This morning one of the mailing lists yielded the claim that Obama is a Muslim, because he attended a madrassa years ago.
It is an absurd assertion, given that the word 'madrasa' in Indonesian merely implies school (much like 'academy' usually means the same in English), and the actual madrassa in question was Besuki in Jakarta (Sekolah Dasar Nasional Menteng 01), a grammar school which he attended from 1969 till 1971. There were Muslim, Christian, and Buddhist children at that school.
I doubt that it EVER yielded a religious fanatic.
For the next two years after Besuki he went to a Catholic school (Sekolah Fransiskus Assisis). Which was also in Indonesia.
To the best of my knowledge, that particular Catholic school has not produced a single crusader, witchburner, or professional daemonologist.
Seeing as he also spent twenty years listening to the fire and brimstone preaching of a rather poisonous branch of Christianity while in Chicago, one should not be concerned with any lingering Muslim influences, but rather with the distinct possibility of fragile and fading sanity.
As far as I can tell, he is (still) sane.
As sane as anybody in Washington.
However, Obama's sanity and religion are not the point of this post. The term 'Besuki' is.
To anyone familiar with the former Dutch East Indies, especially if they lived in a town which once boasted five cigar factories, the term Besuki is richly evocative.
FRAGRANT LEAVES
During the colonial period, Besuki was a residency in Eastern java, comprised of four regencies: Panarukan, Djember, Bondowoso, and Banyuwangi.
The two agricultural products for which Besuki was known were tobacco and sugar cane.
[Note: Originally, Panarukan (now subsumed in the administrative district Situbondo) was the easternmost extent of the Great Post Road (Grote Postweg), built by governor Daendels at the behest of king Louis Napoleon. The road is a monument to efficient murder, but ensured Daendels lasting fame as a civil administrator, organizer, and a man who got things done.
It was built within budget and under deadline - a remarkable praestation.]
The famous Besuki tobacco came mostly from Jember and Bondowoso. Both Dutch and Indonesian cigar companies still utilize the na-oogst (late harvest) of this excellent crop.
Zandblad (the leaf at the bottom of the plant), and some of the leaves immediately above it, are used for wrapper (the outer surface of the cigar), hang-krosok (the middle leaves) with damaged zandblad and other wrapper blad are used for filler. The topmost leaves (daun putjok) are only used for filler. Voor-oogst (early harvest) of whatever type is almost exclusively destined for the cigarette industry.
Tobacco from Besuki, both top quality and Regie, are shipped in bales to Bremen, where they are inspected by buyers, who will decide which plantation, which grade and harvest, which colour of leaf they shall purchase for their factories.
Many cigars made of Besuki tobaccos will, however, have a wrapper made of Deli leaf from Sumatra.
Java leaf, whether Besuki or Vorstenlanden (“Royal Domains” – four principalities in Central Java), tends toward a full reddish brown hue (twixt yellow ochre and a medium Siena with only a light touch of umber) and a mild flavour, whereas Sumatra will be a lighter shade, a more silky surface, and a sharper taste. Hence the tendency to use Sumatra leaf for its pleasing appearance, while tempering it with a Java filler and binder.
It should be noted, however, that some leaf from Central Java is bright, and makes a fine wrapper for exquisite cigars.
Famous companies that use Besuki leaf are Oud Kampen, De Olifant, and La Paz.
I believe that Justus van Maurik and Heren van Ruysdaal also use Besuki leaf – it would be queer if they didn’t - but I have not been able to confirm that.
In Indonesia, PT Gelora Djaja (Wismilak Premium Cigars) represents the genre.
THE CANE FIELDS
As for the sugar cane, that too is still grown in Besuki, but it has faded quite considerably in importance. The great depression proved an economic blow from which the plantations did not fully recover, and after the war returnees to the Netherlands still remembered the reek of sugar factories torched by labour agitators and starving workers. For two decades, the depressed local economy spurred social disruption and political activism.
Eastern Java, at one point, had more convinced Marxists than any other part of Indonesia.
The student of history will recall that between 1965 and 1967 the Indonesians slaughtered over a million communists...... along with ethnic Chinese (mercantile class) and Arabs (venal moneylenders).
Showing posts with label Muslim. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Muslim. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
WORLD FILLED WITH PUS
We Americans have a reputation for not speaking any other languages than our own. Aside from the sheer oddness of that idea - in addition to English very many other languages are spoken here - what that often means is that foreigners often think that whatever they say in their own languages will never be understood by Americans.
It's assumed to be a private conversation with no Yankee dogs listening in.
[All the languages in the world are spoken in the United States. Among my friends and acquaintances here in San Francisco are speakers of Afrikaans, Arabic (Cairene, Hijazi, Levantine, Maghrebi, and Yemeni), Armenian, Bengali, Berber, Bikolano, Burmese, Cantonese, Caviteno, Cebuano, Chabacano, Danish, Deng, Dutch, Flemish, French, German, Gujarati, Hakka, Hausa, Hawaiian, Hebrew, Hindi, Hmong, Igorot, Ilocano, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Kapampangan, Korean, Lao, Mandarin, Marathi, Meo ('Miao'), Min, Mixtec, Persian, Polish, Portuguese, Punjabi, Quechua, Russian, Sicilian, Shanghainese, Spanish, Sundanese, Swedish, Tagalog, Tamil, Tausug, Teochew, Thai, Vietnamese, Waray, Yiddish, Yoruban, Yucatec. Plus some Montagnards and Tatars, and others with unusual tongues.]
In consequence of that misapprehension that we are all utterly monolingual and illiterate, foreigners freely say all manner of unpleasant things about us.
Yes, they really do talk about us - we are probably the most enthusiastically discussed group on the planet.
Now consider this doozy:
"Hypocriete Amerikaan zoals zoveel Amerikanen, en maar zeggen wij zijn het meest democratische volk op de aarde, bah wat een viezerds, en dit is dan een topje van de hypocritische ijsberg naar mijn idee."
------ Gert in Hilversum, on the website of De Telegraaf.
[Translation: 'Hypocritical American like so many Americans, and always saying 'we are the most democratic people on earth; faugh, what a repellent lot, and this then is a mere top of the iceberg to my thinking.']
GERT IS THE WORLD
It doesn't really matter what he was commenting on, the point is that based on one news item he opportunistically slandered three hundred million people, indicating that he loathes all of us. Which is not at all unusual. Under any Dutch article and on any Dutch website that mentions America there will be a surfeit of anti-American comments. Many Dutch do hate and despise us, and will take any chance to make that clear to their fellow Dutchmen.
The Dutch aren't strange in that regard.
The same sentiment thrives underneath articles and on web fora in German, French, Italian, and the Scandinavian tongues........
I sincerely hope that Gert in Hilversum dies painfully of the pox. Considering the sexual smorgasbord which is metropolitan Holland, that is very likely. But it cannot happen soon enough.
I wish similar fates on many other Dutch people, a very large number of Frenchman, Arabs, Germans, Italians, Poles, Pakistanis, Russians, Englishmen, Swedes........
Actually, much of Europe and most of the Islamic world.
If there ever is another World War (in other words, a war that starts in Europe and is fought mainly in Europe) we should stay the hell out.
Let those bastards kill each other. It's what they're good at.
Same goes for the Muslims. The Persians and Iraqis killed millions between themselves - a good beginning. The Egyptian military gassed Yemeni highlanders - splendid. The Pakistanis keep blowing each other up - jolly good. The Lebanese and Syrians can't stand each other - way to go, guys, make it happen. The Turks slaughtered tens of thousands of Kurds - meh. The governments of all Muslim countries repress and kill their own people - no biggy. Muslim terrorists slaughter thousands of fellow Muslims - cool, dudes, totally.
Screw all of you.
Maybe I should start reading South American and African websites next.
It's assumed to be a private conversation with no Yankee dogs listening in.
[All the languages in the world are spoken in the United States. Among my friends and acquaintances here in San Francisco are speakers of Afrikaans, Arabic (Cairene, Hijazi, Levantine, Maghrebi, and Yemeni), Armenian, Bengali, Berber, Bikolano, Burmese, Cantonese, Caviteno, Cebuano, Chabacano, Danish, Deng, Dutch, Flemish, French, German, Gujarati, Hakka, Hausa, Hawaiian, Hebrew, Hindi, Hmong, Igorot, Ilocano, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Kapampangan, Korean, Lao, Mandarin, Marathi, Meo ('Miao'), Min, Mixtec, Persian, Polish, Portuguese, Punjabi, Quechua, Russian, Sicilian, Shanghainese, Spanish, Sundanese, Swedish, Tagalog, Tamil, Tausug, Teochew, Thai, Vietnamese, Waray, Yiddish, Yoruban, Yucatec. Plus some Montagnards and Tatars, and others with unusual tongues.]
In consequence of that misapprehension that we are all utterly monolingual and illiterate, foreigners freely say all manner of unpleasant things about us.
Yes, they really do talk about us - we are probably the most enthusiastically discussed group on the planet.
Now consider this doozy:
"Hypocriete Amerikaan zoals zoveel Amerikanen, en maar zeggen wij zijn het meest democratische volk op de aarde, bah wat een viezerds, en dit is dan een topje van de hypocritische ijsberg naar mijn idee."
------ Gert in Hilversum, on the website of De Telegraaf.
[Translation: 'Hypocritical American like so many Americans, and always saying 'we are the most democratic people on earth; faugh, what a repellent lot, and this then is a mere top of the iceberg to my thinking.']
GERT IS THE WORLD
It doesn't really matter what he was commenting on, the point is that based on one news item he opportunistically slandered three hundred million people, indicating that he loathes all of us. Which is not at all unusual. Under any Dutch article and on any Dutch website that mentions America there will be a surfeit of anti-American comments. Many Dutch do hate and despise us, and will take any chance to make that clear to their fellow Dutchmen.
The Dutch aren't strange in that regard.
The same sentiment thrives underneath articles and on web fora in German, French, Italian, and the Scandinavian tongues........
I sincerely hope that Gert in Hilversum dies painfully of the pox. Considering the sexual smorgasbord which is metropolitan Holland, that is very likely. But it cannot happen soon enough.
I wish similar fates on many other Dutch people, a very large number of Frenchman, Arabs, Germans, Italians, Poles, Pakistanis, Russians, Englishmen, Swedes........
Actually, much of Europe and most of the Islamic world.
If there ever is another World War (in other words, a war that starts in Europe and is fought mainly in Europe) we should stay the hell out.
Let those bastards kill each other. It's what they're good at.
Same goes for the Muslims. The Persians and Iraqis killed millions between themselves - a good beginning. The Egyptian military gassed Yemeni highlanders - splendid. The Pakistanis keep blowing each other up - jolly good. The Lebanese and Syrians can't stand each other - way to go, guys, make it happen. The Turks slaughtered tens of thousands of Kurds - meh. The governments of all Muslim countries repress and kill their own people - no biggy. Muslim terrorists slaughter thousands of fellow Muslims - cool, dudes, totally.
Screw all of you.
Maybe I should start reading South American and African websites next.
Friday, March 05, 2010
TURKISH OFFENSE
The world has become polarized between straight-talkers and wafflegabbers.
This is best illustrated by recent statements by public figures.
"Mohammad was a pedophile"
---Geert Wilders, Dutch politician and member of parliament.
Mr. Wilders is of course referring to the well-known fact that according to accepted Muslim sources the prophet of Islam consummated his marriage (i.e.: had sexual intercourse) with a nine year old girl. By civilized norms that makes Mohammad a pervert and a rapist.
PEDOPHILIA
The Muslim world does not consider such things perversion, and wholeheartedly approves of several acts which we would consider rape (their treatment of women illustrates that abundantly).
It is also entirely possible that nine-year olds in the Arabian desert are well-developed, spongy, and remarkably big-boned. That may speak in his favour, but it was still child-molestation. PBUH.
"Turkey has been accused of a crime it did not commit"
---Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkish goomba and prime minister.
This was the despicable Turk's response to a recent vote in Washington in recognition of Ottoman Turkey trying to exterminate the Armenians during the first world war. The Turks refuse to accept the facts of the matter - precisely like holocaust deniers - and insist that any reference to what happened, no matter how accurate or based on historical evidence, is an evil slander. Because, after all, the descendants of the blood-drinking hordes that swept out of the wastelands cannot possibly be barbarians!
GENOCIDE
The Turks have recalled their ambassador from Washington in outrage at the truth. They are furious that anyone should say anything. There have been protests.
For some reason Geert Wilders, who has an unfortunate but commendable habit of calling a spade a spade, is not popular among many well-meaning and educated individuals in the Western World.
On the other hand, much-admired Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama keenly wish to appease the intemperate Erdogan.
"We do not believe that the full congress will or should act upon that resolution, and we have made that clear to all parties involved"
---Secretary of State Clinton, arguing against the resolution; a performance brilliantly reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain dealing diplomatically with some other bunch of brutes.
Geert Wilders has several times spoken forcefully against admitting Turkey into the EU, most recently at a press conference today in London, where he called Turkish Prime minister Erdogan "a total freak".
Often I find myself disagreeing with Mr. Wilders, and being in reasonable accord with Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama.
Not now.
Bugger the Turks. Those savages should be kept out of the European Union until they finally admit what they did.
Given how little they can be trusted, and how thoroughly racist and bigoted their depraved society actually is, they should probably be thrown out of NATO. Screw them.
It's time to burn their flag and throw empty beer-bottles at theirconsulates mangy camels.
This is best illustrated by recent statements by public figures.
"Mohammad was a pedophile"
---Geert Wilders, Dutch politician and member of parliament.
Mr. Wilders is of course referring to the well-known fact that according to accepted Muslim sources the prophet of Islam consummated his marriage (i.e.: had sexual intercourse) with a nine year old girl. By civilized norms that makes Mohammad a pervert and a rapist.
PEDOPHILIA
The Muslim world does not consider such things perversion, and wholeheartedly approves of several acts which we would consider rape (their treatment of women illustrates that abundantly).
It is also entirely possible that nine-year olds in the Arabian desert are well-developed, spongy, and remarkably big-boned. That may speak in his favour, but it was still child-molestation. PBUH.
"Turkey has been accused of a crime it did not commit"
---Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkish goomba and prime minister.
This was the despicable Turk's response to a recent vote in Washington in recognition of Ottoman Turkey trying to exterminate the Armenians during the first world war. The Turks refuse to accept the facts of the matter - precisely like holocaust deniers - and insist that any reference to what happened, no matter how accurate or based on historical evidence, is an evil slander. Because, after all, the descendants of the blood-drinking hordes that swept out of the wastelands cannot possibly be barbarians!
GENOCIDE
The Turks have recalled their ambassador from Washington in outrage at the truth. They are furious that anyone should say anything. There have been protests.
For some reason Geert Wilders, who has an unfortunate but commendable habit of calling a spade a spade, is not popular among many well-meaning and educated individuals in the Western World.
On the other hand, much-admired Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama keenly wish to appease the intemperate Erdogan.
"We do not believe that the full congress will or should act upon that resolution, and we have made that clear to all parties involved"
---Secretary of State Clinton, arguing against the resolution; a performance brilliantly reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain dealing diplomatically with some other bunch of brutes.
Geert Wilders has several times spoken forcefully against admitting Turkey into the EU, most recently at a press conference today in London, where he called Turkish Prime minister Erdogan "a total freak".
Often I find myself disagreeing with Mr. Wilders, and being in reasonable accord with Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama.
Not now.
Bugger the Turks. Those savages should be kept out of the European Union until they finally admit what they did.
Given how little they can be trusted, and how thoroughly racist and bigoted their depraved society actually is, they should probably be thrown out of NATO. Screw them.
It's time to burn their flag and throw empty beer-bottles at their
Thursday, March 04, 2010
DUTCH POLITICAL CHANGES
Election results in the Netherlands are a cause for joy. No, not the results for Geert Wilders' party (PVV), which many Americans seem to favour. But the results for the Socialist Party (SP).
[Geert Wilders is actually a mere blip on the Dutch political scene, not nearly as significant as many non-Dutch think.]
FACTION LEADER KANT.... AND OTHER 'KANTS'
If parliamentary elections were held today, the socialists would loose more than half of their seats, going from one sixth of the parliament to less than ten percent. This per polls conducted in connection with recent municipal elections.
Given that the leaders of the Dutch socialists are evil people who in a just world would be lined up and shot, this is a good thing.
[Leaders of the SP include Agnes Kant (a severe German-born intellectual), Harry van Bommel (a sexual pig known as the 'billenknijper' - the buttock pincher), Jan Marijnsen (a weepy neurotic), Ewout Irgang (aka "loverboy", a particularly treacherous individual), Ronald van Raak (an unimaginative red intellectual of kommisar-type), and of course Anja Meulenbelt...... a rabid and hate-filled anti-Semite married to an Arab medical man - no, NOT Mahmoud az-Zahar, but that's a really good guess. Stuk voor stuk KENML schorem en mede-conspiranten.]
RED SCUM
A more venomous and repulsive lot than the European socialists, the Dutch in particular, would be hard to find. These are the people who applauded the excesses of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China (several million dead), the Cambodian Genocide (millions killed for proper socialist reasons, by reasonably proper socialists), every brutal repression in the communist world, every 'red' war.......
These loathsome Marxists have always backed left-wing atrocities. They still do.
As long as the crime can be explained as a revolutionary act, especially against the United States or Israel, it is golden in their book, no matter how pointless and bloodthirsty.
I can only hope that the SP continues to slide. The Dutch may, in the fullness of time, redeem themselves. Their parliamentary elections are scheduled for June 9th.
With luck the terror-supporting SP will no longer be in the government afterwards.
I do not worry about the 'creeping Islamicization' of Europe, I worry about vile ideologies among the Europeans.
Fortunately Kant and her clique of opportunist scum seem to be self-destructing.
There is still hope.
[Geert Wilders is actually a mere blip on the Dutch political scene, not nearly as significant as many non-Dutch think.]
FACTION LEADER KANT.... AND OTHER 'KANTS'
If parliamentary elections were held today, the socialists would loose more than half of their seats, going from one sixth of the parliament to less than ten percent. This per polls conducted in connection with recent municipal elections.
Given that the leaders of the Dutch socialists are evil people who in a just world would be lined up and shot, this is a good thing.
[Leaders of the SP include Agnes Kant (a severe German-born intellectual), Harry van Bommel (a sexual pig known as the 'billenknijper' - the buttock pincher), Jan Marijnsen (a weepy neurotic), Ewout Irgang (aka "loverboy", a particularly treacherous individual), Ronald van Raak (an unimaginative red intellectual of kommisar-type), and of course Anja Meulenbelt...... a rabid and hate-filled anti-Semite married to an Arab medical man - no, NOT Mahmoud az-Zahar, but that's a really good guess. Stuk voor stuk KENML schorem en mede-conspiranten.]
RED SCUM
A more venomous and repulsive lot than the European socialists, the Dutch in particular, would be hard to find. These are the people who applauded the excesses of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China (several million dead), the Cambodian Genocide (millions killed for proper socialist reasons, by reasonably proper socialists), every brutal repression in the communist world, every 'red' war.......
These loathsome Marxists have always backed left-wing atrocities. They still do.
As long as the crime can be explained as a revolutionary act, especially against the United States or Israel, it is golden in their book, no matter how pointless and bloodthirsty.
I can only hope that the SP continues to slide. The Dutch may, in the fullness of time, redeem themselves. Their parliamentary elections are scheduled for June 9th.
With luck the terror-supporting SP will no longer be in the government afterwards.
I do not worry about the 'creeping Islamicization' of Europe, I worry about vile ideologies among the Europeans.
Fortunately Kant and her clique of opportunist scum seem to be self-destructing.
There is still hope.
Monday, February 22, 2010
PAKISTANI ETHICS
News from Pakistan has regularly shown that the tribal Muslims in the NWFP are unmitigated savages who commit barbarous acts with impunity. Which, precisely, is what their coreligionists in such diverse places as Islamabad, Karachi, Riyadh, and Dubai encourage, even underwrite.
Usually that savagery is directed at modernity and the West - some people in the Islamic World have a chip on their shoulder a mile wide - but not always.
Sometimes the barbaric Pashtoon kills local Christians, while the corrupt and lazy Pakistani police and judicial authorities look the other way. It's only a Christian, who cares?
Sometimes the barbaric Pashtoon kills a fish of an entirely different kettle.
QUOTE:
Jaspal Singh was seized while travelling in Khyber district a month ago. His body was found on Sunday.
Earlier reports that a second kidnapped Sikh, Mastan Singh, had been beheaded are not confirmed, officials now say.
END QUOTE.
SOURCE:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8527614.stm
[Article: Kidnapped Pakistani Sikh beheaded in Khyber region]
QUOTE:
Officials in Khyber say Jaspal Singh was among seven Sikhs travelling in the tribal district a month ago. He and two others were kidnapped by a group of armed men - four others in the party escaped.
Later, the family of Jaspal Singh received a ransom demand for 20 million rupees ($235,000) to be paid by last Saturday.
His body was found when members of his family arrived in the area on Sunday to negotiate his release.
Two other Sikh men still remain in the custody of the kidnappers.END QUOTE.
Well, that rather decisively shows that Pashtoons negotiate in bad faith, doesn't it?
Formerly there were more Sikhs in the Pak tribal regions, but due to official venality and the rapacious and treacherous nature of the locals, many of them have left. The rise of Islamic militancy has not improved matters.
There have been reports that Sikhs in the region have been subjected to jizya - an Islamic tax that is collected from non-Muslims.
Does the world really have any use for Pashtoons? Do they serve any worthwhile purpose?
One very well might ask the same about Pakistani politicians - greedily obscuring funds and committing morally outrageous acts is not really beneficial to anyone.
Nor is chussing the Arab gand...... except, of course, for the Pakistani doing it, and the Gulf royal receiving it.
Damn, but Pakistan is a pestilential place!
Usually that savagery is directed at modernity and the West - some people in the Islamic World have a chip on their shoulder a mile wide - but not always.
Sometimes the barbaric Pashtoon kills local Christians, while the corrupt and lazy Pakistani police and judicial authorities look the other way. It's only a Christian, who cares?
Sometimes the barbaric Pashtoon kills a fish of an entirely different kettle.
QUOTE:
Jaspal Singh was seized while travelling in Khyber district a month ago. His body was found on Sunday.
Earlier reports that a second kidnapped Sikh, Mastan Singh, had been beheaded are not confirmed, officials now say.
END QUOTE.
SOURCE:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8527614.stm
[Article: Kidnapped Pakistani Sikh beheaded in Khyber region]
QUOTE:
Officials in Khyber say Jaspal Singh was among seven Sikhs travelling in the tribal district a month ago. He and two others were kidnapped by a group of armed men - four others in the party escaped.
Later, the family of Jaspal Singh received a ransom demand for 20 million rupees ($235,000) to be paid by last Saturday.
His body was found when members of his family arrived in the area on Sunday to negotiate his release.
Two other Sikh men still remain in the custody of the kidnappers.END QUOTE.
Well, that rather decisively shows that Pashtoons negotiate in bad faith, doesn't it?
Formerly there were more Sikhs in the Pak tribal regions, but due to official venality and the rapacious and treacherous nature of the locals, many of them have left. The rise of Islamic militancy has not improved matters.
There have been reports that Sikhs in the region have been subjected to jizya - an Islamic tax that is collected from non-Muslims.
Does the world really have any use for Pashtoons? Do they serve any worthwhile purpose?
One very well might ask the same about Pakistani politicians - greedily obscuring funds and committing morally outrageous acts is not really beneficial to anyone.
Nor is chussing the Arab gand...... except, of course, for the Pakistani doing it, and the Gulf royal receiving it.
Damn, but Pakistan is a pestilential place!
Monday, January 04, 2010
MALAYSIAN PURITANS SPOIL NEW YEAR
Fifty-two unmarried couples could face charges of sexual misconduct and jail terms after being caught in hotel rooms by Malaysia's Islamic morality police.
[From the BBC]
SOURCE:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8439899.stm
Quote:
Those detained in the early hours of New Year's Day were mainly students and young factory workers. The Muslim couples are expected to be charged with the offence of close proximity, or Khalwat.
Under Malaysia's Islamic Sharia Law, couples who are not married to each other should not be in a secluded area or confined space, which could give rise to suspicion that they were engaged in immoral acts.
[End quote]
Please note that sharia only applies to people registered as Muslims in Malaysia - normal people can do whatever they want, as long as they do not attempt to convert Muslims, and cringe obediently whenever a Muslim has a hissy fit.
Occasionally the Muslims riot over perceived grievances or small endowments, at which point it is wise for more mature people to take cover.
[Yes, I realize that my comments above are frightfully meanspirited. Tathapi 'ko enti give-a-damn. M'ngade, kabanyean na Muslim-fanatik di Malaysia lang-kaga, kutamto oro adab tja. Atjaranema sametek sehi bangpulak, gatverdamme. Djambiton ite.]
When convicted, the couples will probably receive two years in prison and be forced to pay a fine.
Afterwards, having been persecuted by Islamic authorities, they may wish to apply for asylum elsewhere.
If they do so, we wish them good luck and G-dspeed.
[From the BBC]
SOURCE:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8439899.stm
Quote:
Those detained in the early hours of New Year's Day were mainly students and young factory workers. The Muslim couples are expected to be charged with the offence of close proximity, or Khalwat.
Under Malaysia's Islamic Sharia Law, couples who are not married to each other should not be in a secluded area or confined space, which could give rise to suspicion that they were engaged in immoral acts.
[End quote]
Please note that sharia only applies to people registered as Muslims in Malaysia - normal people can do whatever they want, as long as they do not attempt to convert Muslims, and cringe obediently whenever a Muslim has a hissy fit.
Occasionally the Muslims riot over perceived grievances or small endowments, at which point it is wise for more mature people to take cover.
[Yes, I realize that my comments above are frightfully meanspirited. Tathapi 'ko enti give-a-damn. M'ngade, kabanyean na Muslim-fanatik di Malaysia lang-kaga, kutamto oro adab tja. Atjaranema sametek sehi bangpulak, gatverdamme. Djambiton ite.]
When convicted, the couples will probably receive two years in prison and be forced to pay a fine.
Afterwards, having been persecuted by Islamic authorities, they may wish to apply for asylum elsewhere.
If they do so, we wish them good luck and G-dspeed.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
MUSLIMS PREVENTING VISITS TO CHRISTIAN SITES
One of the main reasons for the Crusades was the reprehensible attitude of Muslim tyrants to the Christian pilgrims in the Holy Land. Having seized control over the holy places, and massacred Christians and Jews during their conquest, generations of Islamic warlords either outright forbade Christians and Jews from worshipping and visiting the sacred sites of their religions, or seized pilgrims and sold them at slave auctions.
In all, Muslim hegemony over other peoples' lands was horrific, barbaric, and rapacious.
One bright spot is the behaviour of the Turks.
Now the blight of Mohammedan bigotry and strongarmism has returned.
QUOTE:
One of Britain's premiere choirs is being prevented from performing in Bethlehem following a Palestinian protest over its scheduled performance in Israel.
The choir of Clare College, Cambridge, will sing Bach's "Christmas Oratorio" with the Israel Camerata Orchestra, but may not visit and perform in St George's Cathedral in East Jerusalem and the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, where it was invited to sing by the Anglican bishop of Jerusalem, according to Tim Frank's Jerusalem Diary published Monday by the BBC.
The choir is being stymied in its efforts to visit areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority following a letter from the London-based Palestine Solidarity Campaign asking the choir to cancel its trip to Israel, saying it would "appear indifferent to Palestinian suffering."
The Palestinian Authority then asked the bishop of Jerusalem to withdraw the choir's invitation to sing in eastern Jerusalem and Bethlehem, and informed the choir that its members would not be welcome in Bethlehem as part of the bishop's pilgrimage.
SOURCE:
http://jta.org/news/article/2009/12/22/1009853/british-choir-prevented-from-performing-in-bethlehem
A NOTE ON TOLERANCE
Let me explain some pertinent facts to you Muslims:
Israel allows you to worship at your sites within the land. Europeans allow you to construct mosques in their ancient cities (mosques which, due to modern architecture and perfectly horrid taste, are ghastly eye-sores).
Even here in America, your practices are safeguarded - contrary to what your mad mullahs and lying imams tell you, the Mohammedan religion is alive and well in Yankee-stan.
Pressuring your captive dhimmis - pardon, "native" Christians - into blackmailing the west, however, is an action entirely beyond the pale of civilized conduct.
We accept that the degenerate Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia violently discriminate against non-Muslims and non-Arabs. After all, their brigands seized Mecca and Medina nearly a century ago, and have kept the entire Muslim world over a barrel ever since. Like you, we do not expect any better from those pigs.
And no Christian or Jew would want to settle in that poxed armpit of a place.
No biggie.
But if the rest of you Muslims wish to continue our acceptance of your presence and your cult outside of your wastelands and brutal societies, you need to play by civilized rules.
That means allowing our pilgrims to visit our holy places unmolested, and unhindered.
A NOTE ON INTOLERANCE
You've already driven the Christian majority out of Bethlehem.
The Christians of Iraq, Jordan, and Egypt, all of whom represent communities far older than the Islamic umma, keep emigrating to our lands - there is no place for them under your despotic and intolerant rule.
The Jews of the Arab lands have been robbed and expelled - except for those whom you viciously slaughtered.
In Pakistan and Indonesia your rabid dogs burn down churches and lynch believers. Your thugs in Iran and Central Asia are rapists and sadists - we have for years been treated to horrific news about your treatment of Christians and Jews in those benighted places.
Yearly, the record of your brutal bigotry grows ever more horrendous.
You do know, don't you, that there are several million Muslims living in the West?
Muslims who at present are still guaranteed safety and equal rights.
Perhaps you should consider that Western hospitality is a very brittle and recent overlay on centuries of violent tendencies. That such 'tolerance' is NOT limitless. And it is NOT fundamental to our psyche.
It really must be requited.
Merry Christmas. Bitches.
In all, Muslim hegemony over other peoples' lands was horrific, barbaric, and rapacious.
One bright spot is the behaviour of the Turks.
Now the blight of Mohammedan bigotry and strongarmism has returned.
QUOTE:
One of Britain's premiere choirs is being prevented from performing in Bethlehem following a Palestinian protest over its scheduled performance in Israel.
The choir of Clare College, Cambridge, will sing Bach's "Christmas Oratorio" with the Israel Camerata Orchestra, but may not visit and perform in St George's Cathedral in East Jerusalem and the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, where it was invited to sing by the Anglican bishop of Jerusalem, according to Tim Frank's Jerusalem Diary published Monday by the BBC.
The choir is being stymied in its efforts to visit areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority following a letter from the London-based Palestine Solidarity Campaign asking the choir to cancel its trip to Israel, saying it would "appear indifferent to Palestinian suffering."
The Palestinian Authority then asked the bishop of Jerusalem to withdraw the choir's invitation to sing in eastern Jerusalem and Bethlehem, and informed the choir that its members would not be welcome in Bethlehem as part of the bishop's pilgrimage.
SOURCE:
http://jta.org/news/article/2009/12/22/1009853/british-choir-prevented-from-performing-in-bethlehem
A NOTE ON TOLERANCE
Let me explain some pertinent facts to you Muslims:
Israel allows you to worship at your sites within the land. Europeans allow you to construct mosques in their ancient cities (mosques which, due to modern architecture and perfectly horrid taste, are ghastly eye-sores).
Even here in America, your practices are safeguarded - contrary to what your mad mullahs and lying imams tell you, the Mohammedan religion is alive and well in Yankee-stan.
Pressuring your captive dhimmis - pardon, "native" Christians - into blackmailing the west, however, is an action entirely beyond the pale of civilized conduct.
We accept that the degenerate Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia violently discriminate against non-Muslims and non-Arabs. After all, their brigands seized Mecca and Medina nearly a century ago, and have kept the entire Muslim world over a barrel ever since. Like you, we do not expect any better from those pigs.
And no Christian or Jew would want to settle in that poxed armpit of a place.
No biggie.
But if the rest of you Muslims wish to continue our acceptance of your presence and your cult outside of your wastelands and brutal societies, you need to play by civilized rules.
That means allowing our pilgrims to visit our holy places unmolested, and unhindered.
A NOTE ON INTOLERANCE
You've already driven the Christian majority out of Bethlehem.
The Christians of Iraq, Jordan, and Egypt, all of whom represent communities far older than the Islamic umma, keep emigrating to our lands - there is no place for them under your despotic and intolerant rule.
The Jews of the Arab lands have been robbed and expelled - except for those whom you viciously slaughtered.
In Pakistan and Indonesia your rabid dogs burn down churches and lynch believers. Your thugs in Iran and Central Asia are rapists and sadists - we have for years been treated to horrific news about your treatment of Christians and Jews in those benighted places.
Yearly, the record of your brutal bigotry grows ever more horrendous.
You do know, don't you, that there are several million Muslims living in the West?
Muslims who at present are still guaranteed safety and equal rights.
Perhaps you should consider that Western hospitality is a very brittle and recent overlay on centuries of violent tendencies. That such 'tolerance' is NOT limitless. And it is NOT fundamental to our psyche.
It really must be requited.
Merry Christmas. Bitches.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
GEERT WILDERS AT TEMPLE
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
GEERT WILDERS SPEAKING IN PHILLY
Dutch politico Geert Wilders is scheduled to speak this evening in Philadelphia at Temple University. And predictably, the Muslims and the Socialists are outraged.
[Per this article in De Telegraaf:http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/5122122/__Wilders_spreekt_ondanks_protest__.html?p=22,1
and this mention on the Philly Independent Media Center site:http://www.phillyimc.org/en/no-hate-speech-no-geert-wilders ]
Frankly, my piles bleed for the poor bastards. Truly.
By which I mean of course that they can go piss up a rope, and I hope the blow-back gets in their eyes. They are pigs - sod them.
SNARKY DUTCHMAN
Geert Wilders is popular in the Netherlands because he has struck a nerve. Many Dutch people are fed up with the chickens in the Hague who seem determined to sell the country downriver, and with the unassimilatable element from outside who figure prominently in the crime statistics. Geert Wilders has called for limitations on immigration, particularly from the Muslim world, and has expressed strong opinions about Islam.
I will admit that I do not see eye to eye with Mr. Wilders, even though I am no fan of either Muslims or Islam.
There is a Koran on my desk which has passages in it with which I quite disrespectfully disagree, very much even that I find utterly repulsive, the book inspires truly evil behaviour.
On the other hand, the poetic quality of Koranic Arabic is quite splendid. And Islam has produced some great thinkers.
There are many Muslims whom I absolutely despise, and the prospect of more of that type entering the Western World sickens me; a great many Muslims are odious, uncivilized, barbaric, and cruel.
Yet some of the finest people I know are Muslims, whose kindness and generosity has greatly improved the world in their vicinities.
Some excellent writers are Muslim - even in the Netherlands, where Abdelkadir Benali enriches Dutch literature.
One splendid example of an admirable, fully integrated Muslim, and a very good man indeed, is the mayor of Rotterdam: Ahmed Aboutaleb.
Mr. Aboutaleb has managed to irritate commentators across the full spectrum of political views, chiefly by being intelligent, independent-minded, and capable.
Let me repeat that: intelligent, independent-minded, capable.Any of those qualities is quite unusual for a Dutch bureaucrat.
The Netherlands and Europe could use more men like Abdelkadir Benali and Ahmed Aboutaleb.
So while on one level I agree with some of the things Geert Wilders has said, I find myself also disagreeing.
I appreciate him for what he is: a gadfly. Dutch society desperately needs gadflies, lest the Dutch establishment become rigid and constipated. The average Dutchman often needs a clout on the side of the head to knock some sense into him.
Geert Wilders is tonic to Dutch society.
As the various comments (in Dutch) under the Telegraaf article make clear:
http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/5122122/__Wilders_spreekt_ondanks_protest__.html?p=22,1
[It is interesting that many of the people who disagree with Geert Wilders are both native speakers of Dutch, and lousy spellers. Many of them being rather dull may be taken for granted. ]
'YOUR MOTHER WAS A HAMSTER AND YOUR FATHER SMELLED OF ELDERBERRIES!'
That Geert Wilders irritates the spit out of the Muslim Students Association and the Socialist retards at Temple University is icing on the cake. If those jihadniks and morons cause any disturbance this evening, they should all be arrested.
A pox on them, on their ideologies, on their attitudes, and on their families and retrograde backgrounds. And a pox on the Philly Independent Media Center, which like all of Indymedia has been hijacked by the various ultra radical groupings, and represents the worst and most blatantly social-destructive elements among the disaffected.
Let Geert speak.
[Per this article in De Telegraaf:http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/5122122/__Wilders_spreekt_ondanks_protest__.html?p=22,1
and this mention on the Philly Independent Media Center site:http://www.phillyimc.org/en/no-hate-speech-no-geert-wilders ]
Frankly, my piles bleed for the poor bastards. Truly.
By which I mean of course that they can go piss up a rope, and I hope the blow-back gets in their eyes. They are pigs - sod them.
SNARKY DUTCHMAN
Geert Wilders is popular in the Netherlands because he has struck a nerve. Many Dutch people are fed up with the chickens in the Hague who seem determined to sell the country downriver, and with the unassimilatable element from outside who figure prominently in the crime statistics. Geert Wilders has called for limitations on immigration, particularly from the Muslim world, and has expressed strong opinions about Islam.
I will admit that I do not see eye to eye with Mr. Wilders, even though I am no fan of either Muslims or Islam.
There is a Koran on my desk which has passages in it with which I quite disrespectfully disagree, very much even that I find utterly repulsive, the book inspires truly evil behaviour.
On the other hand, the poetic quality of Koranic Arabic is quite splendid. And Islam has produced some great thinkers.
There are many Muslims whom I absolutely despise, and the prospect of more of that type entering the Western World sickens me; a great many Muslims are odious, uncivilized, barbaric, and cruel.
Yet some of the finest people I know are Muslims, whose kindness and generosity has greatly improved the world in their vicinities.
Some excellent writers are Muslim - even in the Netherlands, where Abdelkadir Benali enriches Dutch literature.
One splendid example of an admirable, fully integrated Muslim, and a very good man indeed, is the mayor of Rotterdam: Ahmed Aboutaleb.
Mr. Aboutaleb has managed to irritate commentators across the full spectrum of political views, chiefly by being intelligent, independent-minded, and capable.
Let me repeat that: intelligent, independent-minded, capable.Any of those qualities is quite unusual for a Dutch bureaucrat.
The Netherlands and Europe could use more men like Abdelkadir Benali and Ahmed Aboutaleb.
So while on one level I agree with some of the things Geert Wilders has said, I find myself also disagreeing.
I appreciate him for what he is: a gadfly. Dutch society desperately needs gadflies, lest the Dutch establishment become rigid and constipated. The average Dutchman often needs a clout on the side of the head to knock some sense into him.
Geert Wilders is tonic to Dutch society.
As the various comments (in Dutch) under the Telegraaf article make clear:
http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/5122122/__Wilders_spreekt_ondanks_protest__.html?p=22,1
[It is interesting that many of the people who disagree with Geert Wilders are both native speakers of Dutch, and lousy spellers. Many of them being rather dull may be taken for granted. ]
'YOUR MOTHER WAS A HAMSTER AND YOUR FATHER SMELLED OF ELDERBERRIES!'
That Geert Wilders irritates the spit out of the Muslim Students Association and the Socialist retards at Temple University is icing on the cake. If those jihadniks and morons cause any disturbance this evening, they should all be arrested.
A pox on them, on their ideologies, on their attitudes, and on their families and retrograde backgrounds. And a pox on the Philly Independent Media Center, which like all of Indymedia has been hijacked by the various ultra radical groupings, and represents the worst and most blatantly social-destructive elements among the disaffected.
Let Geert speak.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
PRO-ARAB RUNNING DOGS: THE SF BAY AREA PROGRESSIVES
I am pleased to see that Dr. Mike's little talk to the audience of the Rachel Corrie flick did not go unnoticed. Nay, it even generated a critical review from one of the supporters of the ISM that is delightfully over the top.
The author, who goes by the nomdeguerre of 'M', does more to discredit his or her own side than any amount of shrill hysterics at a riot could manage.
And I love him (or her) for it.
Consider this lovely quote:
"What is the relation between my Jewish ancestors living peacefully in their Arab community, producing tradition and books such as the Talmud and the Mishna, and Dr. Harris’ hatred of everything that is not western and him? "
[SOURCE: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/07/27/18612711.php ]
Better indication that the writer lacks certain crucial abilities could scarce be imagined. Clearly he (or she) came 'mentally' prepared - prepared to put on blinkers and shut down critical processes.
While regurgitating trademarks.
It (sorry, still can't figure out the gender) concludes with a final limp synaptic pop:
"I was left with one last thought: could it be that Rachel Corrie in action and essence was more Jewish then Dr. Harris?"
No, Rachel Corrie was of the approximate Jewishness of Ahmed Ismail Hassan Yassin and Hank Nasrallah. But it's so interesting that you should pose that question - it perfectly demonstrates how narrow your spectrum of awareness actually is. Are you, in fact, sentient?
I'm afraid the alleged progressives in the Bay Area, if M is anything to go by, are hopelessly bourgeois, jejeune even, and quite incapable of anything more than trope and cant.
Other than new interpretations of the sound of scratched vinyl, there is precious little that can be expected of them.
============================================
Dr. Mike's report on speaking to the dull-of-mind can be found here:
http://www.bluetruth.net/2009/07/sf-jewish-film-festival-audience-jeers.html
Video of Dr. Mike speaking:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k66uGD5nuk
============================================
The author, who goes by the nomdeguerre of 'M', does more to discredit his or her own side than any amount of shrill hysterics at a riot could manage.
And I love him (or her) for it.
Consider this lovely quote:
"What is the relation between my Jewish ancestors living peacefully in their Arab community, producing tradition and books such as the Talmud and the Mishna, and Dr. Harris’ hatred of everything that is not western and him? "
[SOURCE: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/07/27/18612711.php ]
Better indication that the writer lacks certain crucial abilities could scarce be imagined. Clearly he (or she) came 'mentally' prepared - prepared to put on blinkers and shut down critical processes.
While regurgitating trademarks.
It (sorry, still can't figure out the gender) concludes with a final limp synaptic pop:
"I was left with one last thought: could it be that Rachel Corrie in action and essence was more Jewish then Dr. Harris?"
No, Rachel Corrie was of the approximate Jewishness of Ahmed Ismail Hassan Yassin and Hank Nasrallah. But it's so interesting that you should pose that question - it perfectly demonstrates how narrow your spectrum of awareness actually is. Are you, in fact, sentient?
I'm afraid the alleged progressives in the Bay Area, if M is anything to go by, are hopelessly bourgeois, jejeune even, and quite incapable of anything more than trope and cant.
Other than new interpretations of the sound of scratched vinyl, there is precious little that can be expected of them.
============================================
Dr. Mike's report on speaking to the dull-of-mind can be found here:
http://www.bluetruth.net/2009/07/sf-jewish-film-festival-audience-jeers.html
Video of Dr. Mike speaking:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k66uGD5nuk
============================================
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
IN PRAISE OF THE BURKA
Recently French President Sarkozy spoke out against the Burka, saying that it had no place in civilized society.
Respectfully, I beg to differ. Nothing could be MORE civilized than the Burka.
Not only is the Burka a graceful all-purpose garment, but it states assertively that the wearer is no submissive slave to fashion - by no means, even, as she has rejected the exorbitant prices charged by French Couturiers, and the exploitation of the female form for the purposes of male delectation!
Wearing her Burka, she proudly tells the world "none of your business", in response to wolfish glances in her direction. She has no truck with mere superficiality, or the shallow emphasis on a stylish appearance.
The Burka, more than any other garment, reasserts a dignity for the wearer, free from the chains of the French and Italian obsession with expensive designer shmattot!
Here in fashion-deprived San Francisco, the Burka could also serve a splendid purpose.
A few weeks ago, while enjoying a pipe outdoors, a whole host of elderly men wearing dresses and high-heels trooped by. Several of them had even bowed to the dictates of feminazi fashion by applying lipstick and rouge, the poor dears, and not very well at that! Their fragile crepe-like skin merely served to highlight the artificiality and garishness of such alleged aids to beauty. Truly, shmears of raw colour do not accent faces, but merely attract the startled glance.
It is my considered opinion that whatever purpose their tripping about gaily in their pretty dresses may have had, would have been more nobly served had they but worn burkas!
How dignified that would have been! Think of the majesty, think of the gravitas!
Think of large floral patterns.
And above all, think of the little children, whose impressionable minds so easily absorb the example set by people wearing crimson lipstick, tight corsets, and frilly summer frocks cinched just ever so, with the top-surface of exaggerated bosomage in full view!
What must they think? What can they think? When such things are common and unquestioned, it affects their little minds, and they absorb feudal gender roles without any hope of resisting!
Haute couture, like badly applied make-up, only masks the true beauty within.
Surely little boys and girls DESERVE to grow up free from sexist tyranny?
Respectfully, I beg to differ. Nothing could be MORE civilized than the Burka.
Not only is the Burka a graceful all-purpose garment, but it states assertively that the wearer is no submissive slave to fashion - by no means, even, as she has rejected the exorbitant prices charged by French Couturiers, and the exploitation of the female form for the purposes of male delectation!
Wearing her Burka, she proudly tells the world "none of your business", in response to wolfish glances in her direction. She has no truck with mere superficiality, or the shallow emphasis on a stylish appearance.
The Burka, more than any other garment, reasserts a dignity for the wearer, free from the chains of the French and Italian obsession with expensive designer shmattot!
Here in fashion-deprived San Francisco, the Burka could also serve a splendid purpose.
A few weeks ago, while enjoying a pipe outdoors, a whole host of elderly men wearing dresses and high-heels trooped by. Several of them had even bowed to the dictates of feminazi fashion by applying lipstick and rouge, the poor dears, and not very well at that! Their fragile crepe-like skin merely served to highlight the artificiality and garishness of such alleged aids to beauty. Truly, shmears of raw colour do not accent faces, but merely attract the startled glance.
It is my considered opinion that whatever purpose their tripping about gaily in their pretty dresses may have had, would have been more nobly served had they but worn burkas!
How dignified that would have been! Think of the majesty, think of the gravitas!
Think of large floral patterns.
And above all, think of the little children, whose impressionable minds so easily absorb the example set by people wearing crimson lipstick, tight corsets, and frilly summer frocks cinched just ever so, with the top-surface of exaggerated bosomage in full view!
What must they think? What can they think? When such things are common and unquestioned, it affects their little minds, and they absorb feudal gender roles without any hope of resisting!
Haute couture, like badly applied make-up, only masks the true beauty within.
Surely little boys and girls DESERVE to grow up free from sexist tyranny?
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
NONE OF THEM WERE MUSLIMS
In 1948, British forces in Malaya killed twenty four unarmed civilians. The perpetrators were all vindicated by British authorities, it being asserted that the soldiers had no choice but to shoot them to prevent the unarmed men fleeing into the jungle. Their village was subsequently set on fire, and the survivors prevented from burying the dead for a week.
The British government is not unduly concerned about this event.
The Malaysian government has shown scant interest in raking it up.
It is not an issue.
The victims were not Muslims.
They were Chinese Malayans.
After the world war, Britain was concerned with placating the restless Malays and assuring themselves of a source for rubber and tin. The Chinese Malayans, who had resisted the Japanese, were less important in the grand scheme of things than the Malays, who had quiescently collaborated with the Japanese.
Neither the British nor the Malays were concerned with justice for the Chinese Malayans, who had been particularly brutalized by the Japanese occupiers, or with including the Chinese Malayans in future power structures of the soon-to-be independent Malay state, choosing instead to 'reward' them for their stubborn resistance to the Japanese by a policy of ethnic exclusionism (the seed for apartheid policies against Chinese in modern Malaysia).
This, probably more than anything else, led to an emergency that lasted twelve years.
The Chinese community had been robbed and repressed by the Japanese, the Malays had collaborated, and were well rewarded. When the British returned, the Malays loyally collaborated again, to very great advantage.
Many of the Malayan Chinese consequently saw little choice but to join the insurgency.
The men of the village of Batang Kali who were killed by the British were not Muslims but Chinese. In the eyes of the British, that meant that they were almost certainly rebels. And in the eyes of the Malays, they were Chinese.
Both of those qualities were good reasons to execute them. The British were fighting a war, the Malays were profitably collaborating with the strongest party.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8025383.stm
From that article:
"Four of the Scots Guards gave sworn testimony, confirming that the shootings took place, confirming that the victims were unarmed. "
"We were kept away for a week and when we returned we found the bloated bodies, half eaten by animals."
[More data here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batang_Kali_massacre and here: http://dapmalaysia.org/all-archive/English/2004/jul04/bul/bul2460.htm]
I can understand the British authorities being unenthusiastic about re-examining the facts.
No ex-colonial power is glad to have its misbehaviour highlighted.
The British, French, and Dutch insist that their role in the East was that of enlightened bringers of civilization, law, and order, and that colonialism only benefitted the natives, who were incapable of administering themselves according to the standards of the civilized world. And who really wishes to dispute that?
I can also understand why the Malaysian authorities are not overly concerned - these were not Muslims, and therefore by the standards of Malaysia they can not really count for much.
Besides, there is no point in encouraging ANY sense of grievance among the Chinese. Surely that only leads to trouble?
I'm just noting that this was a war crime. One of many war crimes committed by the colonial powers in the years after the world war - thousands of people were killed or tortured in the eastern territories during the last gasps of the British, French, and Dutch empires.
This is just another war crime which our friends and allies (the former colonial powers) would rather forget. Why bring up dead issues?
After all, they lost their empires.
I also note that the survivors are now few in number, old and frail. When the last of them has died and still no justice has been done, the official version of events will stand. The victims will only be remembered as 24 among the tens of thousands of "communists" killed during the insurrection.
Seeing as so few Muslims died, compared to so many Chinese, the victory was without a doubt well worth it. Especially for the Malays.
And they are wonderful people, the Malays.
The British government is not unduly concerned about this event.
The Malaysian government has shown scant interest in raking it up.
It is not an issue.
The victims were not Muslims.
They were Chinese Malayans.
After the world war, Britain was concerned with placating the restless Malays and assuring themselves of a source for rubber and tin. The Chinese Malayans, who had resisted the Japanese, were less important in the grand scheme of things than the Malays, who had quiescently collaborated with the Japanese.
Neither the British nor the Malays were concerned with justice for the Chinese Malayans, who had been particularly brutalized by the Japanese occupiers, or with including the Chinese Malayans in future power structures of the soon-to-be independent Malay state, choosing instead to 'reward' them for their stubborn resistance to the Japanese by a policy of ethnic exclusionism (the seed for apartheid policies against Chinese in modern Malaysia).
This, probably more than anything else, led to an emergency that lasted twelve years.
The Chinese community had been robbed and repressed by the Japanese, the Malays had collaborated, and were well rewarded. When the British returned, the Malays loyally collaborated again, to very great advantage.
Many of the Malayan Chinese consequently saw little choice but to join the insurgency.
The men of the village of Batang Kali who were killed by the British were not Muslims but Chinese. In the eyes of the British, that meant that they were almost certainly rebels. And in the eyes of the Malays, they were Chinese.
Both of those qualities were good reasons to execute them. The British were fighting a war, the Malays were profitably collaborating with the strongest party.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8025383.stm
From that article:
"Four of the Scots Guards gave sworn testimony, confirming that the shootings took place, confirming that the victims were unarmed. "
"We were kept away for a week and when we returned we found the bloated bodies, half eaten by animals."
[More data here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batang_Kali_massacre and here: http://dapmalaysia.org/all-archive/English/2004/jul04/bul/bul2460.htm]
I can understand the British authorities being unenthusiastic about re-examining the facts.
No ex-colonial power is glad to have its misbehaviour highlighted.
The British, French, and Dutch insist that their role in the East was that of enlightened bringers of civilization, law, and order, and that colonialism only benefitted the natives, who were incapable of administering themselves according to the standards of the civilized world. And who really wishes to dispute that?
I can also understand why the Malaysian authorities are not overly concerned - these were not Muslims, and therefore by the standards of Malaysia they can not really count for much.
Besides, there is no point in encouraging ANY sense of grievance among the Chinese. Surely that only leads to trouble?
I'm just noting that this was a war crime. One of many war crimes committed by the colonial powers in the years after the world war - thousands of people were killed or tortured in the eastern territories during the last gasps of the British, French, and Dutch empires.
This is just another war crime which our friends and allies (the former colonial powers) would rather forget. Why bring up dead issues?
After all, they lost their empires.
I also note that the survivors are now few in number, old and frail. When the last of them has died and still no justice has been done, the official version of events will stand. The victims will only be remembered as 24 among the tens of thousands of "communists" killed during the insurrection.
Seeing as so few Muslims died, compared to so many Chinese, the victory was without a doubt well worth it. Especially for the Malays.
And they are wonderful people, the Malays.
Monday, April 06, 2009
DUTCH MUSLIM MARTYR
Private 1st. class Azdin Chadli (42nd Armored Infantry Battalion, Royal Dutch Military) was killed Monday by the Taleban, in a rocket attack on the Dutch military base in Uruzgan. He is the nineteenth fatality since the beginning of this mission in 2006
Sources (in Dutch):
http://www.ad.nl/binnenland/3132528/Aanval_op_Kamp_Holland_dode_en_5_gewonden.html
http://www.rtl.nl/(/actueel/rtlnieuws/binnenland/)/components/actueel/rtlnieuws/2009/04_april/06/binnenland/0406_2200_afghanistan_actuele_gebeurtenissen.xml
Why am I mentioning this?
Because his name betrays him as a non-native citizen of the Netherlands, what is called an 'allochtoon'. In other words, one of those people who many native Dutch (the 'autochthonous' population) damn and despise. As has been infuriatingly evident on almost every Dutch internet forum for over a decade.
Since the immigration of Turks and Moroccans to the Netherlands, the native talent for xenophobia has flourished as never before.
Must have something to do with the 'zuilen'-mentality.
[Zuilen = pillars: closed social and societal groups, such as Catholics, Protestants, Foreigners. In the old days, many people seldom came into regular contact with people outside their own 'pillar'. The reason why it is called a pillar is to emphasize the vertical nature of the construct; from the educated at the top to the impoverished and illiterate at the bottom - people who would rather do business with, patronize the services of, and associate in any manner, with others of their ilk. While trying to ignore as much as possible the existence of everyone else.]
There is a condolence register here:
http://www.defensie.nl/actueel/condoleance/soldaat_azdin_chadli
Private First Class Azdin Chadli was twenty years old.
Born on November 2, 1988. Resident of Uden, in North Brabant.
He liked soccer, going out, and just chillin'.
His interests were law enforcement and the military
I wonder what the usual chorus of bigots and nativists will say about his death. Probably nothing, because for some odd reason, they always focus on the worst examplars of whatever group they despise, not the best. The majority, good people, are usually invisible.
Rest in peace, fellow-Brabander, rest in peace.
Sources (in Dutch):
http://www.ad.nl/binnenland/3132528/Aanval_op_Kamp_Holland_dode_en_5_gewonden.html
http://www.rtl.nl/(/actueel/rtlnieuws/binnenland/)/components/actueel/rtlnieuws/2009/04_april/06/binnenland/0406_2200_afghanistan_actuele_gebeurtenissen.xml
Why am I mentioning this?
Because his name betrays him as a non-native citizen of the Netherlands, what is called an 'allochtoon'. In other words, one of those people who many native Dutch (the 'autochthonous' population) damn and despise. As has been infuriatingly evident on almost every Dutch internet forum for over a decade.
Since the immigration of Turks and Moroccans to the Netherlands, the native talent for xenophobia has flourished as never before.
Must have something to do with the 'zuilen'-mentality.
[Zuilen = pillars: closed social and societal groups, such as Catholics, Protestants, Foreigners. In the old days, many people seldom came into regular contact with people outside their own 'pillar'. The reason why it is called a pillar is to emphasize the vertical nature of the construct; from the educated at the top to the impoverished and illiterate at the bottom - people who would rather do business with, patronize the services of, and associate in any manner, with others of their ilk. While trying to ignore as much as possible the existence of everyone else.]
There is a condolence register here:
http://www.defensie.nl/actueel/condoleance/soldaat_azdin_chadli
Private First Class Azdin Chadli was twenty years old.
Born on November 2, 1988. Resident of Uden, in North Brabant.
He liked soccer, going out, and just chillin'.
His interests were law enforcement and the military
I wonder what the usual chorus of bigots and nativists will say about his death. Probably nothing, because for some odd reason, they always focus on the worst examplars of whatever group they despise, not the best. The majority, good people, are usually invisible.
Rest in peace, fellow-Brabander, rest in peace.
Monday, March 30, 2009
BAD DUTCH, NO DOUGHNUTS!
In the past I have accused the Dutch of becoming more xenophobic and racist than ever before. So today, when I clicked on the site for the Algemeen Dagblad, I was not surprised to find the following:
Article about soccer: 4 comments
Airplane poo: 1 comment
More layoffs necessary: no comments
Traffic issues: 13 comments
Pillow fight with a hot babe: 3 comments
Deaths in Abidjan: no comments
Ten months for beating a bus driver:
50 comments
http://www.ad.nl/binnenland/3114559/Tien_maanden_voor_slaan_chauffeur.html
The article is in Dutch, so it might not be immediately apparent why it merited fifty comments.
But the very first sentence is instructive: "De rechtbank in Utrecht heeft maandag de 19-jarige Abdelmallak B. uit Soest veroordeeld tot tien maanden gevangenisstraf..." ('the court in Utrecht on Monday sentenced nineteen year old Abdelmallak B. from Soest to ten months jail time.....').
Mere mention of the name of the perpetrator was enough to generate interest.
A name like Abdelmallak tells the average Jan or Kees that the criminal probably has an immigrant background, is almost certainly a Moroccan, definitely a Muslim.
And despite the vast majority of Moroccans in the Netherlands being quite as law-abiding as the 'natives', the 'natives' tend to overlook their own flaws and obsess over those of resident Arabs and Muslims.
BAD MOROCCAN, NO BISCUIT!
I am certainly not a fan of Arabs or Muslims, as must have been evident from some of my previous posts. But Arabs or Muslims are NOT treated fairly by the 'native' members of Dutch society. Everyone is indeed equal before the law (well, in theory they are), but assuredly not in the eyes of the average Dutchman. Whose bile-spew is more bitter for those he chooses to despise - like immigrants, foreigners, and the faithful of religions other than his own.
BAD YANKEE, NO BANANA!
Lest you consider this accusation far-fetched, I should also mention that there were twenty four comments underneath an article about a shooting at a nursing home in North Carolina.
http://www.ad.nl/buitenland/3113430/Acht_mensen_doodgeschoten_in_verpleeghuis.html
Most of the comments were venomously anti-American, and a few were even sneeringly negative over Obama. You see, Americans are resentfully despised by many Dutch, who find themselves both fascinated and repulsed by our antics. We are the quintessence of 'foreign'.
For comparison, there were only two comments underneath an article about a terrorist attack in Pakistan that took twenty lives, nine underneath an abortion demonstration in Madrid, and thirteen comments about international spying by hackers in China.
BAD JEW, NO KNISH!
On the other hand, there were SEVENTY FIVE comments underneath an article about a youth orchestra from Jenin that was disbanded by the Palestinian authorities because of a concert for holocaust survivors in Israel.
http://www.ad.nl/buitenland/3112776/Holocaust_is_politieke_zaakrsquo.html
That last is easily explained, of course. Many if not most Dutch hate Jews with a passion, though others love them, albeit with considerably less passion. And ALL of the Dutch obsess over them. After all, like the Moroccans, Jews are immigrants, foreign, and of another religion.
Jews are a trifecta of everything that makes the Dutch queasy.
Article about soccer: 4 comments
Airplane poo: 1 comment
More layoffs necessary: no comments
Traffic issues: 13 comments
Pillow fight with a hot babe: 3 comments
Deaths in Abidjan: no comments
Ten months for beating a bus driver:
50 comments
http://www.ad.nl/binnenland/3114559/Tien_maanden_voor_slaan_chauffeur.html
The article is in Dutch, so it might not be immediately apparent why it merited fifty comments.
But the very first sentence is instructive: "De rechtbank in Utrecht heeft maandag de 19-jarige Abdelmallak B. uit Soest veroordeeld tot tien maanden gevangenisstraf..." ('the court in Utrecht on Monday sentenced nineteen year old Abdelmallak B. from Soest to ten months jail time.....').
Mere mention of the name of the perpetrator was enough to generate interest.
A name like Abdelmallak tells the average Jan or Kees that the criminal probably has an immigrant background, is almost certainly a Moroccan, definitely a Muslim.
And despite the vast majority of Moroccans in the Netherlands being quite as law-abiding as the 'natives', the 'natives' tend to overlook their own flaws and obsess over those of resident Arabs and Muslims.
BAD MOROCCAN, NO BISCUIT!
I am certainly not a fan of Arabs or Muslims, as must have been evident from some of my previous posts. But Arabs or Muslims are NOT treated fairly by the 'native' members of Dutch society. Everyone is indeed equal before the law (well, in theory they are), but assuredly not in the eyes of the average Dutchman. Whose bile-spew is more bitter for those he chooses to despise - like immigrants, foreigners, and the faithful of religions other than his own.
BAD YANKEE, NO BANANA!
Lest you consider this accusation far-fetched, I should also mention that there were twenty four comments underneath an article about a shooting at a nursing home in North Carolina.
http://www.ad.nl/buitenland/3113430/Acht_mensen_doodgeschoten_in_verpleeghuis.html
Most of the comments were venomously anti-American, and a few were even sneeringly negative over Obama. You see, Americans are resentfully despised by many Dutch, who find themselves both fascinated and repulsed by our antics. We are the quintessence of 'foreign'.
For comparison, there were only two comments underneath an article about a terrorist attack in Pakistan that took twenty lives, nine underneath an abortion demonstration in Madrid, and thirteen comments about international spying by hackers in China.
BAD JEW, NO KNISH!
On the other hand, there were SEVENTY FIVE comments underneath an article about a youth orchestra from Jenin that was disbanded by the Palestinian authorities because of a concert for holocaust survivors in Israel.
http://www.ad.nl/buitenland/3112776/Holocaust_is_politieke_zaakrsquo.html
That last is easily explained, of course. Many if not most Dutch hate Jews with a passion, though others love them, albeit with considerably less passion. And ALL of the Dutch obsess over them. After all, like the Moroccans, Jews are immigrants, foreign, and of another religion.
Jews are a trifecta of everything that makes the Dutch queasy.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
TRICKY CAMERA
We've all felt this way at some point, and we've all wanted to do this. About doors. And kicking them in, that is. Yes, we have all felt the urge to kick them in. Because they are so pesky.
Doors represent the violence inherent in the system and the capitalist oppression of the working classes.
So I can certainly sympathize, utterly and completely, and without reservation, with Imam Sheikh Taj-Din al-Hilali, who acted on that wish, and did kick in a door - thus striking a potent blow for freedom and several noble principles. Bravo!
QUOTE:
HILALI KICKS DOOR, BLAMES VANDALS
By Natalie O'Brien, Angus Hohenboken - March 19, 2009 - The Australian
AUSTRALIA'S most controversial sheik, Taj Din al-Hilali, has been caught on videotape kicking in a door at his own mosque before calling police to report an act of vandalism.
Source:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25208451-5013404,00.html
The head imam at the Lakemba mosque, who caused outrage in 2006 by comparing scantily clad women to uncovered meat, was shown on a CCTV security tape kicking open the door just minutes before reporting the incident.
The Nine Network's A Current Affair last night broadcast the videotape from March 9, showing the incident, which Sheik Hilali initially denied.
"There is a trick in this camera. There is a trick in this film," he told ACA.
[CUT]
The footage shows four young men locking the door behind them at 10.28pm.
Nine minutes later, Sheik Hilali checks the lock and pushes on the top of the door, bending it on its hinges. After checking the corridor, he disappears from view before rushing towards it and kicking it open at 10.46pm.
---------------------------
AFTERTHOUGHT
It's all about openness and the freedom to be. If nothing else, a mosque door symbolizes suppression of the various liberties of 'uncovered meat', and likewise stands in for the reprehensible racialism and immorality inherent in societies where doors are required.
We take doors for granted. Perhaps we shouldn't. There is a tyranny in doors.
I therefore encourage you to reject the despotism of such devices, and kick in you own mosque door.
Do it for freedom. Do it now.
Doors represent the violence inherent in the system and the capitalist oppression of the working classes.
So I can certainly sympathize, utterly and completely, and without reservation, with Imam Sheikh Taj-Din al-Hilali, who acted on that wish, and did kick in a door - thus striking a potent blow for freedom and several noble principles. Bravo!
QUOTE:
HILALI KICKS DOOR, BLAMES VANDALS
By Natalie O'Brien, Angus Hohenboken - March 19, 2009 - The Australian
AUSTRALIA'S most controversial sheik, Taj Din al-Hilali, has been caught on videotape kicking in a door at his own mosque before calling police to report an act of vandalism.
Source:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25208451-5013404,00.html
The head imam at the Lakemba mosque, who caused outrage in 2006 by comparing scantily clad women to uncovered meat, was shown on a CCTV security tape kicking open the door just minutes before reporting the incident.
The Nine Network's A Current Affair last night broadcast the videotape from March 9, showing the incident, which Sheik Hilali initially denied.
"There is a trick in this camera. There is a trick in this film," he told ACA.
[CUT]
The footage shows four young men locking the door behind them at 10.28pm.
Nine minutes later, Sheik Hilali checks the lock and pushes on the top of the door, bending it on its hinges. After checking the corridor, he disappears from view before rushing towards it and kicking it open at 10.46pm.
---------------------------
AFTERTHOUGHT
It's all about openness and the freedom to be. If nothing else, a mosque door symbolizes suppression of the various liberties of 'uncovered meat', and likewise stands in for the reprehensible racialism and immorality inherent in societies where doors are required.
We take doors for granted. Perhaps we shouldn't. There is a tyranny in doors.
I therefore encourage you to reject the despotism of such devices, and kick in you own mosque door.
Do it for freedom. Do it now.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
ZIONIST CLAIMS, APARTHEID, AND OTHER TROPES
Recently an anonymous reader discovered a post I wrote a back in November, in which I defended Zionists and pro-Israeli activists on the Berkeley campus. As is widely known, the campus of the University of California at Berkeley is one of the most Jew-hating environments on the planet, coddling racists and bigots flying under "cause of the day" colours.
University officials, while aware of the problem, and happy to take money from donors on both the Jewish and Arab sides of the fence, gently close their eyes and pretend that all is well.
The posting was this one:
http://atthebackofthehill.blogspot.com/2008/11/pro-palestinian-activists-attack-jews.html
It is dated 11/14/2008.
The anonymous commenter who discovered it shortly after ten o'clock yesterday evening wrote:
"I don't understand Zionists' claim to a land that was already inhabited by other people. We live in a modern era. Why should Americans support an apartheid state because it believes that religious texts have 'granted' a single people the right to establish a racially defined state to the exclusion of the residents who were living there throughout the 19th and 20th centuries when Jesiwh immigrants were being imported from Europe. While the Holocaust is a horrendous legacy, how does the Jewish state honor the memory of those who were killed by Nazi Germany by perpetrating similar acts of exclusion and oppression? I really don't understand the Zionist mentality...Also, many Jews are anti-Zionist."
I have responded to his query in the comment string, but as the tropes he trumpets are common, it may serve some useful purpose to deal with them in a new post.
I don't understand Zionists' claim to a land that was already inhabited by other people.
There were always Jews living there among the other people. The other people came in with conquerors over the centuries. Jews, however, have ALWAYS lived there. Furthermore, the Zionist purchased land - and developed the barren areas which they bought. It was the economic development of those lands that drew in even more people.
Also, the Jewish quarters of Jerusalem and Hebron, as well as other places inside the land, were ethnically cleansed by Arab mobs in the twenties and thirties - how do you justify Arabs even daring to claim those areas?
Why should Americans support an apartheid state
America does not support an Apartheid state - Israeli Arabs have the right to vote, to own property, and to participate at all levels in Israeli society. And there are Arabs in the ranks of most political parties and all ministries. There are also Arab parties in the Knesset. There are jobs and stations where having served in the IDF give you a much greater entry - Arabs are free to join the IDF. Druze Arabs and many Bedouin do serve in the military (and note that there are Knesset speakers, ministers, officers, and department heads from the Arab Israeli side). All who stayed in 1948 became citizens.
The distinction is with the population in the territories - who are not citizens, and do not wish to be citizens, of a praedominantly Jewish state. They have their own institutions, which are overwhelmingly Judenrein - this despite there having been Jewish populations in both the West Bank and Gaza (that latter population ethnically cleansed several times, the last time during the British period) which date back to the pre-Roman period. Obviously, a population which will not become citizens, and is not even desirous of that - which in fact is acknowledged by all sides as heading towards eventual statehood of its own - cannot be administered in the same way as citizens. They are administered under British Mandate codes and Ottoman law. As they were when the Jordanians ruled over them, and as they were after Egypt had seized Gaza. The laws in those areas are a confusing and oppressive welter, due to it being illegal to change them until locally valid representative bodies do so.
Apartheid state ....
Like Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Japan, Germany, and several others which have nationality laws based on racial and religious exclusionism, coupled with a large number of 'guest-workers' who are treated worse than animals?
But Israel treats its guest-workers and resident aliens far better. So, NOT like the countries just mentioned.
Do you wish to talk about Mexican dishwashers and lettuce pickers? How about Turks who have been three generations in Northern Europe, and are still "foreigners"? Chinese and Indians in Malaysia who have been there for centuries and are discriminated against?
Koreans in Japan? Indians and Pakistanis in the Gulf?
[02/20/2009: Adding Italy to the list above. Per Italian law, children born to foreigners do not automatically receive citizenship, some are left in limbo. This particularly applies to Gypsies and Eastern Europeans. ]
because it believes that religious texts have 'granted' a single people the right to establish a racially defined state to the exclusion of the residents who were living there throughout the 19th and 20th centuries when Jewish immigrants were being imported from Europe.
Zionism is not based on the Bible but on that land being the historic homeland of the Jewish people - even the Romans admitted precisely that.
As did the Arabs - in the Quran, during the various Caliphates, under the Ottomans, and even in the 1920s when the Arabs were becoming nations. Kings Abdullah (assassinated by a Palestinian in Jerusalem) and Hussein (of blessed memory) also admitted the Jewish right to the land.
Nor is the state racially defined (and 'race' in any case is no longer used as a defining term by most anthropologists). There are Jews of every "racial" stripe known to man. In what way is a glow-in-the-dark Hassid from Lithuania the same race as a Persian Jew, an Egyptian Jew, a Baghdadi, a Jew from Samarkand or Bokhara, or a Sfard from Morocco?
And exclusion? Did I already mention that those who stayed, contrary to the commands of the invading Arab armies and at the express request of Jewish leaders in 1948, were automatically granted citizenship? If I didn't mention it yet, I apologize - I should have.
And speaking of 'exclusion', I should also mention that since 1948 the Jews were excluded in very large numbers from Islamic countries - were they had lived since before Islam, in many cases, and in some cases before the current population settled there (that being most notably ALL the lands inhabited today by Turkic majorities, all of which were conquered by invaders from the steppes between ten and four centuries ago - Istanbul used to be Constantinople, and the Greeks still want it back).
Jewish immigrants imported from Europe? Indeed, many of the citizens of Israel have ancestors who came from there (though, of course, the ancestors of the European Jews were not from Europe - see 'Historic Homeland' mentioned above).
Over half the Jewish population however came from Arab and Muslim lands that they were kicked out of in 1948 and years since.
And do not forget, there were already Jews there when they returned to Israel. Many of whom had never been elsewhere - the territory 'assigned' to them by the United Nations was the area of Jewish majority, not the total area where there were Jews. Those who were thrown out of the Arab countries were robbed by the Arabs before they left, and arrived with nothing. As the US Congress in fact recognizes. Note also that these exiles were absorbed by their kin - precisely as the Arabs have refused to absorb their own brothers who fled.
to the exclusion of the residents who were living there throughout the 19th and 20th centuries
The Jewish return to the land was already happening in small measure long before Zionism - Jews returned to Jerusalem, Hebron, Tzfat, and Gaza throughout Ottoman times, and there were Jews who already lived there.
For eight decades till 1948, Jewish population there increased more markedly than under the Caliphate.
Since 1948, it has been the Jewish state - but all in all, Jews have been a majority in their land now for several generations, since before independence. Many were born there, their parents were born there. And many even have grandparents, great grandparents, and even further kin who were born there. They live there now, and most have not lived anywhere else.
If being born in the US makes you an American, or a citizen of many other countries, then by that same reason the Jews in Israel are validly of Israel, and the "Palestinians" born in Nahr El Bard or Jordan are Lebanese and Jordanian.
Oh wait, Arabs practice an exclusionism even more bitter than Europeans and Malays. They discriminate against their own family.
While the Holocaust is a horrendous legacy, how does the Jewish state honor the memory of those who were killed by Nazi Germany by perpetrating similar acts of exclusion and oppression?
The comparison is obscene. After 1967, the Arab population in the territories more than tripled. Even in Gaza since the intifada, there has been a forty percent increase in the population, as per a news item on the BBC website which quotes UN figures. There are more Palestinians now than ever before. They have thrived most marvelously since 1948.
There are no death camps. There are no gas chambers. There are no torture rooms. The Arabs in the West Bank largely have their own officials to blame for the mess they are in (corruption nurtured and encouraged by the UN), and the Arabs in Gaza can thank Hamas (whose nickname, by the way, is SHIA - in snarky acknowledgement of the Iranian contribution) for their situation.
I really don't understand the Zionist mentality
That may be due to ignorance. Give it another shot.
Also, many Jews are anti-Zionist
That also may be due to ignorance. Provided we give them the benefit of doubt.
But more because they desperately wish to be unobjectionable to all, in every possible way. Blending in is a powerful motivator for Uncle-Tomism.
As is profound self-hatred.
[02/20/2009: I actually thought of refering to the anti-Zionist Jews as Kapos-in-training, but the situation is more complex than that. As "A" points out, "The whole issue of Jewish anti-Zionism is much more complex and should be treated in better detail and with less acrimony toward non-Jews.
Ultraorthodox Jews (Neturei Karte) did not want Zionism to usurp the traditional rabbinic leadership of the Jews.
Assimilationist Jews were/are afraid that Zionism will cast doubt on their loyalty to their current state.
Both Marxist and Assimilationist Jews believed that "progress" in a liberal or communist society would allow them to integrate and be part of larger society. In Germany and USSR, this proved to be an illusion.".]
By the same token, many pro-Palestinian activists assert that they are not anti-Semites because their 'best friends' are Jewish (in other words, strictly anti-Zionist Jews). A more common tendency among them is to avoid Jews who they feel are too "Jewish", especially as regards the Israel and Palestine issues.
And, of course, there are still convinced anti-Semites in their ranks.
Not wishing to associate with a taboo minority is also a powerful motivator, as is profound subconscious hatred.
Any questions sofar? There will be a test.
APARTHEID
Now, I find it interesting that the word 'apartheid' is so often used by the anti-Israel crowd. Interesting, because it does not mean what they intend it to mean, nor what they wish to think it means.
Apartheid is a Dutch word that strictly speaking means 'separateness', and in the South African context referred to a legal separation within the same country into ethnic classes (based, in fact, on old Dutch-Roman law and the feudal concept of Romans, nobles, freemen, and serfs) - something which in so varied and diverse a country as Israel is patently absurd.
The West Bank, of course, is different; the Arabs wish their eventual state to be as Judenrein as possible, and have made abundantly clear that they wish Jews to keep out, but do not object to dogs or Persians.
As my regular readers know, I speak, read, and write Dutch fluently. I also understand a number of Dutch dialects, including Afrikaans. Do not presume to lecture me on what 'apartheid' means. Do not even think of doing so. It is a word in my language, not yours - you have merely hijacked it, and 'colonized' it - precisely like the Arabs did to the Christian lands in North Africa, the Levant, and Iberia, exactly like Muslims did to Asia Minor, Western India, Central Asia, and parts of Indonesia. If you use that word, you betray your ignorance, and your linguistic carpetbaggery.
Plus, in this case, you devalue that word to the point of irrelevance.
As you are also doing by comparing the fairly minor Gaza war to the full-scale extermination of six million people over a five year period.
University officials, while aware of the problem, and happy to take money from donors on both the Jewish and Arab sides of the fence, gently close their eyes and pretend that all is well.
The posting was this one:
http://atthebackofthehill.blogspot.com/2008/11/pro-palestinian-activists-attack-jews.html
It is dated 11/14/2008.
The anonymous commenter who discovered it shortly after ten o'clock yesterday evening wrote:
"I don't understand Zionists' claim to a land that was already inhabited by other people. We live in a modern era. Why should Americans support an apartheid state because it believes that religious texts have 'granted' a single people the right to establish a racially defined state to the exclusion of the residents who were living there throughout the 19th and 20th centuries when Jesiwh immigrants were being imported from Europe. While the Holocaust is a horrendous legacy, how does the Jewish state honor the memory of those who were killed by Nazi Germany by perpetrating similar acts of exclusion and oppression? I really don't understand the Zionist mentality...Also, many Jews are anti-Zionist."
I have responded to his query in the comment string, but as the tropes he trumpets are common, it may serve some useful purpose to deal with them in a new post.
I don't understand Zionists' claim to a land that was already inhabited by other people.
There were always Jews living there among the other people. The other people came in with conquerors over the centuries. Jews, however, have ALWAYS lived there. Furthermore, the Zionist purchased land - and developed the barren areas which they bought. It was the economic development of those lands that drew in even more people.
Also, the Jewish quarters of Jerusalem and Hebron, as well as other places inside the land, were ethnically cleansed by Arab mobs in the twenties and thirties - how do you justify Arabs even daring to claim those areas?
Why should Americans support an apartheid state
America does not support an Apartheid state - Israeli Arabs have the right to vote, to own property, and to participate at all levels in Israeli society. And there are Arabs in the ranks of most political parties and all ministries. There are also Arab parties in the Knesset. There are jobs and stations where having served in the IDF give you a much greater entry - Arabs are free to join the IDF. Druze Arabs and many Bedouin do serve in the military (and note that there are Knesset speakers, ministers, officers, and department heads from the Arab Israeli side). All who stayed in 1948 became citizens.
The distinction is with the population in the territories - who are not citizens, and do not wish to be citizens, of a praedominantly Jewish state. They have their own institutions, which are overwhelmingly Judenrein - this despite there having been Jewish populations in both the West Bank and Gaza (that latter population ethnically cleansed several times, the last time during the British period) which date back to the pre-Roman period. Obviously, a population which will not become citizens, and is not even desirous of that - which in fact is acknowledged by all sides as heading towards eventual statehood of its own - cannot be administered in the same way as citizens. They are administered under British Mandate codes and Ottoman law. As they were when the Jordanians ruled over them, and as they were after Egypt had seized Gaza. The laws in those areas are a confusing and oppressive welter, due to it being illegal to change them until locally valid representative bodies do so.
Apartheid state ....
Like Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Japan, Germany, and several others which have nationality laws based on racial and religious exclusionism, coupled with a large number of 'guest-workers' who are treated worse than animals?
But Israel treats its guest-workers and resident aliens far better. So, NOT like the countries just mentioned.
Do you wish to talk about Mexican dishwashers and lettuce pickers? How about Turks who have been three generations in Northern Europe, and are still "foreigners"? Chinese and Indians in Malaysia who have been there for centuries and are discriminated against?
Koreans in Japan? Indians and Pakistanis in the Gulf?
[02/20/2009: Adding Italy to the list above. Per Italian law, children born to foreigners do not automatically receive citizenship, some are left in limbo. This particularly applies to Gypsies and Eastern Europeans. ]
because it believes that religious texts have 'granted' a single people the right to establish a racially defined state to the exclusion of the residents who were living there throughout the 19th and 20th centuries when Jewish immigrants were being imported from Europe.
Zionism is not based on the Bible but on that land being the historic homeland of the Jewish people - even the Romans admitted precisely that.
As did the Arabs - in the Quran, during the various Caliphates, under the Ottomans, and even in the 1920s when the Arabs were becoming nations. Kings Abdullah (assassinated by a Palestinian in Jerusalem) and Hussein (of blessed memory) also admitted the Jewish right to the land.
Nor is the state racially defined (and 'race' in any case is no longer used as a defining term by most anthropologists). There are Jews of every "racial" stripe known to man. In what way is a glow-in-the-dark Hassid from Lithuania the same race as a Persian Jew, an Egyptian Jew, a Baghdadi, a Jew from Samarkand or Bokhara, or a Sfard from Morocco?
And exclusion? Did I already mention that those who stayed, contrary to the commands of the invading Arab armies and at the express request of Jewish leaders in 1948, were automatically granted citizenship? If I didn't mention it yet, I apologize - I should have.
And speaking of 'exclusion', I should also mention that since 1948 the Jews were excluded in very large numbers from Islamic countries - were they had lived since before Islam, in many cases, and in some cases before the current population settled there (that being most notably ALL the lands inhabited today by Turkic majorities, all of which were conquered by invaders from the steppes between ten and four centuries ago - Istanbul used to be Constantinople, and the Greeks still want it back).
Jewish immigrants imported from Europe? Indeed, many of the citizens of Israel have ancestors who came from there (though, of course, the ancestors of the European Jews were not from Europe - see 'Historic Homeland' mentioned above).
Over half the Jewish population however came from Arab and Muslim lands that they were kicked out of in 1948 and years since.
And do not forget, there were already Jews there when they returned to Israel. Many of whom had never been elsewhere - the territory 'assigned' to them by the United Nations was the area of Jewish majority, not the total area where there were Jews. Those who were thrown out of the Arab countries were robbed by the Arabs before they left, and arrived with nothing. As the US Congress in fact recognizes. Note also that these exiles were absorbed by their kin - precisely as the Arabs have refused to absorb their own brothers who fled.
to the exclusion of the residents who were living there throughout the 19th and 20th centuries
The Jewish return to the land was already happening in small measure long before Zionism - Jews returned to Jerusalem, Hebron, Tzfat, and Gaza throughout Ottoman times, and there were Jews who already lived there.
For eight decades till 1948, Jewish population there increased more markedly than under the Caliphate.
Since 1948, it has been the Jewish state - but all in all, Jews have been a majority in their land now for several generations, since before independence. Many were born there, their parents were born there. And many even have grandparents, great grandparents, and even further kin who were born there. They live there now, and most have not lived anywhere else.
If being born in the US makes you an American, or a citizen of many other countries, then by that same reason the Jews in Israel are validly of Israel, and the "Palestinians" born in Nahr El Bard or Jordan are Lebanese and Jordanian.
Oh wait, Arabs practice an exclusionism even more bitter than Europeans and Malays. They discriminate against their own family.
While the Holocaust is a horrendous legacy, how does the Jewish state honor the memory of those who were killed by Nazi Germany by perpetrating similar acts of exclusion and oppression?
The comparison is obscene. After 1967, the Arab population in the territories more than tripled. Even in Gaza since the intifada, there has been a forty percent increase in the population, as per a news item on the BBC website which quotes UN figures. There are more Palestinians now than ever before. They have thrived most marvelously since 1948.
There are no death camps. There are no gas chambers. There are no torture rooms. The Arabs in the West Bank largely have their own officials to blame for the mess they are in (corruption nurtured and encouraged by the UN), and the Arabs in Gaza can thank Hamas (whose nickname, by the way, is SHIA - in snarky acknowledgement of the Iranian contribution) for their situation.
I really don't understand the Zionist mentality
That may be due to ignorance. Give it another shot.
Also, many Jews are anti-Zionist
That also may be due to ignorance. Provided we give them the benefit of doubt.
But more because they desperately wish to be unobjectionable to all, in every possible way. Blending in is a powerful motivator for Uncle-Tomism.
As is profound self-hatred.
[02/20/2009: I actually thought of refering to the anti-Zionist Jews as Kapos-in-training, but the situation is more complex than that. As "A" points out, "The whole issue of Jewish anti-Zionism is much more complex and should be treated in better detail and with less acrimony toward non-Jews.
Ultraorthodox Jews (Neturei Karte) did not want Zionism to usurp the traditional rabbinic leadership of the Jews.
Assimilationist Jews were/are afraid that Zionism will cast doubt on their loyalty to their current state.
Both Marxist and Assimilationist Jews believed that "progress" in a liberal or communist society would allow them to integrate and be part of larger society. In Germany and USSR, this proved to be an illusion.".]
By the same token, many pro-Palestinian activists assert that they are not anti-Semites because their 'best friends' are Jewish (in other words, strictly anti-Zionist Jews). A more common tendency among them is to avoid Jews who they feel are too "Jewish", especially as regards the Israel and Palestine issues.
And, of course, there are still convinced anti-Semites in their ranks.
Not wishing to associate with a taboo minority is also a powerful motivator, as is profound subconscious hatred.
Any questions sofar? There will be a test.
APARTHEID
Now, I find it interesting that the word 'apartheid' is so often used by the anti-Israel crowd. Interesting, because it does not mean what they intend it to mean, nor what they wish to think it means.
Apartheid is a Dutch word that strictly speaking means 'separateness', and in the South African context referred to a legal separation within the same country into ethnic classes (based, in fact, on old Dutch-Roman law and the feudal concept of Romans, nobles, freemen, and serfs) - something which in so varied and diverse a country as Israel is patently absurd.
The West Bank, of course, is different; the Arabs wish their eventual state to be as Judenrein as possible, and have made abundantly clear that they wish Jews to keep out, but do not object to dogs or Persians.
As my regular readers know, I speak, read, and write Dutch fluently. I also understand a number of Dutch dialects, including Afrikaans. Do not presume to lecture me on what 'apartheid' means. Do not even think of doing so. It is a word in my language, not yours - you have merely hijacked it, and 'colonized' it - precisely like the Arabs did to the Christian lands in North Africa, the Levant, and Iberia, exactly like Muslims did to Asia Minor, Western India, Central Asia, and parts of Indonesia. If you use that word, you betray your ignorance, and your linguistic carpetbaggery.
Plus, in this case, you devalue that word to the point of irrelevance.
As you are also doing by comparing the fairly minor Gaza war to the full-scale extermination of six million people over a five year period.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
GEERT WILDERS KEPT OUT OF ENGLAND
The British campaign against freedom of speech and secular humanism gathers steam, and Britain appears to be heading into the grey zone of civilization. No longer a bastion of civil liberties, or even democratic ideals, Britain seems destined for a shadowy half-life of quivering and abject 1984ism.
WILDERS DENIED ENTRY TO BRITAIN
Anti-Islam campaigner and MP Geert Wilders arrived at London’s Heathrow airport on Thursday afternoon but was denied entry into the UK, the Telegraaf reports on its website. The paper says Wilders was escorted to a private room where immigration authority officials told him he would not be allowed into the country and would be deported within a few hours. Pim Waldeck, the Dutch ambassador to Britain, was on hand at Heathrow to offer assistance.
Source:
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2009/02/wilders_at_heathrow_refused_en.php
On Monday it emerged that Britain had banned Wilders from the country because his presence could lead to public disorder and because of his extremist views.
[CUT]
During the British Midland flight, Wilders told the Times newspaper that the British government was ‘the biggest bunch of cowards in Europe’. ‘It is easy to invite people you agree with, it is more difficult to invite people you disagree with and this is the proof of the pudding,’ the paper’s website quoted Wilders as saying. Wilders had been invited to attend a screening of his 15-minute film compilation, which equates Islam with terrorism, at the upper house of parliament in London.
[CUT]
..................
Another article, in Dutch, can be found here:
http://www.nrc.nl/binnenland/article2150135.ece/Britten_houden_Wilders_tegen
Quote:
De Nederlandse ambassadeur in Londen heeft tot het allerlaatste moment geprobeerd Wilders toegelaten te krijgen tot het Verenigd Koninkrijk, zegt het ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken. ,,Nederland betreurt ten zeerste dat het Verenigd Koninkrijk zijn besluit niet heeft willen herroepen om de heer Wilders de toegang tot het land te ontzeggen. De Nederlandse ambassadeur in Londen heeft vanmiddag ter plekke nog een laatste poging daartoe gedaan en, toen ook dat geen resultaat had, nogmaals het Nederlandse ongenoegen overgebracht'', aldus het ministerie tegenover persbureau ANP.
[Translation: 'The Netherlands ambassador in London tried till the last moment to get permission for Wilders to enter the United Kingdom, says the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. "The Netherlands regrets that the UK did not wish to revoke their decision to deny mr. Wilders entry to the country. The Dutch ambassador in London this afternoon made a last attempt to that effect, and when that also had no result, conveyed Dutch dissatisfaction", the ministry stated to press agency ANP (Algemene Nederlandsche Pers).']
Well, there you have it. Ken Livingstone is still allowed to blather forth whatever is on his poisonous mind (and surely that man counts as the most representative and reprehensible of English political pimps for extremist points of view and terrorist causes), but anything that might upset the precious Muslims is verboten.
Until now, I had not realized that Pakistan was so important a trading partner for the British, nor could I even conceive of Englishmen taking their cultural cues from that pestilential pit of a place.
This is, in all aspects, flabbergasting.
WILDERS DENIED ENTRY TO BRITAIN
Anti-Islam campaigner and MP Geert Wilders arrived at London’s Heathrow airport on Thursday afternoon but was denied entry into the UK, the Telegraaf reports on its website. The paper says Wilders was escorted to a private room where immigration authority officials told him he would not be allowed into the country and would be deported within a few hours. Pim Waldeck, the Dutch ambassador to Britain, was on hand at Heathrow to offer assistance.
Source:
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2009/02/wilders_at_heathrow_refused_en.php
On Monday it emerged that Britain had banned Wilders from the country because his presence could lead to public disorder and because of his extremist views.
[CUT]
During the British Midland flight, Wilders told the Times newspaper that the British government was ‘the biggest bunch of cowards in Europe’. ‘It is easy to invite people you agree with, it is more difficult to invite people you disagree with and this is the proof of the pudding,’ the paper’s website quoted Wilders as saying. Wilders had been invited to attend a screening of his 15-minute film compilation, which equates Islam with terrorism, at the upper house of parliament in London.
[CUT]
..................
Another article, in Dutch, can be found here:
http://www.nrc.nl/binnenland/article2150135.ece/Britten_houden_Wilders_tegen
Quote:
De Nederlandse ambassadeur in Londen heeft tot het allerlaatste moment geprobeerd Wilders toegelaten te krijgen tot het Verenigd Koninkrijk, zegt het ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken. ,,Nederland betreurt ten zeerste dat het Verenigd Koninkrijk zijn besluit niet heeft willen herroepen om de heer Wilders de toegang tot het land te ontzeggen. De Nederlandse ambassadeur in Londen heeft vanmiddag ter plekke nog een laatste poging daartoe gedaan en, toen ook dat geen resultaat had, nogmaals het Nederlandse ongenoegen overgebracht'', aldus het ministerie tegenover persbureau ANP.
[Translation: 'The Netherlands ambassador in London tried till the last moment to get permission for Wilders to enter the United Kingdom, says the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. "The Netherlands regrets that the UK did not wish to revoke their decision to deny mr. Wilders entry to the country. The Dutch ambassador in London this afternoon made a last attempt to that effect, and when that also had no result, conveyed Dutch dissatisfaction", the ministry stated to press agency ANP (Algemene Nederlandsche Pers).']
Well, there you have it. Ken Livingstone is still allowed to blather forth whatever is on his poisonous mind (and surely that man counts as the most representative and reprehensible of English political pimps for extremist points of view and terrorist causes), but anything that might upset the precious Muslims is verboten.
Until now, I had not realized that Pakistan was so important a trading partner for the British, nor could I even conceive of Englishmen taking their cultural cues from that pestilential pit of a place.
This is, in all aspects, flabbergasting.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
HOW TO BEAT YOUR WIFE
At times, the attitudes of other subcultures can be quite illuminating. Especially when a certain attention to details which we would blithely overlook becomes evident.
Hence this post.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE USE AND MAINTENANCE OF YOUR WIFE
Notes from a lecture by Sheikh Galal El Khatib
One of the husbands rights is to chastise his wife if she is disobedient.
What does this word "disobedient" mean?
Disobedience is to leave the house without the husband's permission, to refuse to obey the husband in bed, to speak to the husband rudely, or to do the opposite of what he wants - all these are forms of disobedience.
Shariah has instituted several means of disciplining a disobedient wife. These measures must be followed in order, you cannot rush to the third measure before despairing of the second, and you cannot go to the second before despairing of the first. The correct order must be followed.
The first measure for chastising a disobedient wife is to admonish her - the husband should talk to her softly, reminding her of God, and that if she wants to enter paradise, she must obey. He must tell her that by making her husband happy, she pleases God, and that his rights outweigh those of her parents.
Well then, if admonishment doesn’t work, the next step is banishment. Some aver that the wife should be banished from his couch, while others opine that he should abstain from connubulatus with her - but I do not agree with the latter view, because connubulatus is a right of the husband - how can he punish her by depriving himself of connubulatus? It is enough if he does not smile or say nice things to her, instead giving her the cold shoulder. But he has the right to have connubulatus with her even during banishment.
Okay then, he's tried admonishment, he's tried banishment. But nothing works.
Her emotions are dull, and she says "meh". So what is the next thing?
"And beat them..." - beating. The Prophet Muhammad peebuh said that the beatings should be light, and that one should avoid the face, or the tender areas, which might lead to broken bones, or might leave a mark that would spoil her beauty, on her face or anywhere on her body. Beatings that draw blood or break bones, or leave a scar or a bruise, or any obvious mark, which would let people know that she was badly beaten - this is forbidden.
How then should one beat? Maybe a light slap on the shoulder, maybe a firm pinch, or a gentle shove. He should make her believe that he wants to reform her, and let her know that he is quite unsatisfied with her. It is like telling her "methods that work with sensible people do not work with you, a mere word would be enough for a wife of lofty morals, but with you, words are useless!"
Then he tries a new tactic, appealing to her femininity and emotions, by making her think that he doesn't want or love her. And if this doesn't work, he says to her "with you I have reached a point which is only suitable for subhumans, the stage of beating".
Beating is one of the punishments of shariah.
What manner of people are beaten?
The virgin adulterous, both male and female, are beaten to discipline them. And who else is beaten? A person who offended, and was sentenced by a judge to a beating. And who else is beaten? A person who committed a crime.
By beating his wife, the husband says "you have done an evil deed, and that deserves a whupping!"
-----------------------------
Source: MEMRI, more or less.
[See LiveLeak: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=202_1233657536 ]
A slight rephrasement, to make it read smoother, was applied to the text, but the letter and spirit of the beating have been faithfully maintained.
There are other instructive lectures on the same wholesome subject available at the source listed above: Wife beating as therapy, Sermon on the wondrous nature of wife beating, Wife beating in Islam, Culture of wife beating under Islamic law, How to properly beat your wife, and many more.
All of these lectures make clear that Muslims, even stern and old-fashioned believers, are significantly better than trailerparkers, who leave scars, often break bones, and bruise the faces of their wives, throw away the poor woman's make-up and hair dye, and even smash her whiskey bottle besides.
This blog cannot possibly endorse such things.
Hence this post.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE USE AND MAINTENANCE OF YOUR WIFE
Notes from a lecture by Sheikh Galal El Khatib
One of the husbands rights is to chastise his wife if she is disobedient.
What does this word "disobedient" mean?
Disobedience is to leave the house without the husband's permission, to refuse to obey the husband in bed, to speak to the husband rudely, or to do the opposite of what he wants - all these are forms of disobedience.
Shariah has instituted several means of disciplining a disobedient wife. These measures must be followed in order, you cannot rush to the third measure before despairing of the second, and you cannot go to the second before despairing of the first. The correct order must be followed.
The first measure for chastising a disobedient wife is to admonish her - the husband should talk to her softly, reminding her of God, and that if she wants to enter paradise, she must obey. He must tell her that by making her husband happy, she pleases God, and that his rights outweigh those of her parents.
Well then, if admonishment doesn’t work, the next step is banishment. Some aver that the wife should be banished from his couch, while others opine that he should abstain from connubulatus with her - but I do not agree with the latter view, because connubulatus is a right of the husband - how can he punish her by depriving himself of connubulatus? It is enough if he does not smile or say nice things to her, instead giving her the cold shoulder. But he has the right to have connubulatus with her even during banishment.
Okay then, he's tried admonishment, he's tried banishment. But nothing works.
Her emotions are dull, and she says "meh". So what is the next thing?
"And beat them..." - beating. The Prophet Muhammad peebuh said that the beatings should be light, and that one should avoid the face, or the tender areas, which might lead to broken bones, or might leave a mark that would spoil her beauty, on her face or anywhere on her body. Beatings that draw blood or break bones, or leave a scar or a bruise, or any obvious mark, which would let people know that she was badly beaten - this is forbidden.
How then should one beat? Maybe a light slap on the shoulder, maybe a firm pinch, or a gentle shove. He should make her believe that he wants to reform her, and let her know that he is quite unsatisfied with her. It is like telling her "methods that work with sensible people do not work with you, a mere word would be enough for a wife of lofty morals, but with you, words are useless!"
Then he tries a new tactic, appealing to her femininity and emotions, by making her think that he doesn't want or love her. And if this doesn't work, he says to her "with you I have reached a point which is only suitable for subhumans, the stage of beating".
Beating is one of the punishments of shariah.
What manner of people are beaten?
The virgin adulterous, both male and female, are beaten to discipline them. And who else is beaten? A person who offended, and was sentenced by a judge to a beating. And who else is beaten? A person who committed a crime.
By beating his wife, the husband says "you have done an evil deed, and that deserves a whupping!"
-----------------------------
Source: MEMRI, more or less.
[See LiveLeak: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=202_1233657536 ]
A slight rephrasement, to make it read smoother, was applied to the text, but the letter and spirit of the beating have been faithfully maintained.
There are other instructive lectures on the same wholesome subject available at the source listed above: Wife beating as therapy, Sermon on the wondrous nature of wife beating, Wife beating in Islam, Culture of wife beating under Islamic law, How to properly beat your wife, and many more.
All of these lectures make clear that Muslims, even stern and old-fashioned believers, are significantly better than trailerparkers, who leave scars, often break bones, and bruise the faces of their wives, throw away the poor woman's make-up and hair dye, and even smash her whiskey bottle besides.
This blog cannot possibly endorse such things.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
PAKISTANI DEPRAVITY
Colleague and friend Bawaji forwarded a link to an article, with the cogent comment: "If India had half a brain and any guts, they'd bomb these bastards to hell. What a great opportunity! One that the other side would not hesitate to have taken."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7869697.stm
I cannot say that I particularly disagree. The Pakistani government, as usual, shows its complicity in terrorism and criminal enterprise. A more unreliable and treacherous bunch than the rulers of that ghastly failure of a state is hard to imagine.
Quote from the article:
"Authorities made no effort to stop the meeting, despite the ban on some of the groups taking part.
Among those attending were representatives of leading Pakistani militant groups including Jaish-e-Mohammad, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen and Jamat-ud-dawa, a charity linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba. The conference called on the ban on Jamat-ud-dawa to be lifted.
Our correspondent says that the only security at the conference was a line of policemen who surrounded the venue. "
Did you get that? The Pakistani police provided protection for homicidal maniacs and psychopaths. Because they were fellow Muslims. Who have the blood of infidels on their hands. And are therefore praiseworthy, and all round heroic, to the Pakistani umma.
It's no secret, by the way, that the ISI, many politicians, and many Islamic institutions in Pakistan, all provide logistical, organizational, and material support to Jihadis in Kashmir, Afghanistan, and Britain.
I shall not add any further comment, lest I be accused of bigotry. Draw your own conclusions.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7869697.stm
I cannot say that I particularly disagree. The Pakistani government, as usual, shows its complicity in terrorism and criminal enterprise. A more unreliable and treacherous bunch than the rulers of that ghastly failure of a state is hard to imagine.
Quote from the article:
"Authorities made no effort to stop the meeting, despite the ban on some of the groups taking part.
Among those attending were representatives of leading Pakistani militant groups including Jaish-e-Mohammad, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen and Jamat-ud-dawa, a charity linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba. The conference called on the ban on Jamat-ud-dawa to be lifted.
Our correspondent says that the only security at the conference was a line of policemen who surrounded the venue. "
Did you get that? The Pakistani police provided protection for homicidal maniacs and psychopaths. Because they were fellow Muslims. Who have the blood of infidels on their hands. And are therefore praiseworthy, and all round heroic, to the Pakistani umma.
It's no secret, by the way, that the ISI, many politicians, and many Islamic institutions in Pakistan, all provide logistical, organizational, and material support to Jihadis in Kashmir, Afghanistan, and Britain.
I shall not add any further comment, lest I be accused of bigotry. Draw your own conclusions.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA JIHAD
Fans of Berkeley's jihad against Jews will no doubt be pleased to note that there are some boffo events scheduled for this week.
Gaza Solidarity Week
Tuesday, January 27
Gaza Under Siege Teach In
Wheeler Hall, 6 PM
Teach in and panel discussion about life in Gaza, the current humanitarian situation, the geopolitical context and history of events leading up to the incursion. (Co-Sponsored by the Ethnic Studies Department)
Panelists:
Prof. Beshara Doumani
Prof. Judith Butler
Prof. George Besharat
Dr. Hatem Bazian
[Note: any mention of Hamas' responsibility for events, or the kneecapping of Fatah members by Hamas goons, is probably guaranteed to get you beaten up by Hamas sympathizers at Berkeley.]
Wednesday, January 28
We Are All Palestinian Vigil
Upper Sproul, 5 PM
Join us in a candle light vigil commemorating the lives lost in Gaza. Rally against Israeli violence, the killing of Palestinians in Gaza, and violence experienced by communities of color here at home. Remember Oscar Grant.
[Note: Any mention of Jewish life in pre-independence Palestine, the pogroms by the Mufti's vile goons, or even the Fatah members executed by Hamas upon their violent take-over a while back, is extremely likely to get you beaten up by Hamas sympathizers at Berkeley.]
Thursday, January 29
We Shall Remain Palestinian Cultural Night
MCC/Heller Lounge 7 PM
Open mic for students to speak up and out about anything from Gaza to Oakland.
[Note: Any criticism of the racism of Hamas and other extreme branches of the Palestinian movement, the institutional bigotry of UC Berkeley, as well as the brutal repression of dissent in Gaza by the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood (which is banned in most Arab countries), will almost certainly get you beaten up by Hamas sympathizers at Berkeley.]
These events are brought to you by the Gaza Solidarity Coalition, and sponsored by:
Afghan Student Association
Arab Resource & Organizing Center
Arab Student Union
Berkeley Stop the War Coalition
Black Recruitment and Retention Center
By Any Means Necessary (BAMN)
Center for Race and Gender
Department of Ethnic Studies
Ethnic Studies Undergraduate Student Collective
Gaza Solidarity Coalition
Islamic Awareness
Middle Eastern Children's Alliance
Muslim Student Association
Pakistani Student Association
Phi Nu Xi Multicultural Sorority
Students for Hip Hop
Students for Justice in Palestine
Students for Social Change
Turkic Student Association
Xinaxtli
Young Entrepreneurs of Berkeley
[Partial List]
The organizations listed above are, more or less, a representative sample of the Hamas sympathizers in the city of Berkeley, its institutions, and on campus. Anti-Semitism, hate speech, and violence can reasonably be expected from members of some of the groups listed above and their supporters.
Similar tendencies are also rife among faculty and administration of the university (as also elsewhere at other campuses (campi) in the UC system).
Unfortunately, the situation on the Berkeley campus is not likely to improve until faculty and administration acknowledge the gravity of the problem and commit themselves to rectifying it.
Given the institutional anti-Semitism pervasive throughout the University of California, that is likely to happen at approximately the same time as the over-freezing of hell.
Students with a strong Jewish sense of self should consider enrolling elsewhere until and unless the situation at Berkeley changes, and Jewish organizations and benefactors should be made aware that their continued support of an anti-Semitic campus ultimately works against their own interests.
The stigma of being labeled an anti-Semitic campus might prompt faculty and administrators towards some necessary corrective action - but I sincerely doubt it.
Gaza Solidarity Week
Tuesday, January 27
Gaza Under Siege Teach In
Wheeler Hall, 6 PM
Teach in and panel discussion about life in Gaza, the current humanitarian situation, the geopolitical context and history of events leading up to the incursion. (Co-Sponsored by the Ethnic Studies Department)
Panelists:
Prof. Beshara Doumani
Prof. Judith Butler
Prof. George Besharat
Dr. Hatem Bazian
[Note: any mention of Hamas' responsibility for events, or the kneecapping of Fatah members by Hamas goons, is probably guaranteed to get you beaten up by Hamas sympathizers at Berkeley.]
Wednesday, January 28
We Are All Palestinian Vigil
Upper Sproul, 5 PM
Join us in a candle light vigil commemorating the lives lost in Gaza. Rally against Israeli violence, the killing of Palestinians in Gaza, and violence experienced by communities of color here at home. Remember Oscar Grant.
[Note: Any mention of Jewish life in pre-independence Palestine, the pogroms by the Mufti's vile goons, or even the Fatah members executed by Hamas upon their violent take-over a while back, is extremely likely to get you beaten up by Hamas sympathizers at Berkeley.]
Thursday, January 29
We Shall Remain Palestinian Cultural Night
MCC/Heller Lounge 7 PM
Open mic for students to speak up and out about anything from Gaza to Oakland.
[Note: Any criticism of the racism of Hamas and other extreme branches of the Palestinian movement, the institutional bigotry of UC Berkeley, as well as the brutal repression of dissent in Gaza by the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood (which is banned in most Arab countries), will almost certainly get you beaten up by Hamas sympathizers at Berkeley.]
These events are brought to you by the Gaza Solidarity Coalition, and sponsored by:
Afghan Student Association
Arab Resource & Organizing Center
Arab Student Union
Berkeley Stop the War Coalition
Black Recruitment and Retention Center
By Any Means Necessary (BAMN)
Center for Race and Gender
Department of Ethnic Studies
Ethnic Studies Undergraduate Student Collective
Gaza Solidarity Coalition
Islamic Awareness
Middle Eastern Children's Alliance
Muslim Student Association
Pakistani Student Association
Phi Nu Xi Multicultural Sorority
Students for Hip Hop
Students for Justice in Palestine
Students for Social Change
Turkic Student Association
Xinaxtli
Young Entrepreneurs of Berkeley
[Partial List]
The organizations listed above are, more or less, a representative sample of the Hamas sympathizers in the city of Berkeley, its institutions, and on campus. Anti-Semitism, hate speech, and violence can reasonably be expected from members of some of the groups listed above and their supporters.
Similar tendencies are also rife among faculty and administration of the university (as also elsewhere at other campuses (campi) in the UC system).
Unfortunately, the situation on the Berkeley campus is not likely to improve until faculty and administration acknowledge the gravity of the problem and commit themselves to rectifying it.
Given the institutional anti-Semitism pervasive throughout the University of California, that is likely to happen at approximately the same time as the over-freezing of hell.
Students with a strong Jewish sense of self should consider enrolling elsewhere until and unless the situation at Berkeley changes, and Jewish organizations and benefactors should be made aware that their continued support of an anti-Semitic campus ultimately works against their own interests.
The stigma of being labeled an anti-Semitic campus might prompt faculty and administrators towards some necessary corrective action - but I sincerely doubt it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
SOMETHING ABOUT YOUR BEER
It's rather remarkable how racism, religion, and rightwing politics in the United States have combined to put medical care and education...
