Why we did it, and what’s at stake, as explained in my talk at the notorious AFDI/Jihad Watch Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest. Transcript as published in FrontPage:
Below are the video and transcript to Robert Spencer’s speech at the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest, sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative and held in Garland, Texas.
Robert Spencer: Geert Wilders mentioned that the PEN Writers Association that was founded in order to defend the freedom of expression is giving an award to the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists — Pamela spoke about this as well — and that 145 of the members of PEN, including some very prominent writers — Joyce Carol Oates, who you may’ve heard of, and some others — have pulled out. Because they say that it is manifesting cultural arrogance. They said that the French manifested cultural arrogance in drawing Muhammad and allowing Charlie Hebdo to draw Muhammad.
They don’t seem concerned about the cultural arrogance of the assassins who murdered these cartoonists in the name of a blasphemy law that the cartoonists did not hold. They didn’t care about that imposition of one culture over another; they only cared that the French were following their own long tradition of free expression.
Now, that’s a terrible thing for an organization that’s designed to defend the freedom of expression. It’s a terrible descent. And it bespeaks a descent in our whole culture in general.
You will see around the room — you probably have already noticed as you were coming in — that we have some of the entries into the cartoon contest blown up. And we also have interspersed some historical images of Muhammad.
Now, it’s very noteworthy — take a look as you’re going out this evening — take a look at some of these, because you’ll find them very interesting. Some of them are ancient Persian images made by Muslims. And nobody got killed. Nobody got death threats. Nobody was called a racist. They depict Muhammad cursing women in hell, they depict Muhammad beheading the Qurayza Jews, of which he massacred between 600 and 900, according to his earliest biographer. These are depictions by Muslims of Muhammad.
Some of them you’ll see, his face is covered. But in some of them, he’s just depicted as he is in the cartoons that are more contemporary.
Even more important, there are some images you will find from earlier centuries in the West, when we did have more cultural confidence. Dante Alighieri, the author of “The Divine Comedy” — it’s a three-part allegory, one of the greatest poems in Western civilization, the great Italian poem. And he goes into hell and then into purgatory, and then into heaven.
And in hell, he meets all these people who’ve been damned to hell. One of them is Muhammad. Because Dante was a Christian. And he viewed Muhammad as somebody who had tried to turn people away from the truth faith and was thus condemned.
His depiction of Muhammad in hell was made into a fresco which is on the wall of a church in Italy. It’s been there for centuries. Now it’s under armed guard. It was never under armed guard in the 17th century, the 18th century, the 19th century. Only now.
Why is that? Because now Muslims are, in the first place, much more present in the West than they were. But they’re a much more aggressive presence in the West. And that is an aggression fueled in large part by our own cultural weakness.
(Applause)
A very good friend of mine told me right before I left for this event that — you’re just poking them in the eye, you’re trying to provoke them. You know, why are you doing that? You’re the one that’s being offensive. And this was a friend, you know, and I was kind of taken aback. And I had to stop and think — well, what exactly is wrong with that?
And what’s wrong with that is that this is only offensive because Muslims have made it offensive. This is only something, as Geert Wilders said, that needs armed guards because Muslims will kill you for drawing Muhammad. It would never be offensive otherwise.
Consider this — the murderers of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists had an accomplice. And as they were murdering the cartoonists, the accomplice went to a kosher supermarket in Paris and murdered four Jews. What have they done? They didn’t draw Muhammad. How did they offend Muslims? They offended Muslims by being Jewish.
Okay, so we have to not draw Muhammad, because that’ll poke them in the eye and offend them. And then we have to not be Jewish, because that will poke them in the eye and offend them. And then what? Okay, I guess pork and alcohol are right out. Okay, and then what? Take — humor, yes.
And the Islamic State — the Islamic State is beheading people and taking sex slaves, and subjugating the Christians under the hegemony of the Islamic law. And they’re doing it all on the basis of Koranic directives. And so that’s all Islamic. So I guess we can’t say a word about that. Because that would poke them in the eye and offend Muslims.
And you see, step by step by step, we’re ending up going in the direction of accepting Islamic law. And every Western media outlet that refused to publish the Muhammad cartoons was accepting Islamic blasphemy law.
(Applause)
And so I’d say it’s time for a little cultural self-assertiveness. In the 19th century, they didn’t have these problems. There’s the famous story that I’ll close with from the British Raj, the British colonization of India. And in India, the Hindus — not the Muslims, but the Hindus — had the practice of sati, where the widow, the wife of a man who had just died, would be thrown upon his funeral pyre and be burnt to death. And the British outlawed it.
And the Hindu delegation came to General Sir Charles Napier, who was the governor general of the area, and they said to him — you can’t outlaw this, this is our culture. And he said — oh, it’s your culture, oh. Well then, very well. You live out your culture. But we also have a culture. And our culture is that men who force women to throw themselves on fires will be hanged by the neck until dead.
(Laughter)
So you live out your culture, and then we’ll live out ours.
(Applause)
In the West, we should be saying exactly that. Yeah, okay, you’re going to kill for people who draw Muhammad? Then we will protect people who draw Muhammad. And we will hunt you down and kill you for trying to kill people for drawing Muhammad.
(Applause)
The freedom of speech is not an end in itself. The freedom of speech was put into the Constitution as our fundamental protection against tyranny. If the governing authority or any power that rules in whatever way — and as Pamela noted, you want to know who rules over you, then find out who you cannot criticize. The people who have the clout, the people who have the power — if they are able to silence by the rule of law, by the force of law, those whose opinions they don’t like, then a free society is dead. Then they can do whatever they wish unopposed, and dissent is impossible.
And that’s what this is all about. This is not about insulting Muslims or offending Muslims or poking them in the eye, or even about drawing Muhammad, ultimately. It’s just that that’s where they’re making the line, and that’s where we’re going to stand. And we’re going to stand against tyranny and for freedom.
(Applause)
And so thank you so much for coming. And I will turn the proceedings over to Pamela to close the night’s event.
Godwin says
This an excellent speech n Obama should pay attention to it.
Saleem Smith says
Hello Godwin,
Let’s not kid ourselves. Obama and his Administration will likely pay little if any proper attention to the free speech issues raised by the shootings the other night in Garland, Texas. Obama and his Administration will likely continue to support the growth of Islamic law and practice every chance they get.
We ex-Muslims living with Islam’s formal and informal death penalty for apostasy know that Muhammad the fictitious prophet of Islam was an evil madman and that Islamic theology is a complete fraud.
Islam is no “religion of peace.” Islam is primarily a religion of “injustice, intolerance, hatred, and violence.” The fact is, if we non-Muslims were to say about Muslims what the Qur’an says about us, we would be arrested for hate speech. The Qur’an largely preaches discrimination, death, and imposition of its dogma on everyone. Certainly some Muslims will be offended by such statements, but frankly, so what? Judaism and Christianity, the world’s two other major monotheistic religions, have had to face the harshest of scrutiny and criticism for several hundred years which continues to this day. Islam must not be granted any special privileges or be exempt from such treatment – the implications are of tremendous importance.
Here is a recent statement from a group of Bangladeshi apostates living in the UK explaining the reasons why they have abandoned Islam:
“One who claims to be a messenger of God is expected to live a saintly life. He must not be given to lust, he must not be a sexual pervert, and he must not be a rapist, a highway robber, a war criminal, a mass murderer or an assassin. One who claims to be a messenger of God must have a superior character. He must stand above the vices of the people of his time. Yet Muhammad’s life is that of a gangster godfather. He raided merchant caravans, looted innocent people, massacred entire male populations and enslaved the women and children. He raped the women captured in war after killing their husbands and told his followers that it is okay to have sex with their captives (Qur’an 33:50). He assassinated those who criticized him and executed them when he came to power and became de facto despot of Arabia. Muhammad was bereft of human compassion. He was an obsessed man with his dreams of grandiosity and could not forgive those who stood in his way…
The statement continues,
Muhammad was a narcissist, like Hitler, Saddam or Stalin. He was astute and knew how to manipulate people, but his emotional intelligence was less evolved than that of a 6-year-old child. He simply could not feel the pain of others. He brutally massacred thousands of innocent people and pillaged their wealth. His ambitions were big and as a narcissist he honestly believed he is entitled to do as he pleased and commit all sorts of crimes and his evil deeds are justified.”
Shirley Acuff says
Obama appears not to want to worry himself with too many facts, especially with regard to this issue.
saycheese says
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Felix Quigley says
Who will defend against ISIS? My disagreement is that you have made your movement an anti socialist and an anti Marxist movement.
http://trotsky.us/2015/05/07/defend-pamela-geller-from-isis-death-threat-who-will-defend-geller-we-do/
Who is going to defend Pamela? in the first place the New York Pólice and so they should. Yesterday Pamela was in deep discussion about that with the NYPD.
BUT…
Who will defend the American working class and poor people from ISIS?
Who will defend the British workers like the young girls in Rotherham – 1400 raped by ISIS, same in Oxford, same in Rochdale…in fact all over Britain and under Labour Party too!
Who will defend the workers of Sweden and the Young Swedish girls there from rape by ISIS?
Who will defend the workers and Young girls of Dublín when ISIS puts up its Monster Mosque in Clonferry helped by the Irish Government and the likes of Adams of Sinn Fein?
Pamela and Robert have cut themselves off from the working class of their countries and have attacked socialists amd Marxists and Trotskyists like me. But we too are under attack from ISIS. Everybody is.
Pamela and Robert have made their movement an anti-socialist movemernt.
But Trotsky.us is socialist and we also are under danger from ISIS. And we are socialist. And Robert Spencer continually attacks socialists.
There is something very wrong here and it is necessary to get to the bottom of it.
Why attack socialism when we on “trotsky.us” are socialist and we oppose the Jihad of Islam, as indeed did Karl Marx.
Western Canadian says
Since the vast bulk of the traitors selling out the west to islam (RTC) ARE bastard products of the bastard Marx, your claim that you don’t know why we who oppose islam are NOT in love with the left, is pathetic.
TheBuffster says
Furthermore, socialism/Marxism can’t attain their ends without expropriating people’s property and centralizing the economy. Their aim isn’t simply to protect people from the initiation of physical force, the threat of such force, and fraud, but to impose conformity to the group through the force of law. It gives overweening control to the state, to alleged experts, and makes it virtually impossible for the maverick to move in his own direction. Socialism/Marxism doesn’t impose a religion on people, but it does a pretty damned good job of imposing an ideology on people and controlling more and more of their lives.
No thank you.
Lyn Pickering says
Thank you for uploading the transcript of your speech. I would like permission to use it, in full, on my website as I believe there is a great need to bring the balanced view to the attention of readers who are still able to receive it.
A.N.Rajaram says
Hindus had the practice of Sathi- wherein the widow of a recently died man would be thrown out on the funeral pyre—-but this is not by culture as it made out to be–it was a forced historical necessity thrown by the Muslims and Muslim rulers ( who ruled India for a thousand years and more-by various denominations and dynasties); the logic behind such a practice was that Hindu widows were vulnerable for attack by Muslims who would squeeze them like animals with the connivance of the Muslim rulers as sex slaves to multiply the Muslim population. You can quote the history of the tragic sathi of 1000Hindu Rajasthan women when their husbands were slain by Muslim invaders and there was every possibility of Hindu women being used as Sex slaves. Recall the tragic event of Chittor Rani (Queen of a Rajput Ruler) committing Sathi along with her maidens numbering about a thousand women when Allahuddin Khilji conquered the Rajput rulers. Whatever be it, barbarism in any form should be condemned and eliminated with all the vehemence and force that it deserves.
dumbledoresarmy says
I think that the pressure has to be kept up.
If it can be managed, the exhibition needs to be toured.
This will be *very expensive*, because high quality security has to be provided (though after events in Garland, Texas, we know that good security is worth every cent!).
So all jihadwatchers who want it toured to *their* hometown or state capital – or for that matter, *their* country – are going to have to pony up, bigtime. (I say this, I must confess, as someone who just hasn’t been able to afford to put anything in Mr Spencer’s tip jar for quite some time; the family budget is stretched pretty thin at the moment, though after about midyear, thank goodness, things are going to ease up).
A further thought: cartoons, visual art, is one thing. Film is another. There are quite a lot of films that at least some and often many mohammedans have declared Offensive and tried to suppress or have actually suppressed. Why not start long-range planning toward a film festival of Islamically-Banned Films? Fitna, Submission, and a bracket of other films – good, bad, indifferent, awful – that Mohammedans have suppressed or tried to suppress, anytime in the past twenty years and more.
In conjunction with the art exhibition, or the film festival, perhaps there could be a display of Islamically-Banned Books: books that Muslims have tried to suppress, books that are banned in Muslim countries (and even in other countries, because of Muslim tantrums and threats), books that have earned their authors a spot on the sharia hit list, books that the eager-to-appease have shelved in their anxiety to not offend Muslims (for example, one could even display children’s books featuring pigs – the “Peppa Pig” books from the kids’ TV show, and The Three Little Pigs). I think it would be very instructive for people to see that the Muslim “List of Things We Don’t Like’ is long, bizarre, and full of things that to kaffir eyes appear perfectly innocuous).
Sam says
This is really the war of our times like Pam says. Donate to Pam and Robert and get a gun. Enemy does not want discussion.
jayell says
Mr. Spencer’s friend…..”You know, why are you doing that? You’re the one that’s being offensive…”
1. Being critical or even offensive is part and parcel of Western ‘freedom of expression’, since – in theory – no opinions, ideas or creeds can be held to be universally intrinsically ‘sacrosanct’ in the same way that no person or group can claim to be inherently of greater value than anyone else. The line is crossed when ‘free expression’ becomes provable libel or slander which can damage people unjustifiably, in which case there is a remedy in law. In Western thinking, people’s lives and safety ARE sacrosanct, however. Compare this with what appears to be the islamic position, in which (if one is a muslim) it is apparently acceptable to claim that one’s creed or ideas cannot be criticised but no intrinsic value is placed on the opinions or even lives and safety of those who might disagree.
2. Even if there were some kind of acceptable embargo on public criticism, It hardly seems reasonable, fair, democratic or logical for one group of people to claim any right to unqualified respect or exemption from criticism whilst that same group fails to extend that courtesy to others and instead simultaneously abuses the same basic rights of others that it would claim as ‘sacrosanct’ for itself, as the muslims appear to do. The kind of presumptious bigotted arrogance that would inform such thinking has no place in a civilised western environment.
In short, Mr Spencer is dead right in what he is doing. Keep it up.
Dazzle says
Unite against a common enemy? How? Socialists of different flavours have put out the welcome mat for so many Muslim radicals – and they continue to encourage and defend them. There is much more to contend with in the Islamic world than simply ISIS.
Having read so many erudite contributors to this blog my humble understanding is that Jihad Watch is a positive force not something to be seen primarily as inherently anti-socialist, unless perhaps socialists too fear free speech.
Experience of socialist governments for me has always been the same – the socialists need to interfere with all aspects of life, they know what is best for other people and they encourage dependency on the state. Personal responsibility and accountability? That would be too much of a threat for the “one solution fits all” brigade. The greatest Englishman put it best when he said:
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
I agree that working class people, whether in the USA, the UK, western Europe or the antipodes will probably be less able to protect themselves from an Islamic threat. The truly wealthy almost always find a way to remain untouched by chaos elsewhere.
We should not forget the people between the rich and the poor who pay disproportionally more in taxes; growing numbers of those caught in the middle find themselves more impoverished than the poor. Regrettably, recent right leaning western governments have displayed similar levels of incompetence as their socialist counterparts.
Felix, necessity is indeed the mother of invention.
djphoenix says
Robert – Thank you for posting the transcript. Please consider doing this again as we can read for ourselves, pause, and think, and re-read an idea more efficiently. Please consider, too, posting transcripts of Pam’s speeches.
Ricky Black says
Tried to do Jihad in Texas? You must be a special kind of stupid. \o/
linda tidwell says
Communism at it’s best would resemble the early Christian followers called “The Way as in St. Paul’s writings,they were communally living and sharing money and commodities together under the watchful eyes of the elders of the church whom were chosen by the Apostles.Modern day Communism has it’s roots there in the New Testament but unFortunately Lennon was a Marxist whom eliminated the church and sai “it was the OPIATE OF THE PEOPLE “.
Sam says
I understand the anger liberals and Moslems have towards Pam and Robert. it is because Pam and Robert cut the throats of innocent people, ambush children and women in malls and kill them if they are not Christians or Jews throw acid on little girls for not covering their faces or bodies, hang homosexuals publicly and sometimes stone them to death, kill little girls for “honor”. The worst of all they spread hate towards “peace loving Moslems” who belong to the religion of peace. Of course ISIS which is not Islamic will issue fatwah for their death. Our liberal media has to disclose the truth as always.
Now you figure this whole thing out.
Bill says
Islam, an ideology that presents itself as absolute truth that must be adopted and adhered to or else the punishment of death, torture, abuse, imprisonment, etc. will be foisted against the non-compliant, requires not only criticism, non compliance, or condemnation, but also ridicule. Islam is an obvious grave danger to our civilization and cannot be dismissed lightly. Either Islam is the truth or it is false. If one concludes its absolute claims to authority must be adhered to in every aspect of life are bogus, then it must be resisted, a process which MUST include ridicule of Islam and satire of Muhammad, along with rejection, condemnation, criticism and revulsion.
TheBuffster says
Great speech, Robert!
By the way, Bosch Fawstin’s Facebook account has been removed.
epistemology says
The people who have the clout, the people who have the power — if they are able to silence by the rule of law, by the force of law, those whose opinions they don’t like, then a free society is dead. Then they can do whatever they wish unopposed, and dissent is impossible.
——————————————————————————————————
Very true, this is the tyranny of sharia law that nobody in his right mind wants but our media and politicians accept it and call it cultural arrogance when people stand for free speech.
Can’t tell you how much I envy you guys because of your first Amendment.Wish we had that in Europe, long live freedom of speech fight against the tyrants.
Daniel Triplett says
When are we all going to get real? For the sake of a Free World and the survival of our children and grandchildren, Islam must be extinguished now.
The Iranians are moments away from nuke weapons, and likely already have at least one bomb. Does anyone doubt the sincerity of their threats to use them offensively on us?
The only problem Obama sees here is Robert and Pamela. Reasonable people can distinguish our President as a Muslim by now.
I don’t think we have time to wait until 20 JAN 2017 for the chance of a Republican POTUS to work with Netanyahu and save the World.
We’re in a World War right now. Just because our CINC has American military power on a short leash doesn’t mean the War isn’t there. Must we wait until a nuclear weapon is detonated in Manhattan before everyone realizes this?
Felix Quigley says
A comment above from canada:
“Since the vast bulk of the traitors selling out the west to islam (RTC) ARE bastard products of the bastard Marx, your claim that you don’t know why we who oppose islam are NOT in love with the left, is pathetic.”
Please read this then comment again: http://ziontruth.blogspot.com.es/2005/06/karl-marx-on-ottomanmuslim.html
You will find a very close agreement between what Karl Marx wrote on Islam and to what Robert Spencer writes.
You make the very common mistake of writing about things wuithout any real knowledge. Prejudice guides you. You are the very worst friend of anti-Jihadists. We may pay with our lives for such ignorance.
At another level though:
The world media and their governments have learned nothing from the horrors on young women and Christians of the likes of Boko Haram and of Islamic State in the many beheadings with accompanying videos. To them it is just media froth. There is no real empathy. Just look at how the Hashtag campaign of Michelle Obama died. The world is still caught in the ignorant vice of the teachings of Karen Armstrong on the nature of Islam. Like the “Palestinian” Arab lies meme these teachings and indoctrinations are harder than we thought, to challenge correctly and get rid of. Deeper things are involved. Big strides have been made in explaining the correct history of these things but it appears that a doomed system (of capitalism essentially) reaches out to promote the lie time and time again because the truth is too dreadful to contemplate. This happened with the Nazis and in fact even though they fought a war was never fully resolved and the Nazis were reinstituted in the CIA and intelligence forces of Western Europe. Stalinism is something else again.
There is a difference between working clas and middle class. Workers are usually at the bottom of the barrel. Like Jews have been in history. This is what gives them a revolutionary edge. But working class people have many enemies and especially those who call themselves socialist, who sing the red flag, like the British Labour Party or like George Galloway, just two tiny examples but there are many examples and in every country. But despite all the working class and especcially the working class youth will fight the system and that is what is needed because it is the system that has begun to seriously endanger the life of Pamela and all others connected. It was Cameron and May essentially who opened the door to the attack in Garland and the threats on Pamela, when May closed the door of Britain to Pamela, Robert and Geert. Do you not see. this was not misguided on their part. This was conscious policy. Islam (the killers of Islam) is their battering ram. They hate Pamela much more than they hate the killers of Jews seen most clearly in the continial treatment of the Jew Killing Palestinian Arabs of which Hamas is only an expression.
Rotherham in Britain is a very down place, scourged by massive closures of nearby steel and other industrial works, with near total unemployment, and the working class is at the very bottom of the barrel. But Liberty UK told of a visit with leaflets it made to the centre of Rotherham aftert the news of the rapes got out and the response that they got from these poor people of Rotherham on that Saturday afternoon was spectacular. Please do not write off the working class. it is a revolutionary force. It cannot move at present because it has no trust in leaders like the corrupt Labour Party. Also please do not make ideological points about Lenin, Marx or Trotsky if you do not know what you are talking about. There is a history to this. Do not spout if you do not know the history. If you know speak. If you do not know do not ever speak chancing your arm.
To me it is clear that the lives of all who oppose Jihad are in great danger. This is the lesson of Garland essentially. I am of the opinion that it is not accidental that the ruling classes and their media come rushing into the attacks on Pamela. It is because they are holding the forces of Islam in reserve as it were in a great war they are engaged in in order that their corrupt capitalist system can continue.
I think that the working class in each country will fight but it needs leadership that it is confident will not betray. Like the Jews the workers have been betrayed countless times. The middle class will not fight for freedom. It never has. These groups as in conspiracy theory a la Alex Jones is a middle class phenomenon. many of these conspiracists are carving out careers for themselves. The Labour Party people are essentially careerists as are Sinn Fein in Ireland. meanwhile the tops of the ruling elites are in a league with the Islamist brutes. Repeat of the 1930s. I call my new site Trotsky.us because one I think this will be decided in America and two I think that the writings (not dogma) of Trotsky on fascism in the 1930s is essential to our present predicament. PS like Pamela I discuss and I do not take criticism personally. Strikes me that is what Garland is all about – to close down the necessary discussion. I would place the issue of the defence of people like Pamela, Robert and Geert as number one on my political horizon for the reasons above.
Felix Quigley says
People can either comment or not comment in response to a challenge but if they do not come back and defend their views then I place a big question mark over them. There are a number of comments above which are attacking socialism and especially attacking the founders of Marxism, especially Karl Marx. So why attack and then when you are challenged why do you prefer to end the discussion.
In other words you lash out in a subjective and ignorant manner against Karl Marx and against Communism but when you are challenged as I have challenged you then the discussion ends. Is cowardice not a Word to describe this kind of behaviour?
Essentially in this:
Who will defend against ISIS? My disagreement is that you have made your movement an anti socialist and an anti Marxist movement.
http://trotsky.us/2015/05/07/defend-pamela-geller-from-isis-death-threat-who-will-defend-geller-we-do/
I am making a very serious charge. All involved with this site and with Pamela’s site and with many other anti Jihadist sites have made these sites into sites which are anti-Marxist.
You have surrendered everything by hiding that Karl Marx understood as well as did Robert Spencer what was Islam and what was Jihad, and obviously could not have been more opposed to Islam.
You should be attacking the likes of Southern law Poverty Group and others like Chomsky on this very basis.
But you do not and maybe cannot.
There is a conspiracy of silence on both sides.
Mirren10 says
”People can either comment or not comment in response to a challenge but if they do not come back and defend their views then I place a big question mark over them. There are a number of comments above which are attacking socialism and especially attacking the founders of Marxism, especially Karl Marx. So why attack and then when you are challenged why do you prefer to end the discussion.”
Because no-one with a brain buys your Marxist bullshit. No point in discussing **anything** with a doctrinaire Marxist.
Felix Quigley says
Mirren 10 writes
“Because no-one with a brain buys your Marxist bullshit. No point in discussing **anything** with a doctrinaire Marxist.” END QUOTE
Note the very violent language. “bullshit, no brain, doctrinaire”
That comment expresses the crisis in the anti-Jihad movement which is only going to grow.
You NEVER dismiss discussion if you have your heart really in the struggle, the struggle here being to defeat Islamic Jihad. I repeat NEVER!
All the same I am thankful to you Mirren10 as you at least have answered with something. The greatest enemy that is faced today is silence, and especially the silence of the Media. Your Friends are also silent.
My central point remains: Karl Marx and presumably Engels going on now 200 years ago was a serious opponent of Islamic Jihad.
If you follow my link FROM A JEWISH NATIONALIST LIBERATIONIST WEBSITE http://ziontruth.blogspot.com.es/2005/06/karl-marx-on-ottomanmuslim.html
Then this becomes very clear:
DIRECT QUOTE FROM MARX
“”The Koran and the Mussulman legislation emanating from it reduce the geography and ethnography of the various peoples to the simple and convenient distinction of two nations and of two countries; those of the Faithful and of the Infidels. The Infidel is “harby,” i.e., the enemy [NOTE: harb is an Arabic word for war]. Islamism proscribes the nation of the Infidels, constituting a state of permanent hostility between the Mussulman and the unbeliever.”
That is as Sharp a comment on Islam as anybody has ever made. That includes all of the great researchers including Bat Yeor.
He says “reducing world geography OF THE VARIOUS PEOPLES meaning all the peoples of the world WHOEVER THEY ARE to:
Are you a Muslim?
If you are not a Muslim you are the ENEMY
It spells out perpetual warfare against the non-Muslim and is the theoretical basis for all of the brutal acts we have seen so often over the past few years especially since the Arab Spring was pushed forward by Obama, but not just by Obama either (many other Democrats and Republicans also involved as they were in the war against the Serbs in the 90s).
This raises so many questions not least that the removal of Saddam was a major factor in Iran winning in the Middle East.
Mirren you call me “doctrinaire” well if I am so is the Jewish person who printed this first of all on his/her site.
That person, a Jewish person, was wondering as I do why this position of Marx on Islam has been buried.
1. First of all people like you and this person with thuggish language (calling Marx “bastard”) from Canada buries it and you all claim to be against Jihad
2. Then the Fascists who claim to be “left” are burying it as well.
I think I am closer to Pamela and other great freedom fighters than you are because in the pursuit of truth I will never stop.
And I am not doctrinaire. I am the very opposite of being doctrinaire. There is nobody else, not one hardly, who says the same as I do which suggests I think for myself.
PRODOS says
Replying to Felix Quigley …
Only just read your comments.
My wife (Buffster) drew my attention to them because I’m an ex-Marxist, so she thought I might be interested.
I believe you’ve raised some useful points that shouldn’t be dismissed out-of-hand.
Marx often had some very perceptive observations on issues. And as a young man — I think it was well before he and Engels developed Communism — wrote one of the most thorough and devastating critiques of censorship.
There is an admirable thread within the Communist tradition which genuinely seeks rationality, science, creativity, and freedom from all forms of oppression. And which has a dedicated commitment to the welfare of workers and women, the victims of bigotry, the poor, and other classes of citizen.
Also, it’s a common misconception among anti-Communists that Communism is about “Big Government”, whereas a key idea of Communism is the whittling away of the state.
In your blog post at:
http://trotsky.us/2015/05/07/defend-pamela-geller-from-isis-death-threat-who-will-defend-geller-we-do/
… you write: “Pamela and Robert have made their movement an anti-socialist (movement) … But Trotsky.us is socialist and we also are under danger from ISIS. And we are socialist. And Robert Spencer continually attacks socialists.”
I would like to see some specific examples of that if possible, so I can better understand what you mean.
If you prefer to write to me privately, feel free to email me: prodos@prodos.com
You write: “You NEVER dismiss discussion if you have your heart really in the struggle …”
That’s true.
PRODOS says
To Felix: One more thing to avoid misunderstanding. I support Laissez-Faire Capitalism, private property, free markets, Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism.