple's Muslim Students Association. "What he's preaching is not free speech. He is funneling hate toward one group of people."
A small minority like freshmen Erik Jacobs, however, said Wilders' appearance and the peaceful protest showed off the virtues of free speech."
End quote.
SOURCE:
http://www.metro.us/us/article/2009/10/21/05/1032-85/index.xml#
"WHERE ISLAM SETS ROOTS, FREEDOM DIES"
The New York Times has perhaps the best coverage: their account of the event describes audience reaction to Geert Wilders remarks, quotes him, and also cites students' comments.
Quote:
His remarks were met by a mixture of applause and boos, and occasionally gasps -- particularly when he stated that ''our Western culture is far better than the Islamic culture and we should defend it.''
End quote.
SOURCE
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/10/21/us/AP-US-Islam-Speech-Controversy.html?_r=1
Quote:
He decried as a ''disgrace'' a resolution co-sponsored by the U.S. and Egypt, and backed by the U.N. Human Rights Council earlier this month, deploring attacks on religions while insisting that freedom of expression remains a basic right.
End quote.
I would be leery of anything backed by the Human Rights Council, given its sorry track record and inclusion of the worst human rights violators. The United Nations in general might do well to stuff a sock in it too - the right to say horrid things is precisely what freedom of speech is about. If Geert Wilders wishes to call the Koran worse than Mein Kampf, insist that Islam is an intolerant ideology that encourages violence, or even aver that the prophet Mohammed was a brigand, a rapist, and a depraved pedophile who violated a nine year old, who the hell are the third-world gangsters, tyrants, and mother-violators in the United Nations to deny him that right?
None of the Muslim nations has freedom of speech, most of them are brutal dictatorships, and hardly anywhere in the Muslim world are non-Muslims treated as equals, despite having been in those countries longer than the Muslims.
Fine.
All of you foreign Thugbucket tyranies, kindly shut the F up. Thank you.
Quote:
A question-and-answer session was cut short after the tone of the event began to turn nasty, with some in the crowd of several hundred students began shouting jeers. Wilders' security detail quickly ushered him from the room.End quote.
That's quite a bit different than the impression that De Telegraaf paints. It also makes clear that he was not booed off, but that his security detail made a decision to extract him.
Paid protection tends to be very pragmatic about such things.
Quote.
''I think it's completely wrong that someone who promotes racism and intolerance should be given a platform at this university,'' said Temple student Josh Rosenthal. ''It's hate speech disguised as free speech.''
End quote.
Josh Rosenthal appears to have problems thinking. Perhaps Josh Rosenthal should contemplate his navel instead of speaking. Idiot.
Quote:
Another student, Joseph Rodrigues, said that being able to voice unpopular opinions is a freedom not to be taken lightly. ''I might not like what he said, but I think it's important that he be allowed to say it,'' he said.End quote.
Mr. Rodrigues is correct. It is important that one be allowed to say things that other people do not like. This is a fundamental right denied to many in the Muslim world. It is also a fundamental right of Muslims in the United States, some of whom are in fact students at Temple University. A number of whom made their point calmly, without causing any disruption.
Temple University students are free to disagree with Geert Wilders. Just as free as Geert Wilders must be to say disagreeable things.
And as free as the audience must be to hear what the man has to say.
------------------------------------------------------------------
POST-SCRIPTUM
If you're offended by whatever Geert Wilders says, you have the freedom to either counter-argue him, or ignore him. You also have the freedom to say nasty things about him, his ideology, and many other things. And really, there is nothing wrong with exercising that right.
You may also say whatever you want about other religions. Just bear in mind that no one really cares what you think about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and his Noodly Appendage, nor what your opinion is of the Grelzakian Toadcult.
You are far less important than you think you are.
Stop acting like you are a victim and grow up.
------------------------------------------------------------------
ADDENDUM
The nine year old mentioned above in connection with the prophet Mohammed was Aisha bint Abu Bakr, who was only six or seven years old when betrothed to Mohammed. She continued living with her parents for several more years before the marriage was consummated, allegedly when she was nine or ten years old. But the traditional sources can be doubted, as this may very well be hyperbole serving to emphasize her purity and youth - she was the only one of Mohammed's wives to have been a virgin when she married him.
[Sources suggest that succession and legitimization issues may have influenced the narrative - her father Abu Bakr (Abu Bakr As-Siddiq also known as Abdallah ibn Abi Quhafa, 573 CE to 634 CE) became the first Caliph after Mohammad's death in 632 CE. Additionally, she is the source for many of the ahadith of the prophet's life, which later generations took as sources of authority. So there may be more to her reputed age at the time of her wedding than meets the eye.]
After their wedding, she continued to play with her toys - Mohammed would join in to make her happy.
Aisha is said to have been Mohammed's favourite wife, and they had great affection for one and other. Her tent curtain became the prophet's battle flag.
During his final illnes, the prophet sought her apartments and expired with his head in her lap in 632, aged 82 years.
She survived him by forty six years, being 65 when she died.
Showing posts with label Muhammad. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Muhammad. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Thursday, October 09, 2008
FINKELSTEIN, CHOMSKY, AND OTHER BLOODSUCKERS
One of my regular commenters takes exception to another commenter. Hilarity ensues.
Well, actually, not quite.
LanceThruster had commented underneath my posting proposing pie for Finkelstein. Here's what he wrote:
"Dr. Finkelstein is a truth-teller. Should someone want to attack him for that I should think humble pie would be appropriate. "
I assumed that anyone who called Finkelstein a truth-teller was a committed member of the dark side and ab initio not worth speaking with.
As I let him know:
"My dear mister Thruster, I shan't debate with you, as you are clearly too delusional to be swayed. And besides that, with the user name you have chosen, you paint yourself as a male chauvinist with a tiny penis and a massive set of issues.
You are an uber creep. Get medicated. "
Perhaps not entirely the politest response I've managed in conversation with someone who is willingly and knowingly wrong. My bad.
Then Grant Patel noticed LanceThruster's contribution. And added his own:
"The problem with herr Finkelstein is that his scholarship has been shown to be both suspect and sloppy, his conclusions are not supported by the material (and he cherry picks perhaps more blatantly than many other "scholars"), and his well-publicized tiffs with others (most notably Dershowitz) are self-serving publicity seeking stunts.
His association with others of his own ilk (particularly Chomsky) call his ideological basis into question. And his odd Oedipal exploitation of his mother indicate that, like many, he has issues with his past, and her past.
That said, I find the defense of so contentious a figure to be questionable. There are people, Jews even, who would gladly utilize a "Jewish" scholar (even one who loudly trumpets his 'Jewishness', and whose 'scholarship' is by others loudly trumpeted) for anti-Semitic and anti-Israel agendas.
And further, his willing association with those who would seek Israel's destruction, such as Hezbollah, the Iranian mullahs, and the various American far-left haters and conspirators, show him to be an immoral and unethical tool. A willing hater of his own people, who stands for nothing but getting back at his mother, and her relatives whose absence weighed so heavily on his child-hood.
Finkelstein needs therapy, Chomsky needs to shut the fu&& up, and Carter needs to be institutionalized. Tutu, Morris, and the European left all need to be locked up for supporting terrorists.
Paul Larrudee and Allison Weir need to be investigated for ties to and funding from hostile foreign interests."
Bravo, Grant, I could not have said it better myself.
Grant Patel then followed with another prize addition:
"And by the way, is LanceThruster the cover for some Paki bhainchoot? I suspect it is. I suspect, further, that LanceThruster is sympathetic to the Muslim cause. Perhaps you should look into what the Muslims and their Quislings have done to India. And, further back, to Persia.
I would particularly advise you to look into the history of the bollocky Muslims as regard to minorities and other religious creeds. Like the Christians in the Levant, and the Parsees in Iran.
Why is it that the Bahai find refuge in Israel, the Philistine Christians flee to liquor stores in California, and the Parsees are centered in India?
Could it be because Muslims, and their sympathizers, and their collaborators, are little more than intolerant murderous deviants with a creed pretty damn close to witchcraft and Gnostic word-worship?"
Lance finished with an invitation to mr. Thruster to 'congress off, feminine reproductive unit'.
[Please see this post: PIE FOR FINKELSTEIN.]
MUSLIM 'TOLERATION'
Grant Patel raises some interesting points.
The number of Christians in such countries as Jordan, Iraq, Syria, and Egypt has been falling precipitously for years as a result of persecution and government policies that favour Muslims. Virtually a low-level state sponsored Jihad - and it should be noted that the first and last listed of those countries are allegedly US allies.
The Bahai religion is virtually extinct in Iran, yet flourishes marvelously in Haifa, where the Bahai found succour from Islamic terror.
The Parsees fled Iran hundreds of years ago to get away from murderous Islamic tyranny.
I shan't even mention the Ottoman brutality that turned the Balkans into the most dysfunctional part of Europe, or the slave-raiding which Arabs engaged in for over a millennia. Which, by the way, continued under Saudi aegis until the sixties or seventies, albeit in a more southerly direction.
I shall, however, mention the Bada Ghalughara and the Chhota Ghalughara. In the first, the Muslim hordes slaughtered over thirty thousand Sikhs on February fifth, 1726.
In the second, the Muslims massacred over ten thousand on the banks of the Beas in 1746.
Both of these events should be considered inherited blots on the escutcheon of every Muslim, both of these actions make plain that Islamic rule is a curse upon a country, both of these events had no conceivable justification other than cruelty, baseness, and intolerance.
Both of those events are merely the two best examples of the bloodthirsty tyranny that prevailed in what was, at that time, the greatest of Muslim empires. And both of these events are merely blips on the radar if the total numbers of Sikhs killed by Muslims in the centuries since the rise of Sikkhism is taken into account.
Truly, the history of Muslims in the subcontinent rivals in its bestiality that of Muslims in the Middle-East. Nay, it might even surpass it - Pakistan as the Muslim portion of India has little to be proud of, and less validity as a state, than even Egypt or Jordan, or any of the blood-drenched failures of the Arab world.
I will not go as far as some of my Indian friends, who have expressed the sentiment that 'the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim'. Some of my best friends are Muslim.
But it would indeed have been better for the world if that horrid man had died before experiencing his hysterical visions and fits in the hills outside of Mecca, and never given his untrustworthy tribal kin an ideology that brought them out of the waste-lands. And there is almost nothing that compares to the depravity of the Ottoman, Persian, and Mughal empires.
Well, actually, not quite.
LanceThruster had commented underneath my posting proposing pie for Finkelstein. Here's what he wrote:
"Dr. Finkelstein is a truth-teller. Should someone want to attack him for that I should think humble pie would be appropriate. "
I assumed that anyone who called Finkelstein a truth-teller was a committed member of the dark side and ab initio not worth speaking with.
As I let him know:
"My dear mister Thruster, I shan't debate with you, as you are clearly too delusional to be swayed. And besides that, with the user name you have chosen, you paint yourself as a male chauvinist with a tiny penis and a massive set of issues.
You are an uber creep. Get medicated. "
Perhaps not entirely the politest response I've managed in conversation with someone who is willingly and knowingly wrong. My bad.
Then Grant Patel noticed LanceThruster's contribution. And added his own:
"The problem with herr Finkelstein is that his scholarship has been shown to be both suspect and sloppy, his conclusions are not supported by the material (and he cherry picks perhaps more blatantly than many other "scholars"), and his well-publicized tiffs with others (most notably Dershowitz) are self-serving publicity seeking stunts.
His association with others of his own ilk (particularly Chomsky) call his ideological basis into question. And his odd Oedipal exploitation of his mother indicate that, like many, he has issues with his past, and her past.
That said, I find the defense of so contentious a figure to be questionable. There are people, Jews even, who would gladly utilize a "Jewish" scholar (even one who loudly trumpets his 'Jewishness', and whose 'scholarship' is by others loudly trumpeted) for anti-Semitic and anti-Israel agendas.
And further, his willing association with those who would seek Israel's destruction, such as Hezbollah, the Iranian mullahs, and the various American far-left haters and conspirators, show him to be an immoral and unethical tool. A willing hater of his own people, who stands for nothing but getting back at his mother, and her relatives whose absence weighed so heavily on his child-hood.
Finkelstein needs therapy, Chomsky needs to shut the fu&& up, and Carter needs to be institutionalized. Tutu, Morris, and the European left all need to be locked up for supporting terrorists.
Paul Larrudee and Allison Weir need to be investigated for ties to and funding from hostile foreign interests."
Bravo, Grant, I could not have said it better myself.
Grant Patel then followed with another prize addition:
"And by the way, is LanceThruster the cover for some Paki bhainchoot? I suspect it is. I suspect, further, that LanceThruster is sympathetic to the Muslim cause. Perhaps you should look into what the Muslims and their Quislings have done to India. And, further back, to Persia.
I would particularly advise you to look into the history of the bollocky Muslims as regard to minorities and other religious creeds. Like the Christians in the Levant, and the Parsees in Iran.
Why is it that the Bahai find refuge in Israel, the Philistine Christians flee to liquor stores in California, and the Parsees are centered in India?
Could it be because Muslims, and their sympathizers, and their collaborators, are little more than intolerant murderous deviants with a creed pretty damn close to witchcraft and Gnostic word-worship?"
Lance finished with an invitation to mr. Thruster to 'congress off, feminine reproductive unit'.
[Please see this post: PIE FOR FINKELSTEIN.]
MUSLIM 'TOLERATION'
Grant Patel raises some interesting points.
The number of Christians in such countries as Jordan, Iraq, Syria, and Egypt has been falling precipitously for years as a result of persecution and government policies that favour Muslims. Virtually a low-level state sponsored Jihad - and it should be noted that the first and last listed of those countries are allegedly US allies.
The Bahai religion is virtually extinct in Iran, yet flourishes marvelously in Haifa, where the Bahai found succour from Islamic terror.
The Parsees fled Iran hundreds of years ago to get away from murderous Islamic tyranny.
I shan't even mention the Ottoman brutality that turned the Balkans into the most dysfunctional part of Europe, or the slave-raiding which Arabs engaged in for over a millennia. Which, by the way, continued under Saudi aegis until the sixties or seventies, albeit in a more southerly direction.
I shall, however, mention the Bada Ghalughara and the Chhota Ghalughara. In the first, the Muslim hordes slaughtered over thirty thousand Sikhs on February fifth, 1726.
In the second, the Muslims massacred over ten thousand on the banks of the Beas in 1746.
Both of these events should be considered inherited blots on the escutcheon of every Muslim, both of these actions make plain that Islamic rule is a curse upon a country, both of these events had no conceivable justification other than cruelty, baseness, and intolerance.
Both of those events are merely the two best examples of the bloodthirsty tyranny that prevailed in what was, at that time, the greatest of Muslim empires. And both of these events are merely blips on the radar if the total numbers of Sikhs killed by Muslims in the centuries since the rise of Sikkhism is taken into account.
Truly, the history of Muslims in the subcontinent rivals in its bestiality that of Muslims in the Middle-East. Nay, it might even surpass it - Pakistan as the Muslim portion of India has little to be proud of, and less validity as a state, than even Egypt or Jordan, or any of the blood-drenched failures of the Arab world.
I will not go as far as some of my Indian friends, who have expressed the sentiment that 'the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim'. Some of my best friends are Muslim.
But it would indeed have been better for the world if that horrid man had died before experiencing his hysterical visions and fits in the hills outside of Mecca, and never given his untrustworthy tribal kin an ideology that brought them out of the waste-lands. And there is almost nothing that compares to the depravity of the Ottoman, Persian, and Mughal empires.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
CHAGGIM: THE ANTI-HEGEMONIST POINT OF VIEW
A member of a San Francisco pro-Israel organization reacts badly to the pro-Palestinian self-hating Jew side, particularly their self-righteous pronunciamentos about the upcoming chag.
SARCASTIC QUOTE:"Dipping apples in honey is SOOOOO white imperialist hegemonist, maybe they should dip tofu in salt water to symbolize the entire third-world (tofu) weeping bitter tears (salt-water) over the cruelty and exploitation by the first world (which would be symbolized by the bland tastelessness of the tofu and salt-water together). How can anybody be happy at a time when poor little furry Palestinian butterflies and whales are crying???!?! That's SOOO heartless!!!
And honey is SUCH a ruling-class fascist running dog luxury, why, the exploited and oppressed masses spit on honey, feh!"
Hee hee hee.
Pursuant thereto, the Bay Area Women in Black will be cursing Jews and Israel again at their scheduled 'community tashlich observance' on Saturday, October 4, 11:00 PM, at the Lake Merritt Pergola.
This from their announcement:
"We gather to discard that which holds us back from our potential as peacemakers -- our fears, isolation and silence, and to renew our commitment to work for peace and justice. We re-dedicate ourselves to standing in solidarity with all those who resist -- and who continue to challenge, dismantle, subvert, re-envision and transform the forces of violence, coercion and inequality in the world."
Please note that their "standing in solidarity with all those who resist" in practice has meant active support of both Hamas and Hezbollah, praise for Ahmedinejad, Sheikh Nasrallah, Chavez, and Castro, and apologesis for the Sudanese in their brutal holy war against non-Arabs.
[Naturally, many of them are also members of various other 'revolutionary' organizations - anything anti-Israel or anti-American is sodden with their nauseating aura. ]
In recent years, the Bay Area Women in Black have stood in proud solidarity with Arab protestors and Berkeleyites outside the consulate screaming "Falastin balad'na wa'l Yahud qalab'na" (Palestine is our land, and the Jews are our dogs), "Khaibar Khaibar ya Yahud, jaish Muhammad saya‘ud" ('Khaybar, Khaybar, oh Jews, the army of Muhammad will come again' - in reference to the battle of Khaybar where the prophet Muhammad resupplied his forces by slaughtering and enslaving former friends and allies at the Oasis of Khaybar).
It cannot be argued that the Women in Black were unaware of the content of those chants - they had not objected in any way when the crowd chanted in English - "with our blood and our souls we will redeem you oh Palestine", or "Palestine will be free from the river to the sea", along with other threats and curses.
In fact, the more violent and bloodthirsty the rhetoric, in English or Arabic, the more Bay Area Women in Black seemed to relish the frisson.
At such events, the Women in Black who come from Berkeley positively bask in the ecstasy of the moment - most especially the elegant and extraordinarily ignorant Italian woman. Her presence in the United States is truly baffling - she would feel so much more at home in a Turin soccer stadium singing Bandera Rosso, or encouraging the local jugend to throw bricks and molotovs. As would be fitting for an intellectually pretentious European America-hater.
If she actually had a brain, she would be dangerous.
Heck, if any of them had brains, they would be dangerous.
Even Kate Bender Raphael.
Whose verbose blog is pathetic yet amusing.
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
PS. 1.
The term 'self-hating Jew' is technically a misnomer. These people are not self-hating, they just hate you and every other Jew. They are Jew-hating Jews.
In addition to Kate Raphael Bender (also known as Kate Raphael or Kate Bender Raphael - sometimes using the spelling 'Rafael'), there are several others of that ilk in the activist circles of northern California: Libbey Goldberg, Perry Bellow-Handelman, Kinneret Israel, Sarah Kershnar, Barbara Lubin, Cecilie Surasky, et alia.
Please note that several people are NOT included in this category, as despite their membership in the Bay Area Women in Black, they aren't actually Jewish, being instead counted among the congregations of Saint John's Presbyterian Church (2727 College Avenue, Berkeley), or the Lake Merrit United Methodist Church (1255 1st Avenue, Oakland).
Both of these churches are making a name for themselves in the divestment and boycott movements. Pandering to politically correct hatred wins friends, especially for Christian denominations with declining memberships.
Jew-hatred, of course, is traditional.
PS. 2.This is a post I really enjoyed writing - it allowed me to indulge the latent anti-Semitism within as well as the latent philo-Semitism within. Bucket loads! Yep, I feel so fulfilled! Heck, even my verkrampte Dutch-Calvinist side is gleaming!
To the ladies from Bay Area Women in Black, especially the mono-gender-preferential womyn of the San Francisco chapter, I have say: Thank you, ladies, you've been very good to me, I mentally creamed in my imaginary panties, it was that good! Thank you again - do you feel all warm?
SARCASTIC QUOTE:"Dipping apples in honey is SOOOOO white imperialist hegemonist, maybe they should dip tofu in salt water to symbolize the entire third-world (tofu) weeping bitter tears (salt-water) over the cruelty and exploitation by the first world (which would be symbolized by the bland tastelessness of the tofu and salt-water together). How can anybody be happy at a time when poor little furry Palestinian butterflies and whales are crying???!?! That's SOOO heartless!!!
And honey is SUCH a ruling-class fascist running dog luxury, why, the exploited and oppressed masses spit on honey, feh!"
Hee hee hee.
Pursuant thereto, the Bay Area Women in Black will be cursing Jews and Israel again at their scheduled 'community tashlich observance' on Saturday, October 4, 11:00 PM, at the Lake Merritt Pergola.
This from their announcement:
"We gather to discard that which holds us back from our potential as peacemakers -- our fears, isolation and silence, and to renew our commitment to work for peace and justice. We re-dedicate ourselves to standing in solidarity with all those who resist -- and who continue to challenge, dismantle, subvert, re-envision and transform the forces of violence, coercion and inequality in the world."
Please note that their "standing in solidarity with all those who resist" in practice has meant active support of both Hamas and Hezbollah, praise for Ahmedinejad, Sheikh Nasrallah, Chavez, and Castro, and apologesis for the Sudanese in their brutal holy war against non-Arabs.
[Naturally, many of them are also members of various other 'revolutionary' organizations - anything anti-Israel or anti-American is sodden with their nauseating aura. ]
In recent years, the Bay Area Women in Black have stood in proud solidarity with Arab protestors and Berkeleyites outside the consulate screaming "Falastin balad'na wa'l Yahud qalab'na" (Palestine is our land, and the Jews are our dogs), "Khaibar Khaibar ya Yahud, jaish Muhammad saya‘ud" ('Khaybar, Khaybar, oh Jews, the army of Muhammad will come again' - in reference to the battle of Khaybar where the prophet Muhammad resupplied his forces by slaughtering and enslaving former friends and allies at the Oasis of Khaybar).
It cannot be argued that the Women in Black were unaware of the content of those chants - they had not objected in any way when the crowd chanted in English - "with our blood and our souls we will redeem you oh Palestine", or "Palestine will be free from the river to the sea", along with other threats and curses.
In fact, the more violent and bloodthirsty the rhetoric, in English or Arabic, the more Bay Area Women in Black seemed to relish the frisson.
At such events, the Women in Black who come from Berkeley positively bask in the ecstasy of the moment - most especially the elegant and extraordinarily ignorant Italian woman. Her presence in the United States is truly baffling - she would feel so much more at home in a Turin soccer stadium singing Bandera Rosso, or encouraging the local jugend to throw bricks and molotovs. As would be fitting for an intellectually pretentious European America-hater.
If she actually had a brain, she would be dangerous.
Heck, if any of them had brains, they would be dangerous.
Even Kate Bender Raphael.
Whose verbose blog is pathetic yet amusing.
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
PS. 1.
The term 'self-hating Jew' is technically a misnomer. These people are not self-hating, they just hate you and every other Jew. They are Jew-hating Jews.
In addition to Kate Raphael Bender (also known as Kate Raphael or Kate Bender Raphael - sometimes using the spelling 'Rafael'), there are several others of that ilk in the activist circles of northern California: Libbey Goldberg, Perry Bellow-Handelman, Kinneret Israel, Sarah Kershnar, Barbara Lubin, Cecilie Surasky, et alia.
Please note that several people are NOT included in this category, as despite their membership in the Bay Area Women in Black, they aren't actually Jewish, being instead counted among the congregations of Saint John's Presbyterian Church (2727 College Avenue, Berkeley), or the Lake Merrit United Methodist Church (1255 1st Avenue, Oakland).
Both of these churches are making a name for themselves in the divestment and boycott movements. Pandering to politically correct hatred wins friends, especially for Christian denominations with declining memberships.
Jew-hatred, of course, is traditional.
PS. 2.This is a post I really enjoyed writing - it allowed me to indulge the latent anti-Semitism within as well as the latent philo-Semitism within. Bucket loads! Yep, I feel so fulfilled! Heck, even my verkrampte Dutch-Calvinist side is gleaming!
To the ladies from Bay Area Women in Black, especially the mono-gender-preferential womyn of the San Francisco chapter, I have say: Thank you, ladies, you've been very good to me, I mentally creamed in my imaginary panties, it was that good! Thank you again - do you feel all warm?
Thursday, September 04, 2008
FORWARD, SISTERS! AGAINST THE ANGRY ZIONIST PATRIARCHATE!
I am in receipt of an e-mail from someone who believes that I am an African-American feminist lesbian, and will therefore be interested in revolutionary blows against the male-dominated neo-con imperialist status quo. Actually, I am not African American or lesbian - but truth be told, I may have advertently given her that impression. Oops.
Warning: not all e-mail exchanges with strangers calling themselves Malika, Leila, or Sharhazada are, in fact, contacts from valid new recruits for the Anarcho-Sexual Anti-Imperialists or the HomoSexual & Transgender Front For The Support of Palestine.
[Some of us actually think that you pro-Hamas poly-gendrics are stark raving mad, and really wish that you had developed as good a relationship with your therapist as you seem to have done with the repressive gynophobic patriarchy of the Arab world.]
Anyhoo, the e-mail that Sylphia forwarded contains some lovely text.
WOMEN IN BLACK NEEDS YOUR HELP TO DEFEAT THE ZIONIST!!!
Friday, September 5
At 5-6 PM
Montgomery and Market Streets, SF
San Francisco Women in Black (SF WIB) has been standing in opposition to War, Militarism, and Ultra-Right Nationalism for over 7 years.
We hold signs saying: End the Occupation of Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan!
Women's Rights are Human Rights! Dismantle the Settlements!
For the last several months we have been attacked by Zionists, a group of mostly men who have come bringing huge Israeli and American flags, talking, smoking and handing out flyers. Their purpose is to oppress us and to drive us away.
We need you to come and help us keep putting out the message that the Palestinians deserve their human rights! All womyn are invited!
----------------
I'm fairly certain that these lovely weiben oyf shvortz are aware of the oppression of women in Palestinian society and the rest of the Middle-East, yet they have chosen to support Hamas and the uber masculine warlords of the West-Bank as their signal contribution to revolutionary struggle.
I'm not sure how accurate they are in their portrayal of the group of Zionists who counterdemo them every first Friday - I know most of those Zionists, and consider them very liberal. Not insane, like many of the more radical residents of the Bay Area, but nevertheless far too left-wing to be entirely safe in the rust-belt, deep-south, or Alaska.
Several of those Zionists are in fact peaceful, female, and/ or gay. Being peaceful, female, and / or gay are positions very consistent with support for Israel, a nation where being any or all of those three things is socially safe and has legal and political protection.
I should probably point out that a peaceful gay female in Gaza or Tehran would probably be arrested, raped repeatedly in jail, and then stoned to death. Being gay in Egypt subjects one to brutal police harassment and broomstick penetration, and recent reports paint an unsavoury picture of sexual harassment in Cairo (virulent, omnipresent, and vicious).
Being gay or female is not safe or socially acceptable in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria...... Well, anywhere in the Arab world except for nightclubs in the Christian districts of Beirut or tourist areas of Morocco.
But never mind. I now wish to draw your attention to the passage that the e-mail reminded me of.
JUDITH: I do feel, Reg, that any anti-imperialist group like ours must reflect such a divergence of interests within its power-base.
REG: Agreed. Francis?
FRANCIS: Yeah. I think Judith's point of view is very valid, Reg, provided the movement never forgets that it is the inalienable right of every man--
STAN: Or woman.
FRANCIS: Or woman..... to rid himself--
STAN: Or herself.
FRANCIS: Or herself.
REG: Agreed.
FRANCIS: Thank you, brother.
STAN: Or sister.
FRANCIS: Or sister. Where was I?
REG: I think you'd finished.
FRANCIS: Oh. Right.
REG: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man--
STAN: Or woman.
REG: Why don't you shut up about women, Stan. You're putting us off.
STAN: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.
FRANCIS: Why are you always on about women, Stan?
STAN: I want to be one.
REG: What?
STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.
REG: What?
LORETTA: It's my right as a man.
JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
LORETTA: I want to have babies!
REG: You want to have babies?
LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
REG: But... you can't have babies.
LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.
REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box?
LORETTA: [crying]
JUDITH: Here! I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies?
FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
REG: What's the point?
FRANCIS: What?
REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!
FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.
[Source: Monty Python - Life of Brian]
It may not be entirely clear why the e-mail reminded me of the passage from LofB above. Just think about it. And don't call me Loretta.
I guess I should write Sylphia and tell her that, alas, Malika (or Leila, or Sharhazada) is far too busy this Friday evening, preparing a nutritious dinner for her husband and children after they return from the Masjid and break their ramadan fast. Sweet juicy dates, milk and honey, Sohan Halwa, Rice Pilaf, and Goat-leg soup! Yummers bismillah and Salaam Aleikum sister!
Note: No gentlemen named Muhammad or important members of the matriarchate were harmed in the writing of this post.
Warning: not all e-mail exchanges with strangers calling themselves Malika, Leila, or Sharhazada are, in fact, contacts from valid new recruits for the Anarcho-Sexual Anti-Imperialists or the HomoSexual & Transgender Front For The Support of Palestine.
[Some of us actually think that you pro-Hamas poly-gendrics are stark raving mad, and really wish that you had developed as good a relationship with your therapist as you seem to have done with the repressive gynophobic patriarchy of the Arab world.]
Anyhoo, the e-mail that Sylphia forwarded contains some lovely text.
WOMEN IN BLACK NEEDS YOUR HELP TO DEFEAT THE ZIONIST!!!
Friday, September 5
At 5-6 PM
Montgomery and Market Streets, SF
San Francisco Women in Black (SF WIB) has been standing in opposition to War, Militarism, and Ultra-Right Nationalism for over 7 years.
We hold signs saying: End the Occupation of Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan!
Women's Rights are Human Rights! Dismantle the Settlements!
For the last several months we have been attacked by Zionists, a group of mostly men who have come bringing huge Israeli and American flags, talking, smoking and handing out flyers. Their purpose is to oppress us and to drive us away.
We need you to come and help us keep putting out the message that the Palestinians deserve their human rights! All womyn are invited!
----------------
I'm fairly certain that these lovely weiben oyf shvortz are aware of the oppression of women in Palestinian society and the rest of the Middle-East, yet they have chosen to support Hamas and the uber masculine warlords of the West-Bank as their signal contribution to revolutionary struggle.
I'm not sure how accurate they are in their portrayal of the group of Zionists who counterdemo them every first Friday - I know most of those Zionists, and consider them very liberal. Not insane, like many of the more radical residents of the Bay Area, but nevertheless far too left-wing to be entirely safe in the rust-belt, deep-south, or Alaska.
Several of those Zionists are in fact peaceful, female, and/ or gay. Being peaceful, female, and / or gay are positions very consistent with support for Israel, a nation where being any or all of those three things is socially safe and has legal and political protection.
I should probably point out that a peaceful gay female in Gaza or Tehran would probably be arrested, raped repeatedly in jail, and then stoned to death. Being gay in Egypt subjects one to brutal police harassment and broomstick penetration, and recent reports paint an unsavoury picture of sexual harassment in Cairo (virulent, omnipresent, and vicious).
Being gay or female is not safe or socially acceptable in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria...... Well, anywhere in the Arab world except for nightclubs in the Christian districts of Beirut or tourist areas of Morocco.
But never mind. I now wish to draw your attention to the passage that the e-mail reminded me of.
JUDITH: I do feel, Reg, that any anti-imperialist group like ours must reflect such a divergence of interests within its power-base.
REG: Agreed. Francis?
FRANCIS: Yeah. I think Judith's point of view is very valid, Reg, provided the movement never forgets that it is the inalienable right of every man--
STAN: Or woman.
FRANCIS: Or woman..... to rid himself--
STAN: Or herself.
FRANCIS: Or herself.
REG: Agreed.
FRANCIS: Thank you, brother.
STAN: Or sister.
FRANCIS: Or sister. Where was I?
REG: I think you'd finished.
FRANCIS: Oh. Right.
REG: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man--
STAN: Or woman.
REG: Why don't you shut up about women, Stan. You're putting us off.
STAN: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.
FRANCIS: Why are you always on about women, Stan?
STAN: I want to be one.
REG: What?
STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.
REG: What?
LORETTA: It's my right as a man.
JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
LORETTA: I want to have babies!
REG: You want to have babies?
LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
REG: But... you can't have babies.
LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.
REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box?
LORETTA: [crying]
JUDITH: Here! I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies?
FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
REG: What's the point?
FRANCIS: What?
REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!
FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.
[Source: Monty Python - Life of Brian]
It may not be entirely clear why the e-mail reminded me of the passage from LofB above. Just think about it. And don't call me Loretta.
I guess I should write Sylphia and tell her that, alas, Malika (or Leila, or Sharhazada) is far too busy this Friday evening, preparing a nutritious dinner for her husband and children after they return from the Masjid and break their ramadan fast. Sweet juicy dates, milk and honey, Sohan Halwa, Rice Pilaf, and Goat-leg soup! Yummers bismillah and Salaam Aleikum sister!
Note: No gentlemen named Muhammad or important members of the matriarchate were harmed in the writing of this post.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
LEBANON DEMONSTRATES FINE ARAB VALUES
The Lebanese have festively welcomed back Samir Kuntar and four other stalwarts. Roads were festooned with banners, Sheikh Nasrallah made a triumphant speech, and the national government have declared a national holiday. Today is a day of pride and joy for all Lebanese, and the entire Arab nation celebrates with them.
It would be a mistake to think that peace is possible with people such as these.
Here is what Shlomo Goldwasser, father of Ehud Goldwasser (one of the two dead Israelis traded by the Levantine merchants for their five heroes) had to say:
"I cannot understand what the Lebanese are so glad about and happy about. They sacrificed over 700 of their best warriors and all their economy, and what they get for what they did is a murderer, a bloody murderer of a three-and-a-half-year-old girl and her father - and for this they are making all this glory, for this they sacrificed so much. So I feel only pity for them."
He's a better man than I am. He feels pity for them.
I am sorry that Sharon did not pave over all of Southern Lebanon in 1982. He should have driven the population northwards and salted the earth. Lebanese values, Arab values, are not values. They are incapable of human feeling, they are not civilized. They are barbaric tribals who only understand force, whose ideals represent savagery and bloodshed, who are proud of their history of violence and primitivism.
Theirs is a culture of rapine and slaveraiding, from the shores of the Atlantic to the edges of the Hindu Kush. There is naught there to be proud of, there is little there that is exemplary.
The day that Islam came out of the wastelands of the peninsula was a day of disaster, a curse for every generation since.
When the British took in the sons of Sharif Hussein ibn Ali in the nineteen-twenties, they should have slit their throats. Instead they gave them kingdoms.
It would be a mistake to think that peace is possible with people such as these.
Here is what Shlomo Goldwasser, father of Ehud Goldwasser (one of the two dead Israelis traded by the Levantine merchants for their five heroes) had to say:
"I cannot understand what the Lebanese are so glad about and happy about. They sacrificed over 700 of their best warriors and all their economy, and what they get for what they did is a murderer, a bloody murderer of a three-and-a-half-year-old girl and her father - and for this they are making all this glory, for this they sacrificed so much. So I feel only pity for them."
He's a better man than I am. He feels pity for them.
I am sorry that Sharon did not pave over all of Southern Lebanon in 1982. He should have driven the population northwards and salted the earth. Lebanese values, Arab values, are not values. They are incapable of human feeling, they are not civilized. They are barbaric tribals who only understand force, whose ideals represent savagery and bloodshed, who are proud of their history of violence and primitivism.
Theirs is a culture of rapine and slaveraiding, from the shores of the Atlantic to the edges of the Hindu Kush. There is naught there to be proud of, there is little there that is exemplary.
The day that Islam came out of the wastelands of the peninsula was a day of disaster, a curse for every generation since.
When the British took in the sons of Sharif Hussein ibn Ali in the nineteen-twenties, they should have slit their throats. Instead they gave them kingdoms.
Monday, March 03, 2008
HELLO ABOUDJAHID, YOU ARE AN IDIOT!
Warning: This is an unpleasant post. It is meant to be unpleasant. I am petty, and I wish to irritate the spit out of someone.
A reader sent me a an e-mail flaming me for supporting Geert Wilders' right to produce and broadcast a fifteen minute film which is critical of Islam.
It was a very angry e-mail, and needless to say I nearly bust a gut laughing. So it is mostly for the benefit of Aboudjahid somewhere in Germany that I write this next post, to thank him for reading me. And to encourage him to keep reading, while also gratuitously teasing him with an insulting tone.
[For those of you just tuning in to this channel, the previous two posts here were in favour of freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and freedom of the press. Expressed in a way which suggested approval of Geert Wilders and his message.]
To clarify:
I do indeed approve of Geert Wilders and his message. Absolutely. He is often referred to as an extremist far-right politician in English-language reportage, but that demonstrates both a failure to grasp his role in Dutch society (provocateur and XXXX-disturber), and the tendency on the part of the English-language press to swallow the socialist party line as well as the aggrieved whining of our Muslim fellow citizens.
Yes, he has pissed off the socialists and Islamics - what of it? There's a place for that.
When Geert Wilders asserts that certain "Muslim" values are not compatible with civilization, he is right. Honour killings, child-marriage, female circumcision, stoning of homosexuals, jihad, anti-Semitism, and mob-violence - all of these are reprehensible and barbaric.
It is often claimed that some of these are not, strictly speaking, Quran-advocated, or shariah-approved, practices..... Or, in some way, not reflective of real Muslim values. An immaterial argument. More effort is spent telling Westerners this than telling fellow-Muslims, and those disgusting practices merrily continue, unabated, unceasing, unopposed. We can know a Muslim society be these symptoms.
When Geert Wilders fulminates against the Quran, he is right. There are passages within that book which are brutal and extremely nasty. It may very well be worse than Mein Kampf as a hate-filled document that encourages violence and barbarism. That, certainly, is how a large number of Muslims understand it, as can be seen by their actions, their causes, and their utterances.
There are also some sheerly gorgeous poetic passages in it - these may not be enough to redeem the book, but they do prove that the prophet Muhammad was an inspired poet, greatly gifted, despite being illiterate, a brigand, and a nasty piece of work.
[I refuse to speculate on the likelihood that Muhammad had syphilis. Even though I suspect that Arabia must have already been awash with venereal disease in that time, probably affecting well over half the population, my ability to read classical Arabic is too limited to see evidence of syphilitic brain-rot in the Quran, entirely aside from which, that text is far too second-hand to be a reliable indicator of Muhammad's mental state or physical ailments. But if you, dear reader, wish to take it for granted that he had dementia caused by tertiary syphilis, please do so. There is naught to disprove that assumption either.]
It is a sad fact that most of the people who hold the Quran holy are not capable of critical reading or nuanced thinking, and incline towards violence to resolve their intellectual disputes. They certainly are not an example for the rest of us.
When Geert Wilders says that Muslim immigrants should adapt to their host-countries and strive to be upstanding citizens, he is right. He may be overlooking the fact that many of them already have. The ones who haven't, however, stick out like sore-thumbs. They are the ones whose names fill the crime reports of the Netherlands, Belgium, and France. They are a cause of shame to their co-religionists, and an embarrassment to their communities. And it must to be mentioned that the officers who arrest them may be from those same communities. It would benefit all parties if they were encouraged to repatriate to their countries of origin - our societies would benefit, their communities in our societies would benefit. And they themselves would benefit, by returning to environments more primitive and more violent, where they would feel more at home.
The letter-writer (Aboudjahid) who objected to my support for Geert Wilders exemplifies all that is wrong with the Muslim world most admirably. He writes that I deserve to die for disrespecting Islam (an odious and gnostic fetish-cult), that a good Muslim should kill me for denigrating the prophet (bah, that syphilitic pig thief!), that I am wrong for speaking ill of good Islamic countries (every one of which is a despotism and a failed society), that I have insulted Arabs (who are richly deserving of it - they have achieved little since independence but bloodshed, terrorism, syphilis, and suit-jackets of an unfashionable cut).
Given that the author of the e-mail writes in horrible Dutch, from an address that appears to be in Germany, and does not grasp that I am not walking around somewhere in the Netherlands with a large sign on my person advertising who I am, I am not taking his little hate-screed seriously. He is a moron. An idiot. A defective human, possible a pig or a dog. And he is a Muslim.
But I do commend him on being able to figure out my e-mail address from my profile - NorthbeachXzXzXzXzXzXzXzXzXzXzXzXzXzXzXzdotcom. That was brilliant. It must have taken him hours. Or maybe he had help from his family members - collectively, they surely have enough brain cells. It is probably a very large family.
A reader sent me a an e-mail flaming me for supporting Geert Wilders' right to produce and broadcast a fifteen minute film which is critical of Islam.
It was a very angry e-mail, and needless to say I nearly bust a gut laughing. So it is mostly for the benefit of Aboudjahid somewhere in Germany that I write this next post, to thank him for reading me. And to encourage him to keep reading, while also gratuitously teasing him with an insulting tone.
[For those of you just tuning in to this channel, the previous two posts here were in favour of freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and freedom of the press. Expressed in a way which suggested approval of Geert Wilders and his message.]
To clarify:
I do indeed approve of Geert Wilders and his message. Absolutely. He is often referred to as an extremist far-right politician in English-language reportage, but that demonstrates both a failure to grasp his role in Dutch society (provocateur and XXXX-disturber), and the tendency on the part of the English-language press to swallow the socialist party line as well as the aggrieved whining of our Muslim fellow citizens.
Yes, he has pissed off the socialists and Islamics - what of it? There's a place for that.
When Geert Wilders asserts that certain "Muslim" values are not compatible with civilization, he is right. Honour killings, child-marriage, female circumcision, stoning of homosexuals, jihad, anti-Semitism, and mob-violence - all of these are reprehensible and barbaric.
It is often claimed that some of these are not, strictly speaking, Quran-advocated, or shariah-approved, practices..... Or, in some way, not reflective of real Muslim values. An immaterial argument. More effort is spent telling Westerners this than telling fellow-Muslims, and those disgusting practices merrily continue, unabated, unceasing, unopposed. We can know a Muslim society be these symptoms.
When Geert Wilders fulminates against the Quran, he is right. There are passages within that book which are brutal and extremely nasty. It may very well be worse than Mein Kampf as a hate-filled document that encourages violence and barbarism. That, certainly, is how a large number of Muslims understand it, as can be seen by their actions, their causes, and their utterances.
There are also some sheerly gorgeous poetic passages in it - these may not be enough to redeem the book, but they do prove that the prophet Muhammad was an inspired poet, greatly gifted, despite being illiterate, a brigand, and a nasty piece of work.
[I refuse to speculate on the likelihood that Muhammad had syphilis. Even though I suspect that Arabia must have already been awash with venereal disease in that time, probably affecting well over half the population, my ability to read classical Arabic is too limited to see evidence of syphilitic brain-rot in the Quran, entirely aside from which, that text is far too second-hand to be a reliable indicator of Muhammad's mental state or physical ailments. But if you, dear reader, wish to take it for granted that he had dementia caused by tertiary syphilis, please do so. There is naught to disprove that assumption either.]
It is a sad fact that most of the people who hold the Quran holy are not capable of critical reading or nuanced thinking, and incline towards violence to resolve their intellectual disputes. They certainly are not an example for the rest of us.
When Geert Wilders says that Muslim immigrants should adapt to their host-countries and strive to be upstanding citizens, he is right. He may be overlooking the fact that many of them already have. The ones who haven't, however, stick out like sore-thumbs. They are the ones whose names fill the crime reports of the Netherlands, Belgium, and France. They are a cause of shame to their co-religionists, and an embarrassment to their communities. And it must to be mentioned that the officers who arrest them may be from those same communities. It would benefit all parties if they were encouraged to repatriate to their countries of origin - our societies would benefit, their communities in our societies would benefit. And they themselves would benefit, by returning to environments more primitive and more violent, where they would feel more at home.
The letter-writer (Aboudjahid) who objected to my support for Geert Wilders exemplifies all that is wrong with the Muslim world most admirably. He writes that I deserve to die for disrespecting Islam (an odious and gnostic fetish-cult), that a good Muslim should kill me for denigrating the prophet (bah, that syphilitic pig thief!), that I am wrong for speaking ill of good Islamic countries (every one of which is a despotism and a failed society), that I have insulted Arabs (who are richly deserving of it - they have achieved little since independence but bloodshed, terrorism, syphilis, and suit-jackets of an unfashionable cut).
Given that the author of the e-mail writes in horrible Dutch, from an address that appears to be in Germany, and does not grasp that I am not walking around somewhere in the Netherlands with a large sign on my person advertising who I am, I am not taking his little hate-screed seriously. He is a moron. An idiot. A defective human, possible a pig or a dog. And he is a Muslim.
But I do commend him on being able to figure out my e-mail address from my profile - NorthbeachXzXzXzXzXzXzXzXzXzXzXzXzXzXzXzdotcom. That was brilliant. It must have taken him hours. Or maybe he had help from his family members - collectively, they surely have enough brain cells. It is probably a very large family.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
GEERT WILDERS' ANTI-QURAN FILM: DUTCH QUISLINGS BEG GEERT TO NOT PRODUCE IT
According to an article in the Algemeen Dagblad, the parliamentary fraction leader of the CDA (Christian-Democratic Appeal) in the Hague is begging Geert Wilders to not go through with his plans to publish a movie critical of the Quran and of Islam.
http://www.ad.nl/binnenland/2092382/CDA_Wilders_stop_met_antiKoranfilm.html
[Article in Dutch]
Pieter van Geel is worried that showing the film will have serious consequences in certain parts of the world.
[Both Hamas and the Taliban have already threatened to target Dutch entities outside the Netherlands, and Muslims in Europe have already spoken in terms of rioting.]
Pieter van Geel is a traitor.
Mr. Pieter van Geel is also a coward and opportunist. I would have thought that the Dutch had had enough of cowardice and opportunism during World War II, when almost their entire governmental bureaucracy co-operated with the Germans (as did also millions of private citizens). But cowardice and opportunism seem to have survived quite well in the Dutch psyche (as demonstrated, for instance, at Srebrenica), and must positively thrive among their politicians. The CDA, it will be remembered, consists of rival religious factions who have put aside their deep-seated need to burn each other at the stake in order to grab a share of governmental pie. Showing how much they have thrown their beliefs out of the door, they have also vetted Muslims and Hindus as their reps in the parliament, and in local councils - thus establishing that even the Christian part of their party's name is a sham.
Think of the CDA as being a bunch of poltroons who believe in religion as a mechanism, though they may not actually be capable of believing in a deity.
[Plus, of course, many good old fashioned anti-Semites, and quite a number of collaborators.]
In a previous post I mentioned that I am in a near-permanent state of fury at the Dutch and their idiotic opinions. Let me codicilize that by saying that while I do not agree with Geert Wilders on the whole, I have no problem with him saying what he thinks, and I wholeheartedly applaud his plan to show his movie - whether the Quran is a fascistoid book as reprehensible as Mein Kampf, inspiration for violence and terrorism, and a dangerous influence on weak minds, as he avers, is a point that certainly ought to be discussed. And what better venue for such a discussion than one of the world's most liberal democracies? The Netherlands is rightly proud of their tolerant, progressive, and pragmatic society, and looks back on several centuries of having been better than the rest of the world. How sad it would be if all that is to be proven a sham by their caving in to Muslim blackmail.
Having seen much of the intellectual inheritance of the Western World dealt with ungently by both our own extremists and the whackjobs in the Islamic ummah, I see no reason to hold-off on either Das Kapital (a nearly-unreadable tract by a profoundly disturbed intellectual-manqué) or the Quran (a series of dubious revelations and diktats by a manipulative driveller of questionable morals and ethics). Or anybody else's sacred writings.
Either stuff like this gets hashed out in the marketplace of ideas, or, in the interests of preserving our own intellectual inheritance, we will have to fight the barbarians back from the doorstep of Rome.
Putting pressure on Geert Wilders, as Mr. van Geel and many other Dutch politicals are doing, proves that the barbarians already have sympathizers within the gates - or that some citizens are willing to allow the forces of intolerance and fanaticism to dictate terms. It does not speak of a nation confident in its own culture or willing to defend its own values.
Muslims may not like what Wilders says about Islam. What they have said about Christianity and Judaism is worse than comparable. How odd that more of them choose to live among us than we among them.
http://www.ad.nl/binnenland/2092382/CDA_Wilders_stop_met_antiKoranfilm.html
[Article in Dutch]
Pieter van Geel is worried that showing the film will have serious consequences in certain parts of the world.
[Both Hamas and the Taliban have already threatened to target Dutch entities outside the Netherlands, and Muslims in Europe have already spoken in terms of rioting.]
Pieter van Geel is a traitor.
Mr. Pieter van Geel is also a coward and opportunist. I would have thought that the Dutch had had enough of cowardice and opportunism during World War II, when almost their entire governmental bureaucracy co-operated with the Germans (as did also millions of private citizens). But cowardice and opportunism seem to have survived quite well in the Dutch psyche (as demonstrated, for instance, at Srebrenica), and must positively thrive among their politicians. The CDA, it will be remembered, consists of rival religious factions who have put aside their deep-seated need to burn each other at the stake in order to grab a share of governmental pie. Showing how much they have thrown their beliefs out of the door, they have also vetted Muslims and Hindus as their reps in the parliament, and in local councils - thus establishing that even the Christian part of their party's name is a sham.
Think of the CDA as being a bunch of poltroons who believe in religion as a mechanism, though they may not actually be capable of believing in a deity.
[Plus, of course, many good old fashioned anti-Semites, and quite a number of collaborators.]
In a previous post I mentioned that I am in a near-permanent state of fury at the Dutch and their idiotic opinions. Let me codicilize that by saying that while I do not agree with Geert Wilders on the whole, I have no problem with him saying what he thinks, and I wholeheartedly applaud his plan to show his movie - whether the Quran is a fascistoid book as reprehensible as Mein Kampf, inspiration for violence and terrorism, and a dangerous influence on weak minds, as he avers, is a point that certainly ought to be discussed. And what better venue for such a discussion than one of the world's most liberal democracies? The Netherlands is rightly proud of their tolerant, progressive, and pragmatic society, and looks back on several centuries of having been better than the rest of the world. How sad it would be if all that is to be proven a sham by their caving in to Muslim blackmail.
Having seen much of the intellectual inheritance of the Western World dealt with ungently by both our own extremists and the whackjobs in the Islamic ummah, I see no reason to hold-off on either Das Kapital (a nearly-unreadable tract by a profoundly disturbed intellectual-manqué) or the Quran (a series of dubious revelations and diktats by a manipulative driveller of questionable morals and ethics). Or anybody else's sacred writings.
Either stuff like this gets hashed out in the marketplace of ideas, or, in the interests of preserving our own intellectual inheritance, we will have to fight the barbarians back from the doorstep of Rome.
Putting pressure on Geert Wilders, as Mr. van Geel and many other Dutch politicals are doing, proves that the barbarians already have sympathizers within the gates - or that some citizens are willing to allow the forces of intolerance and fanaticism to dictate terms. It does not speak of a nation confident in its own culture or willing to defend its own values.
Muslims may not like what Wilders says about Islam. What they have said about Christianity and Judaism is worse than comparable. How odd that more of them choose to live among us than we among them.
READY FOR MARCH NINETEENTH, AND FEELING MIGHTY FEISTY!
Probably way too much coffee so early in the morning, but.....
What with Sudanese and Paki protests against Denmark, the Taliban threatening to "get" the Dutch because of Geert Wilders' as yet unfinished and unshown film, an Egyptian children's international film festival rejecting Dutch entries because of Geert Wilders, Hamas television spouting murderous drivel against the Danes specifically and everyone else in general, Pakistan hijacking youtube out of fear that someone might see the (as yet unfinished and unshown) Geert Wilders anti-Quran film, anonymous death-threats to Dutch institutions overseas...... and, not least, the cowardly sniveling attitude of several mainstream Dutch politicians and public figures....... Plus the intemperate statements by certain Muslim public figures who live in Europe.......
I just might make a sign saying "Geert Wilders is right - you lot ARE assholes". Perhaps as a talk-balloon coming out the mouth of a prophet-cartoon. Or, if I regain some of my sanity before then, superimposed on a Dutch flag.
As part of a counterprotest to the extremist fringe and Muslim whackjobs during their planned demonstrations on March 19th. here in SF.
Grrrrrr!
-----B.O.T.H.
PS. I: My tolerance for my Islamic fellow citizens is falling to an all-time low...... Must try to remember that they're not all like that, not all of them are stark-raving loopy, many are actually fine people, some of them are saner than myself........ this is hard.
PS. II: Normally I'm not pleased with the Dutch, being in a near-permanent state of fury at them and their idiotic opinions. But presently I am very appreciative of the snarky Bronx-cheering coming from the Dutch peanut-gallery in the face of all the bluster and outrage from, among others, Pakistanis (a pox upon them), Pallies (may they be eternally despised), Sudanese (starve naked in the heat, you morons), Egyptians (may you all die of the clap you got from your sisters, you effete swine), and other fervent Islamic types (stop honouring that child-molesting pig, you dunderheads). Betcha the Malays (pirates, rapists, degenerates, and syphilitics) and the Saudis (overdressed, overfed, overindulged, and given to humping camels) and the Iranians (largely unwashed and depraved devil-worshippers) are going to weigh in too. So screw them and their sensitivities, and a plague upon all of them, their primitive retro-grade cults, and their leaders. Bugger the lot, and the camels they rode in on.
PS. III: I have not mentioned the Turks and Moroccans yet....... I am counting on them to keep quiet, seeing as far too many of them live in the Netherlands and Flanders (as is proven by the crime statistics), and many more live off of Tourism. I'm sure they'll understand.......
PS. IV: Feel the love, baby, feel the love.
What with Sudanese and Paki protests against Denmark, the Taliban threatening to "get" the Dutch because of Geert Wilders' as yet unfinished and unshown film, an Egyptian children's international film festival rejecting Dutch entries because of Geert Wilders, Hamas television spouting murderous drivel against the Danes specifically and everyone else in general, Pakistan hijacking youtube out of fear that someone might see the (as yet unfinished and unshown) Geert Wilders anti-Quran film, anonymous death-threats to Dutch institutions overseas...... and, not least, the cowardly sniveling attitude of several mainstream Dutch politicians and public figures....... Plus the intemperate statements by certain Muslim public figures who live in Europe.......
I just might make a sign saying "Geert Wilders is right - you lot ARE assholes". Perhaps as a talk-balloon coming out the mouth of a prophet-cartoon. Or, if I regain some of my sanity before then, superimposed on a Dutch flag.
As part of a counterprotest to the extremist fringe and Muslim whackjobs during their planned demonstrations on March 19th. here in SF.
Grrrrrr!
-----B.O.T.H.
PS. I: My tolerance for my Islamic fellow citizens is falling to an all-time low...... Must try to remember that they're not all like that, not all of them are stark-raving loopy, many are actually fine people, some of them are saner than myself........ this is hard.
PS. II: Normally I'm not pleased with the Dutch, being in a near-permanent state of fury at them and their idiotic opinions. But presently I am very appreciative of the snarky Bronx-cheering coming from the Dutch peanut-gallery in the face of all the bluster and outrage from, among others, Pakistanis (a pox upon them), Pallies (may they be eternally despised), Sudanese (starve naked in the heat, you morons), Egyptians (may you all die of the clap you got from your sisters, you effete swine), and other fervent Islamic types (stop honouring that child-molesting pig, you dunderheads). Betcha the Malays (pirates, rapists, degenerates, and syphilitics) and the Saudis (overdressed, overfed, overindulged, and given to humping camels) and the Iranians (largely unwashed and depraved devil-worshippers) are going to weigh in too. So screw them and their sensitivities, and a plague upon all of them, their primitive retro-grade cults, and their leaders. Bugger the lot, and the camels they rode in on.
PS. III: I have not mentioned the Turks and Moroccans yet....... I am counting on them to keep quiet, seeing as far too many of them live in the Netherlands and Flanders (as is proven by the crime statistics), and many more live off of Tourism. I'm sure they'll understand.......
PS. IV: Feel the love, baby, feel the love.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
MUHAMMAD, MUHAMMAD, MUHAMMAD
News item:
AP: KHARTOUM, Sudan - A British teacher in Sudan was convicted Thursday of the (less-serious) charge of insulting Islam for letting her pupils name a teddy bear "Muhammad," and was sentenced to 15 days in prison and deportation to Britain.
You know what? Those folks are crazy. Can't reason with them, they're just over-the-top bonkers. Nuts. Stark raving. Sudan is a pit.
Her students named the bear Muhammad, probably because it is the equivalent of John Doe or Richard Shmoe in their horrid little world, and the court then found her, not them, her, her! guilty of "insulting the faith of Muslims in Sudan" per Article 125 of the Sudanese criminal code.
Note, by the way, that her defense team included at least one gentleman named Muhammad - it is not known whether he resembles a teddy bear, blasphemous or otherwise.
Okay then.
Muhammad!
My shoes are both named Muhammad. The left shoe is Muhammad, the right shoe is Muhammad.
Both of my garish plaid boxer shorts are named Muhammad, as well as all three pale blue pairs of boxers (the white underpants are named Jim, Jock, Buster, and Iron John).
I also have a stuffed piggy - I'll name her Muhammad. As well as the hunk of fromage in the refrigerator ('meet Muhammad, the BIG cheese'), the vacuum cleaner ('Muhammad sucks'), the electric fan ('Muhammad blows'), the bottle of clog-dissolving chemicals ('Muhammad bites'), the blender ('Muhammad the epileptic'), and the fry pan ('burn, Muhammad, burn').
Guess what else I'll name Muhammad?
[Hint: Muhammad is full of it (*).]
Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad.
Muhammad is, per a BBC news report, the most popular name for baby boys in Britain. It is very popular in France too, as well as in the more murderous headhunting districts of Rotterdam and Utrecht. Several convicted criminals in Europe are named Muhammad, as well as not a few pimps, rapists, child-molesters, and exhibitionists who have done time.
Muhammad was also the name of the crook, misogynist, wife-beater, child-rapist who ran "Your Black Muslim Bakery" in Oakland for many years, before he croaked and his criminally inclined offspring quarreled over the inheritance and ran the place into the ground.
Some of them are also named Muhammad.
Those poor Sudanese students should never have named the teddy bear Muhammad - there's just too much garbage walking around with the name Muhammad. It is not a name anybody should have to endure.
================================
(*) The Muhammad who is full of it (as hinted at above) is my sock drawer.
I don't know what on earth YOU thought I meant, Muhammad, but we keep it clean here on Muhammad. We would never name the Muhammad which we Muhammad every day for Muhammad Muhammad. It would be both Muhammad and Muhammad to do so, aside from being INCREDIBLY Muhammad, and disgusting to boot. We are not Muhammad, Muhammad.
Muhammad.
AP: KHARTOUM, Sudan - A British teacher in Sudan was convicted Thursday of the (less-serious) charge of insulting Islam for letting her pupils name a teddy bear "Muhammad," and was sentenced to 15 days in prison and deportation to Britain.
You know what? Those folks are crazy. Can't reason with them, they're just over-the-top bonkers. Nuts. Stark raving. Sudan is a pit.
Her students named the bear Muhammad, probably because it is the equivalent of John Doe or Richard Shmoe in their horrid little world, and the court then found her, not them, her, her! guilty of "insulting the faith of Muslims in Sudan" per Article 125 of the Sudanese criminal code.
Note, by the way, that her defense team included at least one gentleman named Muhammad - it is not known whether he resembles a teddy bear, blasphemous or otherwise.
Okay then.
Muhammad!
My shoes are both named Muhammad. The left shoe is Muhammad, the right shoe is Muhammad.
Both of my garish plaid boxer shorts are named Muhammad, as well as all three pale blue pairs of boxers (the white underpants are named Jim, Jock, Buster, and Iron John).
I also have a stuffed piggy - I'll name her Muhammad. As well as the hunk of fromage in the refrigerator ('meet Muhammad, the BIG cheese'), the vacuum cleaner ('Muhammad sucks'), the electric fan ('Muhammad blows'), the bottle of clog-dissolving chemicals ('Muhammad bites'), the blender ('Muhammad the epileptic'), and the fry pan ('burn, Muhammad, burn').
Guess what else I'll name Muhammad?
[Hint: Muhammad is full of it (*).]
Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad.
Muhammad is, per a BBC news report, the most popular name for baby boys in Britain. It is very popular in France too, as well as in the more murderous headhunting districts of Rotterdam and Utrecht. Several convicted criminals in Europe are named Muhammad, as well as not a few pimps, rapists, child-molesters, and exhibitionists who have done time.
Muhammad was also the name of the crook, misogynist, wife-beater, child-rapist who ran "Your Black Muslim Bakery" in Oakland for many years, before he croaked and his criminally inclined offspring quarreled over the inheritance and ran the place into the ground.
Some of them are also named Muhammad.
Those poor Sudanese students should never have named the teddy bear Muhammad - there's just too much garbage walking around with the name Muhammad. It is not a name anybody should have to endure.
================================
(*) The Muhammad who is full of it (as hinted at above) is my sock drawer.
I don't know what on earth YOU thought I meant, Muhammad, but we keep it clean here on Muhammad. We would never name the Muhammad which we Muhammad every day for Muhammad Muhammad. It would be both Muhammad and Muhammad to do so, aside from being INCREDIBLY Muhammad, and disgusting to boot. We are not Muhammad, Muhammad.
Muhammad.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
THE QURAN SHOULD BE BANNED
Dutch parliamentarian says that the Quran is propaganda for violent intolerance which should be banned.
Sources:
http://www.nrc.nl/binnenland/article749941.ece/Wilders_bepleit_verbod_op_Koran
[Article in Dutch from the NRC Handelsblad]
http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/article451338.ece/Genoeg_is_genoeg_verbied_de_Koran
[Opinion piece by Geert Wilders in the Volkskrant (in Dutch).]
Geert Wilders, in reacting to the brutal attack on a Dutch citizen who deserted Islam and founded an organization to promote the rights and safety of Islamic apostates recently, called the Quran an “Islamitic ‘Mein Kampf’”, which reflected a "sick ideology of Allah and Muhammad".
According to Wilders, not only does the sale of the book need to be outlawed, but also its possession and use by Mosques.
Geert Wilders has made several statements in the past that were considered intolerant of Islam, and has advocated a complete halt to immigration from the Muslim world and a hard line towards the Muslim immigrants who commit crimes and refuse to integrate into Dutch society.
Given that there are nearly a million Muslims in the Netherlands, and that there have been the typical social problems that could be expected from trying to absorb so large a number of culturally different immigrants, many of whom come from less complex societies and have extreme ideologies which clash with Dutch values, Geert Wilders merely gives voice to the convictions of the native population, which feels itself overwhelmed, outnumbered, and exploited by both the Muslims and by the politicians who let this state of affairs arise.
What was the final straw for Wilders?
This past Saturday, Ehsan Jami, who founded a committee for ex-Muslims in the Netherlands, was viciously assaulted and nearly killed by two Moroccans and a Somali who were angered by his having broken away from Islam.
Wilders, in a letter printed in the Volkskrant, writes:
"In verschillende soera’s worden moslims opgeroepen joden, christenen, andersgelovigen en niet-gelovigen te onderdrukken, vervolgen of vermoorden, vrouwen te slaan en te verkrachten en met geweld een wereldwijde islamitische staat te vestigen."
['In various verses Muslims are urged to repress, persecute, or murder Jews, Christians, dissidents, and unbelievers; to beat and rape women; and to use violence to establish a world-wide Islamic state.']
Further:
"Verbied dat ellendige boek zoals ook Mein Kampf verboden is! Geef zo een signaal aan de overvallers van Jami en andere islamisten dat de Koran in ons land nooit en te nimmer als inspiratie of excuus voor geweld mag worden gebruikt."
['Outlaw that miserable book, just as Mein Kampf is banned! And so give a signal to those who attacked Jami and to other Islamists that the Quran, in our country, may never be used to inspire or excuse violence.']
Geert Wilders continues:
"Wat schaam ik me voor de Nederlandse politici. Hun naïviteit en ziekelijke streven naar de utopische gematigde islam, die ons land alleen maar hel en verdoemenis brengt."
['I am ashamed of Dutch politicians. Their naiveté and sickly striving for an utopian moderate Islam, which only brings our country hell and damnation.']
He slams Dutch politicians who had talks with Hamas, and who have approached the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as Dutch politicians who have obsequiously curried favour with Arab heads of state. He criticizes most particularly the tolerance of the progressives toward Muslim thugs who beat up homosexuals, commit robbery and rape, and demand Islamic banking, special treatment, and separate public facilities for Muslims.
The same progressive politicians lambasted by Geert Wilders have bleated in response that his statements are hateful and incite violence.
Which, of course, is precisely what he claims that the Quran does.
He is being sued for incitement by a failed city council candidate from the Dutch Labour Party in some depressing burg. Her party fully supports her - they rely on the Muslim vote.
It should be noted that the Dutch government considers protection for apostates and heretics to be unnecessarily divisive, and has hesitated or even refused to act when such people are threatened by Islamists.
Remember Theo van Gogh? Remember Ajaan Hirsi Ali?
I do not entirely agree with Geert Wilders - much of the objectionable material is actually in the Shariah instead, and the Quran itself is better described as Messaianic tribal war poetry, or what happens when an illiterate seer drunk on the divine goes through a prolonged psychotic episode. Much of it is actually staggeringly beautifull, some of it is stirring and evocative. Literalists will indeed take the text amiss. However until the Wahabis seized Mecca and Medina, Islamic orthodoxy was not quite so sodden with bloody-minded literalists as it is today.
But, in that legal means are being explored to silence Geert Wilders, by the same apparatchiks who for nearly three decades pursued the disastrous policies that let in nearly a million Muslims, and who turned a blind eye to the Islamic intolerancies that they permitted to colonize the cities, I support his right and his obligation to speak his mind.
If he believes that the Quran is an odious work of fiction, and filled with hate and violence, he should certainly say so.
If he thinks that Islam conflicts with civilized values, he should be all means say so.
If he fears that Islamic behaviours and practices are poisons which may destroy everything good and worthwhile in Dutch society, he should absolutely say so.
Instead of using murder, death threats, and thuggery to silence people, the Muslim imports (and quisling party hacks) should learn to use civil debate.
Prove him wrong with discourse, rather than proving him right with a lawsuit or a bullet.
If he is wrong or too strident, he above all should not be silenced, but counter-argued by reasonable people.
Sources:
http://www.nrc.nl/binnenland/article749941.ece/Wilders_bepleit_verbod_op_Koran
[Article in Dutch from the NRC Handelsblad]
http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/article451338.ece/Genoeg_is_genoeg_verbied_de_Koran
[Opinion piece by Geert Wilders in the Volkskrant (in Dutch).]
Geert Wilders, in reacting to the brutal attack on a Dutch citizen who deserted Islam and founded an organization to promote the rights and safety of Islamic apostates recently, called the Quran an “Islamitic ‘Mein Kampf’”, which reflected a "sick ideology of Allah and Muhammad".
According to Wilders, not only does the sale of the book need to be outlawed, but also its possession and use by Mosques.
Geert Wilders has made several statements in the past that were considered intolerant of Islam, and has advocated a complete halt to immigration from the Muslim world and a hard line towards the Muslim immigrants who commit crimes and refuse to integrate into Dutch society.
Given that there are nearly a million Muslims in the Netherlands, and that there have been the typical social problems that could be expected from trying to absorb so large a number of culturally different immigrants, many of whom come from less complex societies and have extreme ideologies which clash with Dutch values, Geert Wilders merely gives voice to the convictions of the native population, which feels itself overwhelmed, outnumbered, and exploited by both the Muslims and by the politicians who let this state of affairs arise.
What was the final straw for Wilders?
This past Saturday, Ehsan Jami, who founded a committee for ex-Muslims in the Netherlands, was viciously assaulted and nearly killed by two Moroccans and a Somali who were angered by his having broken away from Islam.
Wilders, in a letter printed in the Volkskrant, writes:
"In verschillende soera’s worden moslims opgeroepen joden, christenen, andersgelovigen en niet-gelovigen te onderdrukken, vervolgen of vermoorden, vrouwen te slaan en te verkrachten en met geweld een wereldwijde islamitische staat te vestigen."
['In various verses Muslims are urged to repress, persecute, or murder Jews, Christians, dissidents, and unbelievers; to beat and rape women; and to use violence to establish a world-wide Islamic state.']
Further:
"Verbied dat ellendige boek zoals ook Mein Kampf verboden is! Geef zo een signaal aan de overvallers van Jami en andere islamisten dat de Koran in ons land nooit en te nimmer als inspiratie of excuus voor geweld mag worden gebruikt."
['Outlaw that miserable book, just as Mein Kampf is banned! And so give a signal to those who attacked Jami and to other Islamists that the Quran, in our country, may never be used to inspire or excuse violence.']
Geert Wilders continues:
"Wat schaam ik me voor de Nederlandse politici. Hun naïviteit en ziekelijke streven naar de utopische gematigde islam, die ons land alleen maar hel en verdoemenis brengt."
['I am ashamed of Dutch politicians. Their naiveté and sickly striving for an utopian moderate Islam, which only brings our country hell and damnation.']
He slams Dutch politicians who had talks with Hamas, and who have approached the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as Dutch politicians who have obsequiously curried favour with Arab heads of state. He criticizes most particularly the tolerance of the progressives toward Muslim thugs who beat up homosexuals, commit robbery and rape, and demand Islamic banking, special treatment, and separate public facilities for Muslims.
The same progressive politicians lambasted by Geert Wilders have bleated in response that his statements are hateful and incite violence.
Which, of course, is precisely what he claims that the Quran does.
He is being sued for incitement by a failed city council candidate from the Dutch Labour Party in some depressing burg. Her party fully supports her - they rely on the Muslim vote.
It should be noted that the Dutch government considers protection for apostates and heretics to be unnecessarily divisive, and has hesitated or even refused to act when such people are threatened by Islamists.
Remember Theo van Gogh? Remember Ajaan Hirsi Ali?
I do not entirely agree with Geert Wilders - much of the objectionable material is actually in the Shariah instead, and the Quran itself is better described as Messaianic tribal war poetry, or what happens when an illiterate seer drunk on the divine goes through a prolonged psychotic episode. Much of it is actually staggeringly beautifull, some of it is stirring and evocative. Literalists will indeed take the text amiss. However until the Wahabis seized Mecca and Medina, Islamic orthodoxy was not quite so sodden with bloody-minded literalists as it is today.
But, in that legal means are being explored to silence Geert Wilders, by the same apparatchiks who for nearly three decades pursued the disastrous policies that let in nearly a million Muslims, and who turned a blind eye to the Islamic intolerancies that they permitted to colonize the cities, I support his right and his obligation to speak his mind.
If he believes that the Quran is an odious work of fiction, and filled with hate and violence, he should certainly say so.
If he thinks that Islam conflicts with civilized values, he should be all means say so.
If he fears that Islamic behaviours and practices are poisons which may destroy everything good and worthwhile in Dutch society, he should absolutely say so.
Instead of using murder, death threats, and thuggery to silence people, the Muslim imports (and quisling party hacks) should learn to use civil debate.
Prove him wrong with discourse, rather than proving him right with a lawsuit or a bullet.
If he is wrong or too strident, he above all should not be silenced, but counter-argued by reasonable people.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
SEEING THINGS FROM AN ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVE
Strange as it may seem, there are times when I can almost see things from the Islamist perspective.
Almost.
They aren't all nuts. At least, not all the time. Sometimes they make sense and actually have something rational to say.
But then there are things like this:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/123239
QUOTE:
"In an Iranian publication, the worldwide Harry Potter phenomenon was declared a global Zionist conspiracy....
--------
Kayhahn, an Iranian publication closely affiliated with the ruling mullahs and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called the Harry Potter series "a billion-dollar Zionist project." The Potter books were designed by Zionist plotters, according to the Kayhahn editorial, to "disrupt young minds." ."
Dudes, you might as well call literacy and intelligence Zionist conspiracies. Apparently you lot are missing the point of both of those things.
Look, just because it's more readable than either the Quran or the rabid rantings of that depraved old pervert does not mean it's going to disrupt young minds - that's your job. The writings of Khomeini are a good start on that task in any case, but you don't hear us kvetching about it, do you?
[Regarding the Ayatollah Khomeini, the very same thing could be said about him and his heirs as my mother yelled when informed for the so-manieth time that Gandhi had been killed, in the bar on Telegraph Avenue where she was working on her thesis: "If I hear one more word about that dirty old man in a bed sheet, I shall scream!" Just thought you should know. Y'all should have put that sicko down when he returned from France. And hurriedly buried him out behind the midden. Or was that just too intuitive?]
Not everything is a Zionist plot. Heck, not even half of the things you lot call Zionist plots have anything to do with Zionism. Not even a fraction.
[If all the things which are called Zionist plots actually were Zionist plots, the Arab world would no longer exist, the alleged Palestinians would all be running Vodka concessions in Russia and Siberia, and Iran would be a minor agricultural province of India known for occasional tribal violence, incest, and syphilis. Kinda like Kentucky.]
The more you folks keep screaming about Zionist plots, the more likely it is that reasonable people will write y'all off as hopelessly insane, totally irredeemable, and just too much bother to ever deal with.
Are intelligence, perspective, common sense, rational behaviour, sanity, and reflection all just meaningless concepts in your world? Is it the climate? Is the mid-summer heat frying your brains?
Seriously, if you don't want to be treated as a bunch of whackjobs, consider medication. Valium. Or Librium. Heck, use both. It will help.
Oh, and by the way.... This blog is a Zionist plot. Seriously.
Almost.
They aren't all nuts. At least, not all the time. Sometimes they make sense and actually have something rational to say.
But then there are things like this:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/123239
QUOTE:
"In an Iranian publication, the worldwide Harry Potter phenomenon was declared a global Zionist conspiracy....
--------
Kayhahn, an Iranian publication closely affiliated with the ruling mullahs and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called the Harry Potter series "a billion-dollar Zionist project." The Potter books were designed by Zionist plotters, according to the Kayhahn editorial, to "disrupt young minds." ."
Dudes, you might as well call literacy and intelligence Zionist conspiracies. Apparently you lot are missing the point of both of those things.
Look, just because it's more readable than either the Quran or the rabid rantings of that depraved old pervert does not mean it's going to disrupt young minds - that's your job. The writings of Khomeini are a good start on that task in any case, but you don't hear us kvetching about it, do you?
[Regarding the Ayatollah Khomeini, the very same thing could be said about him and his heirs as my mother yelled when informed for the so-manieth time that Gandhi had been killed, in the bar on Telegraph Avenue where she was working on her thesis: "If I hear one more word about that dirty old man in a bed sheet, I shall scream!" Just thought you should know. Y'all should have put that sicko down when he returned from France. And hurriedly buried him out behind the midden. Or was that just too intuitive?]
Not everything is a Zionist plot. Heck, not even half of the things you lot call Zionist plots have anything to do with Zionism. Not even a fraction.
[If all the things which are called Zionist plots actually were Zionist plots, the Arab world would no longer exist, the alleged Palestinians would all be running Vodka concessions in Russia and Siberia, and Iran would be a minor agricultural province of India known for occasional tribal violence, incest, and syphilis. Kinda like Kentucky.]
The more you folks keep screaming about Zionist plots, the more likely it is that reasonable people will write y'all off as hopelessly insane, totally irredeemable, and just too much bother to ever deal with.
Are intelligence, perspective, common sense, rational behaviour, sanity, and reflection all just meaningless concepts in your world? Is it the climate? Is the mid-summer heat frying your brains?
Seriously, if you don't want to be treated as a bunch of whackjobs, consider medication. Valium. Or Librium. Heck, use both. It will help.
Oh, and by the way.... This blog is a Zionist plot. Seriously.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
ANTI-SEMITES UNITE; YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT YOUR BRAINS!
What do the crazed killer at Virginia Tech, the slaying of three Christians in Turkey, the massacres in Darfur, World War Two, and the Sunni carbomb that blew over one hundred and forty Shiites to smithereens in Baghdad today have in common?
Simple.
It's the fault of Bush, America, and the Jews.
Most specifically, the Jews.
At least that is what several people in the Netherlands believe.
I ain't kidding.
Astute readers of the comments underneath Dutch newspaper articles on the internet and visitors to Dutch internet fora will have noticed that there are two underlying practices to much Dutch commentary. The first one is 'azijnzijken', the second is 'miereneuken'.
[Azijnzijken = Micturating vinegar; making spiteful remarks no matter how inappropriate, because one just doesn't like somebody or something. Vicious slander, lashon horo.
Miereneuken = Committing congress with ants; finding fault, no matter how much of a stretch, no matter how irrelevant, no matter how small-minded it proves one to be.]
The other thing that these same astute readers will have noticed is the conflation of radical Islamic, European Communist, and Neo-Nazi rhetoric.
Because of this it is hard to figure out the ideology of commentators.
Often one part of their bushwa can seem right-wing paranoid, while another part goes off in a different direction entirely. The European left adheres to the same conspiracy theories as the European right. And our ultra left and right often mirror that pattern (American extremists seem incapable of original thought, and imitate the Europeans - especially when criticizing the US and sneering at Americans).
The Dutch and German neonazis say virtually the same thing about the US as the communist activists in Western Europe.
They aver that the US is controlled by Zionists who wish to declare a holy war against Islam on behalf of Israel and big business interests, in order to end up controlling the world. Communists stress the business connection a bit more; neonazis stress the evil Jewish connection. The racists on both sides connipt their fits about the Jews, asserting that it is because of Jews that there are problems with non-whites – again, slight variance: communists claim that the draining of the third world (resources, labour) is a Jewish business plot, neonazis insist that the presence of the third world inside Europe is an attempt to weaken the Aryans.
In the rhetorical scrimmage, the extremes often support each other – their actual political involvement is mostly hypothetical, whereas making points and pushing ideas is daily business.
This pattern spills over into dialoguing with our own opposition here in the Bay Area – it is often hard to tell where they are coming from and what their underlying ideological basis is – the anti-Semitic strain is often at odds with much else.
Anti-Semitism is a religion. Of course, so are Marxism and Satanism. ‘Nuff said.
Simple.
It's the fault of Bush, America, and the Jews.
Most specifically, the Jews.
At least that is what several people in the Netherlands believe.
I ain't kidding.
Astute readers of the comments underneath Dutch newspaper articles on the internet and visitors to Dutch internet fora will have noticed that there are two underlying practices to much Dutch commentary. The first one is 'azijnzijken', the second is 'miereneuken'.
[Azijnzijken = Micturating vinegar; making spiteful remarks no matter how inappropriate, because one just doesn't like somebody or something. Vicious slander, lashon horo.
Miereneuken = Committing congress with ants; finding fault, no matter how much of a stretch, no matter how irrelevant, no matter how small-minded it proves one to be.]
The other thing that these same astute readers will have noticed is the conflation of radical Islamic, European Communist, and Neo-Nazi rhetoric.
Because of this it is hard to figure out the ideology of commentators.
Often one part of their bushwa can seem right-wing paranoid, while another part goes off in a different direction entirely. The European left adheres to the same conspiracy theories as the European right. And our ultra left and right often mirror that pattern (American extremists seem incapable of original thought, and imitate the Europeans - especially when criticizing the US and sneering at Americans).
The Dutch and German neonazis say virtually the same thing about the US as the communist activists in Western Europe.
They aver that the US is controlled by Zionists who wish to declare a holy war against Islam on behalf of Israel and big business interests, in order to end up controlling the world. Communists stress the business connection a bit more; neonazis stress the evil Jewish connection. The racists on both sides connipt their fits about the Jews, asserting that it is because of Jews that there are problems with non-whites – again, slight variance: communists claim that the draining of the third world (resources, labour) is a Jewish business plot, neonazis insist that the presence of the third world inside Europe is an attempt to weaken the Aryans.
In the rhetorical scrimmage, the extremes often support each other – their actual political involvement is mostly hypothetical, whereas making points and pushing ideas is daily business.
This pattern spills over into dialoguing with our own opposition here in the Bay Area – it is often hard to tell where they are coming from and what their underlying ideological basis is – the anti-Semitic strain is often at odds with much else.
Anti-Semitism is a religion. Of course, so are Marxism and Satanism. ‘Nuff said.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
THE QURAN, THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD AND HIS CHILD BRIDE, UNDESIRABLES, TERRORISTS, AND OTHER SUBJECTS
Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders of the Freedom party said yesterday that if Muslims want to stay and be a part of (Dutch) society they should tear out half the Quran and discard it, as it espouses values and attitudes which are incompatible with western civilization. He also made mention of Muhammad's favourite wife, Aisha, whom the prophet became engaged to when she was six, and married (with consummation) when she was nine. He further pointed out that if the prophet Muhammad were alive today, he would have to be deported as an undesirable or locked up as a terrorist. Naturally, the internet is buzzing, with several writers having fits.
His party has nine seats. Judging by some of the reactions, they may have two or three times that number after the next election (four years from now, or earlier, if the just formed cabinet falls).
He's a hatemonger, and intemperate. But he's also a ballsy loudmouthed gadfly. And pisses off the standard-issue Dutch politicians and Hague bureaucrats.
Sort of the Pim Fortuyn of anti-Islamists.
[His site was where I first found the cartoons, by the way.]
For some odd reason, many Dutch, who normally support all the usual liberal humanist progressive points of view, seem to be of the opinion that if he gets whacked, that's to be expected, only natural, perfectly all right, and his own fault.
They may be overlooking the idea that he has every right to say whatever intolerant thing he wants to, and has a right to protection if there are threats upon his life.
Instead, many have opined that a recently uncovered plot to assassinate him in a suicide car-bomb attack which aimed to also kill as many innocent bystanders as possible was probably justified.
[How do you say 'chicken' in Dutch? Kip. But it doesn't have quite the same connotations. Say 'lafaard' (coward) instead.]
Link to the Algemeen Dagblad article (in Dutch):
http://www.ad.nl/binnenland/article1086329.ece?pageNavType=all#reactie
Link to the Gazet van Antwerp article (also in Dutch):
http://www.gva.be/nieuws/Buitenland/default.asp?art={16FE8039-3F50-41FF-A3F8-625F0ACD9869}
[ Zelfmoordaanslag tegen Nederlands politicus beraamd ]
Quote: "De Nederlandse rechtspopulist en fractieleider van de Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV) Geert Wilders is vorige week bedreigd met een zelfmoordaanslag. Twee jongemannen zouden het plan hebben om Wilders neer te schieten en vervolgens een busje vol explosieven bij de politicus tot ontploffing te brengen. Daarbij moesten "veel onschuldigen omkomen in de enorme chaos"."
[Translation: The Dutch rightwing populist and parliamentary fraction leader of the Freedom Party (PVV) Geert Wilders was targeted last week for a suicide attack. Two young men apparently planned to shoot Wilders and subsequently detonate a van filled with explosives at the scene. It was intended that "many innocents should perish in the enormous (ensuing) chaos.]
His party has nine seats. Judging by some of the reactions, they may have two or three times that number after the next election (four years from now, or earlier, if the just formed cabinet falls).
He's a hatemonger, and intemperate. But he's also a ballsy loudmouthed gadfly. And pisses off the standard-issue Dutch politicians and Hague bureaucrats.
Sort of the Pim Fortuyn of anti-Islamists.
[His site was where I first found the cartoons, by the way.]
For some odd reason, many Dutch, who normally support all the usual liberal humanist progressive points of view, seem to be of the opinion that if he gets whacked, that's to be expected, only natural, perfectly all right, and his own fault.
They may be overlooking the idea that he has every right to say whatever intolerant thing he wants to, and has a right to protection if there are threats upon his life.
Instead, many have opined that a recently uncovered plot to assassinate him in a suicide car-bomb attack which aimed to also kill as many innocent bystanders as possible was probably justified.
[How do you say 'chicken' in Dutch? Kip. But it doesn't have quite the same connotations. Say 'lafaard' (coward) instead.]
Link to the Algemeen Dagblad article (in Dutch):
http://www.ad.nl/binnenland/article1086329.ece?pageNavType=all#reactie
Link to the Gazet van Antwerp article (also in Dutch):
http://www.gva.be/nieuws/Buitenland/default.asp?art={16FE8039-3F50-41FF-A3F8-625F0ACD9869}
[ Zelfmoordaanslag tegen Nederlands politicus beraamd ]
Quote: "De Nederlandse rechtspopulist en fractieleider van de Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV) Geert Wilders is vorige week bedreigd met een zelfmoordaanslag. Twee jongemannen zouden het plan hebben om Wilders neer te schieten en vervolgens een busje vol explosieven bij de politicus tot ontploffing te brengen. Daarbij moesten "veel onschuldigen omkomen in de enorme chaos"."
[Translation: The Dutch rightwing populist and parliamentary fraction leader of the Freedom Party (PVV) Geert Wilders was targeted last week for a suicide attack. Two young men apparently planned to shoot Wilders and subsequently detonate a van filled with explosives at the scene. It was intended that "many innocents should perish in the enormous (ensuing) chaos.]
As you might have noticed, we Dutch speakers sometimes get a mouth on, and say things which are not exactly easy on the digestion. Geert Wilders, whose opinions I mostly do not share, seems to have a talent for that. A talent which Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh also had.
Abrasive utterances are a fine Dutch tradition, treasured because they get under the skin of all the right people. They should be encouraged, especially in a country which suffers from massive mental rigidity such as the Netherlands. Dutch deftigheid often needs a clout in the face or a poke in the eye.
If anything happens to Geert Wilders, the public discourse will be less offensive, but very much poorer, and likely stifled.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
GRITS AND TOFU
Like most Americans, I have a list of people who should be peacefully retired from public service and thereafter kept away from their desks,...
