Embarrassingly abject dhimmitude from the man who just days ago was saying that the Koran had "no ethical dimension," was "a depressing book," and was "very one-dimensional," and who even suggested that Muhammad was schizophrenic. If someone wrote that about the Bible and Jesus today, he would be invited to all the best dinner parties and maybe get a nice foundation grant. But say it about the Koran, and unless you have a bit of spine you will soon be bowing and scraping just like this, in the face of the stealth jihadist smear and intimidation machine:
"Sebastian Faulks: The book I really can't put down," by Sebastian Faulks in the Telegraph, August 24:
[...] When, with some excitement, I first read the Koran last year as research for my novel, I confess that I was disappointed by it. Raised as a child on the exciting stories of the Old Testament and inspired by the revolutionary teachings of the New, I had, perhaps naively, expected something comparable. The Koran has lovely passages, some of which inspire my character Farooq in the novel, but I did find it, from a literary point of view, repetitive.As for whether it is ethically less developed than the New Testament, a Muslim friend put it to me like this: "You must compare like with like. Compare it to the Old Testament."
That is a fair point. I fully accept that the ethical dimension of modern Islam has been provided by generations of scholars and thinkers over many centuries; it was perhaps too much to expect to find it embedded from the word "Go" – to expect, in other words, that the Koran would be two books, two testaments, in one.
While we Judaeo-Christians can take a lot of verbal rough-and-tumble about our human-written scriptures, I know that to Muslims the Koran is different; it is by definition beyond criticism. And if anything I said or was quoted as saying (not always the same thing) offended any Muslim sensibility, I do apologise – and without reservation.
It was never my intention to offend my Muslim friends or readers, and if you read my novel I think you will see how I have shown the positive effects of the Koran on a kind and typical Muslim family. The family son, Hassan, falls in with bad men and is misled. I can't tell you without spoiling the story whether goodness prevails; but if it does, it is considerably due to the love of his devout parents....
Of course, the Prophet Mohammed was the most prodigious of all voice-hearers, and as Inayat Bunglawala, of the Muslim Council of Britain, noted yesterday, he has often been accused of being "possessed". Sometimes the words of the Koran do have a slightly ranting rhythm to them – though this may be due to the translation, and Arabic has a different natural intonation from English.
But to me the idea that anyone could have achieved what the Prophet achieved in military and political – let alone religious – terms while suffering from an acute illness of any kind seems completely absurd. I believe that only a healthy and lucid person could have achieved what he did – and I am very happy to make that belief clear....
Oh, it's crystal clear.
Interesting title, also: "The book I really can't put down." I doubt he means that he finds the Koran so gripping that he can't stop reading it. He means he can't denigrate it. He can't put it down. Even if he wants to. Because he is afraid of the consequences -- either death threats or the opprobrium of polite society that routinely denigrates Christianity but finds Islamorealism "bigoted," or both.
Poor Mr. Faulks, he spoke his mind and then realized that the Muslims might try to kill him for doing such. Faulks figured he was better off a dhimmi then dead.
Sounds as if Mr. Faulks may have been publicising his book through the Times.
First: Get their attention.
Second: Pique ire.
Third: "I have shown the positive effects of the Koran on a kind and typical Muslim family. The family son, Hassan, falls in with bad men and is misled. I can't tell you without spoiling the story whether goodness prevails;"
Fourth: Buy My Book!
He didn't mean to offend! WTF. What a wanker. It's as if he was suddenly brainwashed by the PC mind-wipe machine. Zombified by the possibility that a muslim might acutally buy one of his books, after what he said? Codified into MC speak to appease the possibility of Musli-guidoesque islamo-nostra threats to his person and property more like. The HR PC fueled muslim mafia chill strikes again. Sequel to follow: "How I lied about lying about the Quran to save my skin (now that I have the same protective detail as Rushdie)"
Sounds as if Mr. Faulks may have been publicising his book through the Times.
First: Get their attention.
Second: Pique ire.
Third: "I have shown the positive effects of the Koran on a kind and typical Muslim family. The family son, Hassan, falls in with bad men and is misled. I can't tell you without spoiling the story whether goodness prevails;"
Fourth: Buy My Book!
What an abject tool!
Yeah, see, the REAL problem was that Faulkes was originally reading the *wrong* Quran.
Yes, yes, that's it.
He "accidentally" read the "fake, invalid, bad, bad, BAD" Quran. You know, the one that tells Muslims to convert or kill, steal, kill apostates, abuse and rape women, girls and boys, wipe out the JOOOOS, and whatever other bad (embarassing) stuff.
Later, he read the GOOD Quran. You know, the one that says the SAME THINGS, but we should pretend it does not MEAN it.
JELLO
How sad. I can't say I'm surprised, but I honestly thought it would take at least a week after his original remarks before we'd see this.
!UK author who criticized Koran: Hey, I just discovered that the Koran is super after all"
A billion flies cannot be wrong - shit taste good - especially if they are killer flies. ;-)
This would be really funny if it wasn't so dam sad.
Wanker in the UK, a pussy in the USA.
How freaking pathetic.
What else can be said by the spineless West, a cowering, "love me" excuse of a "civilization" who I happen to be part of?
I feel dirty and shamed by these turn of events.
The man looked around to see who would defend him, and he smartly gave it up.
What country could he run to? What group of men will defend him from assassination? What chance would he have of living a life other than that of Geert Wilders?
No organized self-defense, then we get blundering novelists who rightly back off as soon as they see where they've landed themselves. No self-defense, not a hint of help, not a hope.
Who counter-attacked on the novelist's behalf? How terrified of us are the jihadis?
When it comes to Islam, there is often a parting of the ways. Either bow and scrape, and be popular with Muslims, or be straightforward, and face violence, threats of violence, and lawsuits, while the "moderate" Muslim community does nothing to protect your freedom of expression, and even supports the suppression of your work. Faulks just made his choice, for obsequiousness to Islam, and against freedom of conscience.
You can bet that when he made his blunt negative statements about the Qur'an, his publishers and everyone else started ringing his phone off the hook, telling him to retract or "clarify" his statements immediately or face the possibility that his book might be withdrawn from publication or be blacklisted.
Something is wrong with Europe's institutional protections (or rather the lack of them) for freedom of expression. Thank God for the First Amendment.
Dag:
"Who counter-attacked on the novelist's behalf? How terrified of us are the jihadis?"
We did with true words. Thy are terrified by our killer drones! Maybe a million drones could get the job done? ;-)
"While we Judaeo-Christians can take a lot of verbal rough-and-tumble about our human-written scriptures, I know that to Muslims the Koran is different; it is by definition beyond criticism. And if anything I said or was quoted as saying (not always the same thing) offended any Muslim sensibility, I do apologise – and without reservation."
....................
This may be "due to the translation". In clearer language, I believe Faulks' words would be:
"Please don't kill me".
Sebastian Faulks: This year's Dhimmi of the Year.
This just furthers the ummah's feelings of superiority without having to actually substantiate it.
[PUKE]
I can't say that I blame. The way of the anti-jihadist is hard and not for every infidel. I think it is safe to assume that only his first comments were honest.
Even Goethe, the overestimated German poet who liked the Koran, had to admit that it is repetitive. It's a dull, boring and gruesome book, the culmination of stupidity. Morons all over the world unite!
Islamic apologists constantly remind us that "Islam is not monolithic" yet here in one fell swoop it's not "a few Muslims" or "some Muslims" or "most Muslims" or a "majority of Muslims" -- it's just "Muslims."
Was he threatened and changed his mind? If so, let's expose the threat, shout them down and jail them.
The Book You Can't Put-Down may be code for: It is horrible, violent and filled with commandments to subjugate and kill you. But just don't speak it or write about it.
(three tries)
Hey Ipso, I was a little bit too quick, and I've only discovered just now that you quoted the fly paradox. Absolutely right, something that all scientists like to use to show the evidence of the stupidity of certain people's ideas.
"The banality of evil is a phrase coined by Hannah Arendt and incorporated in the title of her 1963 work Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil.
It describes the thesis that the great evils in history generally, and the Holocaust in particular, were not executed by fanatics or sociopaths but rather by ordinary people who accepted the premises of their state and therefore participated with the view that their actions were normal." - Wikipedia
"The banality of evil is a phrase coined by Hannah Arendt and incorporated in the title of her 1963 work Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil.
It describes the thesis that the great evils in history generally, and the Holocaust in particular, were not executed by fanatics or sociopaths but rather by ordinary people who accepted the premises of their state and therefore participated with the view that their actions were normal." - Wikipedia
"As for whether it is ethically less developed than the New Testament, a Muslim friend put it to me like this: "You must compare like with like. Compare it to the Old Testament.""
So when is the "Islamic New Testament" going to appear? We all know the answer already--never!
We know that the supposedly divinely perfect Koran, delivered by the Last Prophet Ever, is the last word from Allah to humanity, and may never be edited or reinterpreted in the slightest detail.
And we know that the last sura of the Koran--Sura 9--the very very very last word of Allah to humanity--is that vicious political manifesto, genocidal war cry, and divine commandment--to convert, persecute, or kill outright the infidels, every last one, in a perpetual war of enslavement.
And we know that the Islamic attitude toward the Christian New Testament, that "corrupted document produced by scheming men," is that it is so much infidel garbage.
The Koran--the foundation of "Islamic ethics."
More accurately, when dealing with "the other"--when dealing with free men not yet enslaved to Allah (Mohammed's lusts)--the Koran more closely resembles the total absence of ethics.
The "Muslim friend" who told him to compare the Qur'an with the Old Testament presumably is hoping that he will take note of the occasional bloody passages in Leviticus and elsewhere, and forget that passages about the Canaanites have had no relevance for three thousand years, whereas Muslims for the entire existence of Islam take the Qur'an as the literal Word of God, and do so today.
Furthermore, that same "Muslim friend" is conveniently forgetting that the gloss on the Qur'an consists of the Sunnah (some think that the Sunnah is at least as important as the Sunnah, essentially the manners and customs of Muhammad and other seventh-century inhabitants of the Hejaz, and the Sunnah, in written form, consists, roughly, of both the Hadith -- the written record of the sayings and acts of Muhammad -- and of the Sira, the Islamic biography of Muhammad. which consists, in written form, of both the Hadith and Sira)
Oh, dear.
Best not to say anything at all, if it has to come to that. Understandable, of course, and a sign of the times, but perhaps -- like Rushdie, who just after the sentence had been passed upon him (a little more, I'm afraid, than the "opinion" of a fatwa) publicly declared that he was a Muslim, and only with the passage of time, managed to undo that apostasy to his own true believes, admitted that he was not -- Sebastian Faulks, in a moment less panicky, will rethink his re-think and state firmly what he believes.
Maybe Faulks will quit writing -- too dangerous -- and take up Rapping.
I have he Rappah name:
scared.i.am
Mr. Faulks has found that it is wiser to cringe than criticize. He probably received the obligatory threats via email, telephone, mail, fax, and perhaps more. Also, I would imagine that the publisher was reminded of its vulnerability. I suspect that that you will see more self-censorship as a result of this incident and others. Many books and journal articles wlll never see the light of day. Instead, the public will be treated to the likes of Armstrong, Esposito, Cole, and Saliba, rather than legitimate scholars. I suspect that it will be sooner rather than later that open criticism of Islam will be either formally or informally punished.
A better rapper name for Faulks' new singing career:
dhimm.i.am
"I suspect that that you will see more self-censorship as a result of this incident and others. "
This has been going on a long time. Even back in the early 1980s, French philosopher Jacques Ellul was already complaining that "you can't criticize Islam anymore".
Mohammed follows in the footsteps of Alexander the Great, Ceasar, Napoleon, Hitler, Genghis Khan, and the great three step process of warriors:
1. Become General and apply innovative stragtegy.
2. Conquer and subjugate your enemies through their women.
3. Contract syphillis and declare yourself a god!.
Faulks gives up writing (a danger to one's spine) and takes up rapping, Rap name of either scared.i.am or dhimm.i.am.
Here's some lyrics for the first song, sung to the tune of pretty much anything by Eminem:
I thought that the Koran was shrill
And the profett.. man he head-case ill
Then the goons of the islamo-thuggies
Gave me a taste of the heebies and jubbies
Singin’…[all together now]….
the koran’s a wonderful book
And the Prophet (pbuh] sure not a kook
I love that religion of peace
An’ writin…… well, I jus’ had to cease….
I am unutterably disappointed--here I thought this guy was going to be an honest voice.
I wrote on Aug 23 here at JW:
"I predict Mr Faulks will issue his apology within 48 hours...."
But it wasn't clairvoyance...it was easily predictable.
Here we have an intellectual...a writer...who apparently for the first time investigates the minutia of Islamic theology. He's naturally repulsed and goes public with his revulsion. Muslim interest groups react with indignation, he catches wind of the reaction...and out of fear, he apologizes.
It reminds me of a child recklessly breaking convention, being scolded, and then expressing contrition, whether he feels it or not.
What is it about intellectuals and lack of character and fortitude?
"You must compare like with like. Compare it to the Old Testament."
That's funny, since the Koran came 600 year after the New Testament.
Talk about regression!
Actually, the whole letter is not really an apology, but a series of ambiguous statements that sound good only at first blush.
Like saying to an overweight acquaintence, "You look tremendous!"
I think he may have gotten the better of moronic Islamists.
I wrote to the Sebastian Faulks website.
See here:
http://thebattleoftours.blogspot.com/2009/08/book-i-just-couldnt-put-down-free.html
Dhimmi? Sure. But he had to make a choice - quickly.
On the one hand, stick to his original criticism. On the other, become the new Salman Rushdie.
There would have been no shortage of 'community leaders' on the phone, politely telling him that he was wrong, with the occasional veiled threat. Add to that screaming editors and publishers: "Are you out of your freaking mind?! Do you want to get us all killed?!?"
He's not married to his opinion. He's certainly not going to jeopardise his life and the lives of his family, friends and colleagues. He doesn't want to turn his back on his current lifestyle and live in safe houses waiting for Islam reform.
So he issues a hasty retraction. Honestly, who wouldn't? Robert, Daniel, Pamela, Hugh and Geert. That's who. And that's part of the reason why I admire them.
thumbs up mikeymike, great post.
Great point Mike. The rest of us here exist within the comfort of our anonymity, while Robert has courageously put himself out there to make a difference.
I wasn't being fair to question the "character" of Mr Faulks...while I myself remain safely ensconced in anonymity.
Still, it was the naivety surrounding Mr Faulks that is so very telling...the fact that he only now discovered the essence of Islam...and the fact that he went so public with his revulsion. All this from a supposedly cultured man.
The Koran is a book I can't keep down.
Ipso Facto writes: "They are terrified by our killer drones!"
Well, I wish it were so. I think I know better.
Better people than I are disturbed by my understanding of the nature of people at war and in the condition of war. Those better people than I are disturbed by the idea that I disagree that war is a matter of defeating the enemy's will to resist. They are disturbed by my understanding of St. Augustine's concept of Just War. Mostly, better people than I am disturbed by my rejection of the whole idea of proportionate response. That they re disturbed by my understanding of war is evidence that they are in fact better people than I. Further, they are superior to me in that I don't care how amoral I might well be.
Most of our fellows here are motivated in this struggle from feelings of love: Love of God, nation, and family. They are probably motivated by love of humanity and a love of freedom and ordinary decency. I write that from years of reading commentary here, from knowing many of the writers here for years. My experience of others here is that most are motivated to further the good universally. The cartoonish parodies of most here that one encounters among our enemies at other sites is applicable, perhaps, to me, but not to most others here. My interest here is not based on love: I'm interested only in defeating our enemies. Just War doesn't interest me. I'm not here as a moralist or a crusader for human rights. I'm here as a man consumed happily by my own hatred of our enemies. I love my hatred. It is my passion. My love give me a vision others won't see. One would shudder, perhaps, to think of nations consumed as I am by hate. But my motivation yields me, in conjunction with my life's experience, an unsentimental vision, one without false claims to love or concern. I'm way past that. Some are disconcerted.
If drones killed all but the last Muslim, that latter would praise Allah for victory in his living through the carnage. He'd start looking for four new women to begin it all over again.
We look at drones and such as a means to defeat the enemy's will to resist. I submit that such is a wrong perspective. In Islam there is no final defeat but the defeat of the infidel on the last day. So long as the last Muslim lives, so too does jihad. We cannot kill jihad with machinery. Nor can we kill jihad with genocide. Our task isn't to kill men; it is to kill an idea, i.e. Islam and the generic fascism that is Islam. This isn't a task for machines. It's meant for men to address the Human Factor. It's a matter of man to man, hand to hand, face to face. Machines have little place in this struggle.
We think of machine killing jihadis as clever and good for our side, keeping our casualties to a minimum and too the casualties of the jihadis to those we deem worthy of destruction. That's not war in a meaningful sense. That's commerce. It's a mediocrity made flesh. It's not even an insult to those killed. It's weather.
For the jihadi and those like him, the death from above that is machinery is not 'really' our doing: it is the will of Allah. We are merely the instruments of Alla's will. He decides who lives and who dies by death by machinery. We're just fools deluded by our hubris into thinking we are acting of our own accord. They think differently. They shrug. Yes, even if we kill their most qualified and their best loved, the jihad goes on. It ain't personal. Literally, it isn't about anyone. It's about Islam and jihad and the will of Allah. Death by weather? What is there to fear?
If we think we can defeat Islam by using superiour weaponry, then we are doomed. This isn't about killing people: it's about destroying the will of Allah. And that lives in the minds of Muslims.
I'll stop here rather than offend our hosts. I hope that my point is already sufficiently clear.
The pile of inbred bedouin savage scribblings I really can't stop using as a door-stopper is a more appropriate way to describe the repetitive, contradictory, violent and nonsensical Mein Qurampf. Its other possible intended purpose, toilet-clogging, is one that doesn't make much sense to me at all.
Damn and blast! I was cheering him for his spine when I first heard the story, and now I jeer him for his lack of one.
And/or maybe he is a clever seller of books by controversy...
P.S. That was by Mo Foe #1...
He hasn't got the flair or panache of Martin Amis or Ian Mckewen who have both been properly critical of the tyranny of islam and both been pilloried for it.
He's an abject coward.
He should call up Mr.Amis and ask him what he thinks of the stink of islam in his country.
Martin will tell him..
I think perhaps he's just gone back to the default position of least resistance..
He will go back to radio 4 and go back to sleep..
in his nice north london suburb...away from the burkhas and away from the hostility on the streets.
Fuck him and all he stands for.....
He hasn't got the flair or panache of Martin Amis or Ian Mckewen who have both been properly critical of the tyranny of islam and both been pilloried for it.
He's an abject coward.
He should call up Mr.Amis and ask him what he thinks of the stink of islam in his country.
Martin will tell him..
I think perhaps he's just gone back to the default position of least resistance..
He will go back to radio 4 and go back to sleep..
in his nice north london suburb...away from the burkhas and away from the hostility on the streets.
Fuck him and all he stands for.....
"But to me the idea that anyone could have achieved what the Prophet achieved in military and political – let alone religious – terms while suffering from an acute illness of any kind seems completely absurd."
Appearently this dhimmi has never heard of accomplished military leaders such as Julius Caesar,Mark Anthony, Rommel, Hitler, Stalin, Patton, and MacArthur who all suffered acute illnessess and mental disorders of some form or another. Nothing this puff said was logical it was all submission speak. He's learned who the master is.
Also worth noting is the fact that Faulks makes the villain of his new novel a Jewish financier whose family is dysfunctional, abject and fragmented, whereas the Muslim prtagonist belongs to a united and morally upright family.
He was asked in the original Sunday Times interview why he made the villain Jewish and he not so neatly avoided answering the question by saying he didn't know.
Go figure.
It reminds me of a child recklessly breaking convention, being scolded, and then expressing contrition, whether he feels it or not.
Posted by: Cornelius
Very apt observation and, roughly, an answer to your next comment: "What is it about intellectuals and lack of character and fortitude?" Their infantilism.
good post, Cornelius.
Dag:
Bravo! No one here could be more correct. I aspplaud your WISDOM.
CGW
Correction: " I applaud your wisdom."
No one ever claimed I was a good keyboarder.
The comparison between Sebatian Faulks and Salman Rushdie is not quite appropriate.
Salman Rushdie grew up a Moslem. he knows from the inside-out the Moslem mindset. It is safe to assume that he was well-informed on the potential outcomes of his writing.
The situation with Sebastian Faulks is not as clear. He may be one of those Westerners who, reading the Qur'an, thinks his education complete. This to be sure is lightyears beyond the hapless reader who owes everything they know about Islam to such authors such as Karen Armstrong. But it clearly isn't enough. One wonders if Mr. Faulks took any note of Rushdie's experience and then went further to ask why such a thing happened at all.
We need brave authors who speak the truth, without retraction and apology. We need to recognize that the West is also a culture, with values that it hardly need apologize for, particularly the freedom of conscience and expression. And we need the grapes to defend these values, starting with law enforcement authorities and extending through citizenship and immigration authorities thorughout the Western world.
Mr. Faulks was half-educated about Islam. He is also perhaps like many others half-educated about the current world situation: Even if we are not at war with Islam, Islam is most certainly at war with us.
Max Publius wrote:
"You must compare like with like. Compare it to the Old Testament."
That's funny, since the Koran came 600 years after the New Testament.
Talk about regression!
.......................
Other posters have noted this, as well. But for Muslims, the Qur'an is quite literally the last word. Both the Old and New Testaments have been--supposedly--bowlderdized by Jews and Christians, whereas the Qur'an is direct from the Injeel Jibreel.
This paradigm doesn't work if one is talking religion--as I just noted. Nor, as Max and others noted, does it work historically.
Also, there has been no Muslim "New Testament" in the past 1400 years, to modify the brutal Qur'an--in fact, in Islam, there could not be.
Then, also, as others have noted as well, the Qur'an actually becomes more brutal and bellicose in the later "revealed" verses.
So--what, exactly, did Faulks' Muslim friend have in mind?
It's just something that sounds vaguely rational to Westerners, without standing up to much scrutiny.
Perhaps he meant that dark-age Arab bedouins were more brutal and primitive than their Jewish and Christian neighbors. I wouldn't argue with him on that point at all.
dag: If we think we can defeat Islam by using superior weaponry, then we are doomed. This isn't about killing people: it's about destroying the will of Allah. And that lives in the minds of Muslims.
Nothing destroys the will of fanatics quite like absolute devastation. Look at Dresden, look at Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Now look at those cities and what their have achieved.
Once we become serious and honest about our conflict with islam we should fight it with all means necessary and leave no mosque standing, no burkha wearable and no jihadist alive.
Abu Lahab.
You have my vote.
While we Judaeo-Christians can take a lot of verbal rough-and-tumble about our human-written scriptures, I know that to Muslims the Koran is different; it is by definition beyond criticism. And if anything I said or was quoted as saying (not always the same thing) offended any Muslim sensibility, I do apologise – and without reservation.
__ "Sebastian Faulks: The book I really can't put down"
How low can this guy bow before the violent, evil sect of Koranic cultism? Can you smell the fear? But Muslims thrive on infidel 'apologies' to make them more bold, more demanding from these pathetic dhimmis. Faulks falls into the same pathetic mold, because he fears the people about whom he writes. Fear fear fear... It's all written in the Koran, you know, that book that is "by definition beyond criticism." It's just the fear you smell, and it stinks of pathetic apologies. Sick!
dag: "If we think we can defeat Islam by using superiour weaponry, then we are doomed. This isn't about killing people: it's about destroying the will of Allah. And that lives in the minds of Muslims." http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/027354.php#c625407
I think we need both, to score a high kill rate in order to gradually wear them down, as well as address the absurdities of their cultish belief system. For any rational human being to think seriously that a book written by desert bedouins 1300 years ago is absolutely beyond criticism is the height of absurdity. To still think this way 1300 years later after the rise of the Age of Reason and in this Age of Information is beyond belief. Can the Muslims really be this dense? Only Muslim zombies who obey with absolute unquestioning submission to a dead propped up 'perfect' master can be this dense. That is who we must destroy, that long dead 'prophet' and his idiotic cultish moon-god Al-Yllah, i.e, Allah. Killing zombies is just part of this process.
Look here for a novel critical of Qur'an and Islam in general
I am afraid given the terror of "offending" muslims in the UK today the only surprising thing is that he made his statement in the first place. One thing it does show is how out of touch with life on the street our multicultural elite is.
Good news--just checked the Telegraph, there are 193 comments on Faulks's "retraction," and about 99% look like they were written by JihadWatch fans, only more insulting, heheh.
"One thing it does show is how out of touch with life on the street our multicultural elite is."
I think you're out of touch with the common man & woman. Any day of the week you could find normal average people at Whole Foods market or Barnes & Noble bookstore who if you had a convo with them, would basically parrot the PC MC line. I seriously doubt that a majority of them would show signs of being awake and aware.
Wow, what a surprise!
You would almost start to think that ... Ow sorry, I need to fart *vvvvroat* Aaaah much better. Anyway, you almost start to wonder that if there wasn't some labourparty hotshot who told him to shut up or otherwise he will be killed in a peaceful martyr operation... There has to be ... ow wait, again a fart *vroaaat* Offff...
Lets continue. There has to be something *vroat* very rigurous to have happened to change your mind in such a dramatic way. I also can not imagine he really believes what he said, I think he is just very afraid. He probably has a family he is responsible for aswel, so in one way I can understand. But during the writing process of this book he could've already realised the consequences. We can see them everyday.
But still, dhimmi *ssh*les make me fart!
*Vrooooooattt*
Wow, what a surprise!
You would almost start to think that ... Ow sorry, I need to fart *vvvvroat* Aaaah much better. Anyway, you almost start to wonder that if there wasn't some labourparty hotshot who told him to shut up or otherwise he will be killed in a peaceful martyr operation... There has to be ... ow wait, again a fart *vroaaat* Offff...
Lets continue. There has to be something *vroat* very rigurous to have happened to change your mind in such a dramatic way. I also can not imagine he really believes what he said, I think he is just very afraid. He probably has a family he is responsible for aswel, so in one way I can understand. But during the writing process of this book he could've already realised the consequences. We can see them everyday.
But still, dhimmi *ssh*les make me fart!
*Vrooooooattt*
Hesperado
"I think you're out of touch with the common man & woman. Any day of the week you could find normal average people at Whole Foods market or Barnes & Noble bookstore who if you had a convo with them, would basically parrot the PC MC line. I seriously doubt that a majority of them would show signs of being awake and aware."
We do not have Barnes & Noble bookstores in the UK, but yes the people going in Waterstones bookstores do not just parrot, but scream the PC MC line. But unlike Sebastian Faulks who does not live in an industrial city, I live 3 miles from a muslim area and have worked in 98% muslim areas so I have a good idea what the common man and woman are thinking.
Be aware that in Britain it is illegal to say or publish anything that will "incite racial hatred". That it was true is no defense.
"Be aware that in Britain it is illegal to say or publish anything that will "incite racial hatred". That it was true is no defence".
It's the fact that this particular law only appears to work one way that really pisses me off. If you are a muzzie it appears that the only function of the police is to protect you from the crowds whilst you are demanding beheadings for no apparent reason and the destruction of "evil" western society.