The President of the United States, the Pope, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and virtually every other Western leader has decided: the freedom of speech must be sacrificed to those who will kill us for exercising it. They have all told us that the proper response to violent intimidation is to give in to the bully and give him what he wants. That this will only embolden the bully and lead him to issue more demands does not bother them in the least. Those who dare to “provoke” Muslims and “poke them in the eye,” like Rose and Westergaard, must bear the consequences: ostracism, vilification, condemnation by all right-thinking people.
So it’s no surprise that Jyllands-Posten has surrendered now. Everyone else has. The defenders of the freedom of speech, those who understand that it is the linchpin of free society and that it is important to defend the freedom of speech even of those whose message one opposes, are few, embattled, despised and derided. A very dark age rapidly approaches.
2005:
2015:
“Free speech at issue 10 years after Muhammad cartoons controversy,” by Malcolm Brabant, Deutsche Welle, September 30, 2015 (thanks to Pamela Geller):
The editor who commissioned the controversial cartoons of the Islamic prophet Muhammad is urging Muslims to redefine blasphemy.
Speaking on the 10th anniversary of the publication of the 12 cartoons, Flemming Rose, formerly the culture editor of Denmark’s “Jyllands Posten” newspaper, said a new concept of blasphemy was required in order to “save the social peace in a multireligious, multicultural, multiethnic society.”
Under the watchful gaze of Danish protection officers during an interview in Copenhagen’s main park, Rose said: “For too many Muslims it’s okay to commit violence when non-believers or Muslims commit blasphemy according to Islamic clergy.”
As one of the principle [sic] actors in the cartoons’ drama, Rose’s life has been irrevocably changed by death threats, as has Kurt Westergaard’s, the artist who depicted Muhammad with a bomb in his turban.
Both men defiantly refuse to apologize.
Why should they apologize for defending the freedom of speech?
Westergaard’s house in central Denmark is now a fortress, after Somali Mohamed Geele, 29, broke in five years ago and tried to carry out a death sentence fatwa which is still active. Geele was convicted of attempted murder and terrorism.
Leaning on his silver-topped cane, Westergaard, now 80 and retired from satire, talked passionately about being one of the most hated men in the Muslim world.
“I think I still have a basic feeling of anger. I worked as a Danish cartoonist according to the Danish traditions. I had done nothing wrong. I had criticized an authority – in this case it was a religion. A big religion. And I think it’s a cartoonist’s and satirist’s job to criticize those in power, whether they are in this case a religion or it is a political party. If you work according to the Danish traditions then you offend people.”
Rose commissioned the cartoons after a children’s author complained that artists were too scared to draw images for his book about Islam.
The images were first printed in “Jyllands Posten” in September 2005, but outrage in the Muslim world took several months to ferment, and erupted after a trip to the Middle East by a Danish Islamic delegation. Ahmed Akkari, an imam and the delegation’s press spokesman, later acknowledged that the purpose of the visit was to inflame passions.
It succeeded: There were demonstrations around the globe. An estimated 250 people were killed in riots. Danish institutions were attacked. The embassy in Damascus was set on fire. And Danish products were boycotted.
Since recanting and embracing free expression, Akkari has been forced to go into hiding. Unlike Rose and Westergaard, he does not have state protection and lives in Greenland.
‘Jihadists’ veto’
In Denmark, Muslim leaders remain uncompromising in their opposition to the cartoons.
“We don’t accept the cartoons as a picture or a caricature anything of the prophet,” Imran Shah, spokesman for the Islamic Society told DW, “but the very notion of connecting bombs with the religion of Islam – with a very acknowledgement of Islam where you propose that there is no God but God and the last messenger of God sent to this earth was Muhammad – connect that with a bomb, that’s a very immature and uncivilized way of starting the debate and discussions.”
It’s doubtful that any newspapers will reprint the cartoons on the anniversary, especially after the attacks on the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris in January, and in Copenhagen in February earlier this year.
Indeed. The whole world is submitting to violent intimidation.
“Basically we have a situation where we have a jihadists’ veto, which is being respected, however grudgingly, by journalists and editors, which I think is sad, but at least some have come around to admitting that they are acting out of fear rather than out of respect or tolerance – which is of course a poor excuse,” says Jakob Mchangama, a jurist from the Justitia think tank and a leading proponent of unrestricted free expression in Denmark.
He believes Muslims should accept ridicule and satire as a sign of being fully accepted in Western society.
Indeed, but Western society has opted to submit instead.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Why should they apologize for defending the freedom of speech?
I think this is a silly question. These guys shoulda taken Moslem feelings into account before insulting the Holy Prophet. By the Islamic Law of the Sharia, they should apologize and then they should have their heads chopped off. It’s harsh, but that’s how Islam works. Islam is kinda like a worldwide Chicago, it may be corrupt, but the chains run on time. When you bring a Moslem into your country, you’re signing up for some of the Sharia in the transaction, that’s just the way it is.
mortimer says
APF wrote: “Why should they apologize for defending the freedom of speech?”
An apology at this stage is useless. When someone blasphemes Islam or Mohammed, he MUST be executed. There is no choice whatsoever.
The only mitigating circumstance is the ‘insanity defense’ according to Sharia law.
gravenimage says
APF was being facetious, Mortimer.
But your point is quite correct–there is no little idea of atonement in Islam, especially for the “filthy Infidel”.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
There is little or no idea of responsibility by Moslems for Islam. That in a nutshell is what this website is about, what Spencer’s whole career is about, in addition to any number of other sources such as Geller, West, Bostom, New English Review, Schlussel, and so on.
Having the reserve status of a religion, falsely, Islam is able to operate military, governance and cultural ideology programs with impunity. In fact, usually the Infidel taxpayer funds it (money is a practical need, a dynamic limiting factor on human behavior).
gravenimage says
All true, Alarmed Pig Farmer.
RCCA says
I hope it’s not forever (nothing is) but I think the point has been well established and everyone knows that lots of Muslims are crazy and go postal if you mock their prophet. Do we really need to conduct that experiment over and over?
If you are dealing with the equivalent of a two year old or a mental defective do you really think a rational conversation about the importance of the freedom of speech or anything else is really going to be comprehended?
Let’s just leave a blank space and call it the “prophet who can not be mocked” and everyone knows who you mean.
Sam says
Doing that means “TOTAL SUBMISSION TO ALLAH”. You just did it. Congratulations!!!
Robert Spencer says
RCCA
In other words, you’re saying we should surrender. No, thank you.
TheBuffster says
“If you are dealing with the equivalent of a two year old or a mental defective do you really think a rational conversation about the importance of the freedom of speech or anything else is really going to be comprehended?”
If you are dealing with a two-year-old, you do NOT give in to his tantrum, otherwise you will have a three-year-old, a four-year-old, a five-year-old who will throw tantrums until you stop giving in. And if you wait to put your foot down until he’s too big, he’s going to look at that as a violation of his rights – a violation of what he’s grown accustomed to getting up until then – and he’s not going to stand for it. You will have created a monster, and he’ll punish you for it.
Then he will have to go to prison.
The same goes for a mental defective. If he can’t understand reason and keeps trying to do something he has no right to do, you have to keep him away from people. You have to restrain *him*, not the people that he might hurt.
If someone were doing violence in the name of my favorite philosopher whenever somebody misrepresented, defamed, or insulted her, I would expect an uptick of insulting imagery and satire about her. And, painfully, I would approve. And I’m sure she would, as well.
Those Muslims who haven’t grasped and embraced that crucial principle do not belong in a country that does grasp it.
And every civilized, decent person and government *should* grasp and embrace that principle. That so many are failing to do so is a terrible thing and bodes ill for liberty.
gravenimage says
RCCA wrote:
I hope it’s not forever (nothing is) but I think the point has been well established and everyone knows that lots of Muslims are crazy and go postal if you mock their prophet. Do we really need to conduct that experiment over and over?
If you are dealing with the equivalent of a two year old or a mental defective do you really think a rational conversation about the importance of the freedom of speech or anything else is really going to be comprehended?
……………………………
*What*? You believe we should just submit to Islam now?
Several things:
You appear to be fine with tantrum-throwing two year olds and mental defectives setting the limits of our freedom of speech–why would you do that? We don’t do this with non-Muslims.
And them. you are quite mistaken in you apparent belief that our exercising our freedom of speech is aimed at convincing *Muslims* that they should acknowledge our freedom of speech–we know they never will. We exercise our freedom of speech so that we *will not lose it*. If we submit to Shari’ah, it will be damn hard–if not impossible–to get our freedoms back.
And what do you think the ban on drawing Muhammed *is*? It is a ban on criticizing the “Prophet” and Islam–do you really think we will be safe if we cannot so much as say what these cartoons said–that Muslims are violent and that Islam represents a threat to us?
If you can’t criticize Muhammed, you can’t say that there is anything wrong with raping 9-year-old girls, with piracy, with enslaving Infidels or mass murdering them.
Finally, what makes you think that Muslims will stop at blasphemy restrictions on drawing Muhammed? Hell, no, they won’t. Shari’ah strictures can go on to demand that women wear the Hijab, that non-Muslims may not openly worship, that there can be *no* criticism of Islam, and that Infidels have to pay the Jizya and can be enslaved and murdered, that “blasphemers” be beheaded and that “adulterers” be stoned to death in the streets..
Just look at the position of dhimmis in the Muslim world–including the Islamic State.
Surely you aren’t suggesting we submit to this, as well? And if not, why not? Where would you draw the line?
More:
Let’s just leave a blank space and call it the “prophet who can not be mocked” and everyone knows who you mean.
……………………………
Yeah–screw that. Here’s one of my MoToons (Caution! graphic image):
http://s478.photobucket.com/user/gravenimageartist/media/AishasWedding-1.jpg.html
voegelinian says
RCCA’s comment is a variant on the “Hornet’s Nest” theory of Islam: Muslims are unpredictably volatile, and as one would not go around poking a hornet’s nest with a stick over and over, especially when that hornet’s nest is uncomfortably near us in our neighborhood, so to speak, we should not provoke Muslims.
Pop Quiz for the Islam 101 class. In 300 words or less, explain the many reasons why the “Hornet’s Nest” theory of Islam fails the test of logic and of a reasonable assessment of the mountains of data about Islam and Muslims which we know (or should know by now).
Mo says
@ RCCA
“Let’s just leave a blank space and call it the “prophet who can not be mocked” and everyone knows who you mean.”
This is real life, not Hogwarts.
And even in the Harry Potter universe, it was made clear that speaking the name of that evil thing you fear is the first step in overcoming that evil!
gravenimage says
*Very* true, Mo. The whole point was that those who referred to Voldemort as “He Who Must Not Be Named” were far too cowed to stand up to evil–or even articulate why it should be opposed.
voegelinian says
Muslim “reformer” Maajid Nawaz employs that analogy quite cleverly in the context of his ongoing seduction of Sam Harris. He calls it the “Voldemor Effect”. And in a recent hour-long conversation with Sam Harris at Harvard University’s Kennedy Forum, promoting their joint “collaboration” — a recent book recounting the growth of their new Bromance — the discussion quickly alights on the Problem of the Problem — the Problem of the West’s myopia to the problem of Islam. Maajid (who does most of the talking during the event, while Sam sits like a bump on a log, nodding at everything Maajid says) chimes in at length to agree that yes, the West is too afraid to name the probloem. What’s going on here, says Maajid, is what he calls the “Voldemor Effect”, and after his lengthy set-up, he delivers the master stroke of simultaneously agreeing with the Counter-Jihad and co-opting it to suit his ulterior agenda of protecting Islam:
“Now, I took that.. Voldemort effect, of being too scared, too petrified, to name the problem, when actually it’s staring you in the face — is what has happened with Islamist extremism! And the problem is that we have been unable to name the problem!”
And Sam Harris didn’t bat an eyelash.
More details:
Does not compute: The Sam Harris/Maajid Nawaz “Conversation”
http://hesperado.blogspot.com/
Papa Whiskey says
It rather seems to me that this altered reprint page is itself a cartoon. “So far have we fallen,” is the message.
Meanwhile, for a real Muhammad cartoon, see the lead art for this story:
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/05/01/pamela-gellers-inaugural-10000-muhammad-art-exhibit-and-contest-in-dallas-may-3/
It’s my entry to the AFDI Muhammad Cartoon Contest that came under attack by a pair of jihadis in May — both of whom were killed by a Texas cop with a cool hand and a .45 automatic very like the one on my hip right now. Nemo me impune lacessit.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Dang, another artist. I like your cartoon much better than the one that won in Garland, and I mean that seriously. I thought the winning cartoon was too restrained, almost apologetic. My thought looking at the winner was, “If you’re gonna jump into the pen, you may as well go whole hog.”
gravenimage says
I agree with you assessment of Papa Whiskey’s work, APF–but not about Bosch Fawstin’s.
Check out some of his take-no-prisoners Pigman work and see if you consider it apologetic:
http://fawstin.blogspot.com/
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
You’re right, Fawstin is talented. But the particular cartoon that won seemed self-restrained to me.
***
If I may be so bold, *I* could have been a great artist had I wanted to do that. And in fact I *did* want to. But upon trying my hand at the canvas, I discovered the unfortunate fact that I had no artistic talent. Had I been born later, and as a woman instead of a man, and as a negress instead of as a white guy, and consigned to a wheelchair instead of ambulatory, and with a lisp, and Tourette Syndrom, and being a lesbian suffering sex preference discrimination instead of heterosexual to boot, I would at this point be a famous artist, or if not that at least a full tenured professor at the Art Institute of Chicago. But life is not fair.
TheBuffster says
Which may be why the winner of the contest created the “Infidel” comic book series, starring the superhero “Pigman”.
I think the winning cartoon was perfect. It’s message was the exact message of the contest itself: freedom of expression, and it illustrated the fact that those who threaten that freedom with violence *must* be defied.
There was nothing apologetic about Bosch’s cartoon. It was right on target and didn’t make Mohammad look strong and formidable, but stupid and pathetic in his violent rage – like someone to ridicule and despise and reject, not someone to fear and cower before.
TheBuffster says
That said, I do appreciate Papa Whiskey’s cartoon, as well.
gravenimage says
Excellent work, Papa Whiskey. I entered a number of cartoons as well. In all, there were over 200 entries–heroes all.
ECAW says
“It rather seems to me that this altered reprint page is itself a cartoon. “So far have we fallen,” is the message.”
Quite agree Papa Whiskey. I would like to see blank items appearing throughout the MSM with the message “We are afraid to print this.” It would be a start, and a great step forward from the current situation in which fear masquerades as “responsible journalism”.
Sam says
Europe is gone to Islam. We, in America, are just behind Europe. Still we do not have a national game plan to fight Islam. Just the opposite, our president is the biggest enabler of Islam.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
And only one Republican candidate has even admitted to a problem, Dr Ben Carson MD. But even his thoughts seem nascent, formative. But to his credit he’s not backing off.
Meanwhile, on the socialist side, there is no discussion of Islam, the only problem mentioned thus far was Hillary criticizing Dr Ben Carson MD for hating on the Moslems, calling this black dude a bigot. And Hillary, who could well be our next president, is on record advocating making criticism of religions a felony crime.
Things are not looking good on the Moslem front.
Westman says
There may be a bright side here. Carson, like all congressmen, has a staff that will be furiously researching Islam doctrine and history to provide him with answers to the MSM “gotcha” attempts. These young folks go to waterholes with other congressional staffs where exchanges take place. There may well be a flow of more realistic info about Islam working its way through congress. It makes sense that the louder the MSM and CAIR squawk, the more prepared the candidates must be.
Tiredofstupid says
Dr Carson is a retired doctor not a congressman and won’t have a congressional staff to go to watering holes in washington.
kay says
Re APF :”Hillary [ Clinton ], who could well be our next president, is on record advocating making criticism of religions a felony crime. . .”
——————————————–
If such a criminal law were to be enacted across the United States, then we have lost the war. Period. That is real Sharia on all our heads.
Thomas Jefferson would weep. He understood very directly the fundamental problem with Islam, the need for separation of Church and State, and why free speech is foundational. I have read Jefferson.
APF ( and others here ), I ask you for some references on this. Beg, more like. I already knew that Hillary Clinton is in bed with the OIC. Am not a newcomer here. But still need formal references to work this issue properly.
Over the last couple days have been writing, and also studying Christian and Islamic apologetics. I know that Hillary Clinton is extremely intelligent and effective, a top level American lawyer, and a committed opponent of free speech and therefore the Bill of Rights. Heard nothing about a CRIMINAL FELONY for basic theology, and have lots of skin in this game.
If true, that makes Hillary Clinton a much more dangerous foe to America and western civilization than al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and therefore a primary political and social opponent for me. I take this Most Seriously. And at this point, am an elite fighter in the social media space, and therefore well worth helping. And this is a real war on all levels.
To get the necessary social outreach done, I definitely need formal web links and references for this from someone. So do all others who are willing to work this issue, and all who care about same. Hey, we’re only trying to save all of western civilization. So, no pressure, eh mes petits?
“Laicite'( secularism ) is really to refuse that we are living in a society where the law, the justice, of course the state is inspired by religious rules instead of human law. . .” from
Author Caroline Fourest on Secularism against Fanaticism (Secular Conference) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_BUjpqIgp8
Liberte’. Egalite’. Fraternite’. Laicite’. Authenticite’. Solidarite’.
Spill Ink Not Blood. Nous Sommes Tous Charlie.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
As for references on Hill-the-Shill’s stance, to research it I suggest going to online records of the two OIC draft resolutions at the UN site, if they are there. But why should *you* do such research. That should be done by the Republican candidates, or even better by that lazy no account dumbass Reince Priebus at the RNC. He has a staff, he’s got a budget.
But doing that would not be cricket. Calling out the truth and documenting it could only backfire. Albeit we did learn over the past week or so by way of Dr Ben Carson MD that telling the truth is at least possible; he has gained in the polls, not sunk in the polls, since toying with the truth on the national TV set.
ECAW says
I’m surprised there has been no reference to this on JW yet:
“In a speech in Keene, New Hampshire, on Wednesday, Trump expressed his revulsion at the idea that the US would take in 200,000 Syrian refugees, warning that “they could be Isis. They are all men and they are all strong.” In the opinion of the Republican frontrunner, the ongoing refugee crisis in the Middle East could be “one of the great tactical ploys of all time”. Trump pledged that if elected, he would send any refugees admitted to the US back to their homeland. “If I win, they’re going back,” he proclaimed.”
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/01/donald-trump-syrian-refugees-could-be-isis
Has Trump seen that Carlson went up in the polls and is trying to leapfrog him? Wish they would all follow suit.
voegelinian says
Hillary is an old hand at Alinskyite kitman. Here, at her address to the OIC at an OIC Conference designated as a “High-Level Meeting on Combating Religious Intolerance” held in Istanbul, Turkey, on July 15, 2011. That’s the infamous one where she spoke of how
“…we are focused on promoting interfaith education and collaboration, enforcing antidiscrimination laws, protecting the rights of all people to worship as they choose, and to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.”
http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2011/07/168636.htm
There, she stated, in part:
I want to applaud the Organization of Islamic Conference and the European Union for helping pass Resolution 16/18 at the Human Rights Council. I was complimenting the secretary general on the OIC team in Geneva. I had a great team there as well. So many of you were part of that effort. And together we have begun to overcome the false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of expression, and we are pursuing a new approach based on concrete steps to fight intolerance wherever it occurs. Under this resolution, the international community is taking a strong stand for freedom of expression and worship, and against discrimination and violence based upon religion or belief.
These are fundamental freedoms that belong to all people in all places, and they are certainly essential to democracy. But as the secretary general just outlined, we now need to move to implementation. The resolution calls upon states to protect freedom of religion, to counter offensive expression through education, interfaith dialogue, and public debate, and to prohibit discrimination, profiling, and hate crimes, but not to criminalize speech unless there is an incitement to imminent violence. We will be looking to all countries to hold themselves accountable and to join us in reporting to the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights on their progress in taking these steps.
That little proviso I bolded sounds good, doesn’t it? Sounds like she’s ensuring a comportment to American law there, doesn’t it? The fuller context of her remarks at the OIC Conference, however, indicate otherwise. In the 428 words she spoke leading up to what I quoted, she pointedly uses a vivid example from the Yugoslavian conflict 15 years earlier. Her example quite clearly figures centrally in her presentation, as the capstone to it, in fact. She said:
I had come from Sarajevo and Tuzla, where I had met with Bosnians, Serbs, Croats, and Muslims all together. And I will never forget one woman saying that neighbors began turning on neighbor because of religious and ethnic differences. And this woman asked a friend from another religious background: “We’ve known each other for so long, we have celebrated each other’s weddings, we’ve buried each other’s family; why is this happening?” And her friend replied: “We were told that if we did not do this to you, you would do it to us.” And it was as clear a statement of what incitement to violence and hatred can lead to as any that I’ve heard.
Take a close look at what Hillary’s saying. What she cites as an example of “incitement to violence” which can and should be criminally prosecuted are the words spoken by that hapless woman she encountered in Yugoslavia who was lamenting in vague & indiscriminate terms the sectarian strife there:
“We were told that if we did not do this to you, you would do it to us.”
How far is it from that formula, to criminalizing anyone who warns of what Muslims following Islamic jihad will do? Would the determination of incitement to violence specify what the “this” means in that formula – “if we did not do this to you” – limiting itself only to those individuals or groups who would define that “this” as pre-emptive violence against Muslims? Who would decide the grey areas that will crop up? And what happens as Muslims get worse and increasingly provoke the reaonsed alarm whose expressions may venture into those grey areas of rhetoric? And who would decide which types of rhetoric pass the incitement test, and which don’t?
Secondly, Hillary is there representing the USA in order to “applaud” the OIC in its ongoing agenda to pass Resolution 16/18. She makes it quite clear in various places of her remarks how profoundly she esteems the ongoing OIC process seeking to pass this Resolution.
As part of that ongoing process, the OIC then two years later hosted a 3rd meeting on “Religious Hatred” in Geneva in June of 2013.
A news report anticipating the event wrote:
“The meeting, to be held in Geneva, Switzerland, is expected to focus on concrete steps in implementing some of the measures under the UN Resolution 16/18, which focuses on “combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatisation of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion and belief.”
So far, so good – couched in that seemingly innocuous blandiloquence brimming with Orwellian overtones at which totalitarian bureaucrats excel.
The report goes on:
The experts will discuss issues like ‘Speaking out against intolerance, including advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence’ and ‘Adopting measures to criminalise incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief as stated under the UN Resolution, the OIC said in a statement.
Notice that deft sleight-of-hand that could slip by like a magician palming a coin if you don’t watch every move he makes:
“advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”
Bill Clinton would be impressed at the slippery loophole included in what also could be a radical alteration of American laws. When the OIC notes that “religious hatred” constitutes “incitement to… violence” do they mean that the mere expression and advocacy of “religious hatred” (defined by whom? another problem; but I digress…) actually constitutes — is the same thing as – incitement to violence? If so, then we’re off to the races, and Robert Spencer and various other Counter-Jihad activists could be legally punished for “incitement to violence”.
Or, when the OIC refers to “advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence” are they only referring to that kind of religious hatred that also happens to coincide with actual incitement to violence already recognized as such by democratic republics like America…?
kay says
Key phrase: “incitement to discrimination”
———————————————-
I discriminate against rapists, fascists, mass murderers, slavers, and the Islamofascists who are all of the above. Any sane person would.
I spend many hours a week inciting people to discriminate against these sociopaths and psychopaths. It’s a lot of work. But I do this to help save civilization.
Yeah, she’s a brilliant lawyer. But this is the smoking gun. Anyone who opposes jihad and Sharia is committing an “offense”. But that’s what they did for seven hundred years,fighting to get the Muslims out of Spain. They opposed jihad and Sharia.
voegelinian says
Europe is not gone yet. Bandying that meme about serves to reinforce either apathy or conspiracy theory (or both), whether one intends to do so or not. And that does a disservice to all the valiant men and women throughout Europe and the UK working hard in various ways to steer the H.M.S. Occident away from its blithely perilous course toward a Titanic shit-storm (Tatjana Festerling of PEGIDA; Magdi Allam the Italian ex-Muslim who left the Catholic Church in protest of its softness in the face of Islam; Hatune Dogan, the German activist nun; Geert Wilders; Marine Le Pen; Paul Weston of the UK; and countless others). As our ship of fools chugs away in the wrong direction, guided by its broken compass of Politically Correct Multi-Culturalism, a few of the hapless passengers have begun to wake up; and in turn are trying to figure out ways to wake up the rest of the ship — but on the way we have to avoid two extremes on either side of us: the Scylla of Apathy, and the Charybdis of Conspiracy Theory.
gravenimage says
Agreed, Vogelinian. I am not ready to surrender Europe yet–and more importantly, there are Europeans who are not ready to do so, either. I stand with them.
kay says
Re Vo: “Europe is not gone yet….”
________________________
TRUTH.
Europe is not gone yet.
BUT, Europe COULD be taken over by the Islamofascist orcs in ninety ( 90 ) years.
The closer I look, the worse Europe appears.
The time to work on saving Europe is ( of course ) right now.
It would be good to beat the orcs in nonviolent terms by breaking their bizarre antisocial fascist pseudo-narrative.
Otherwise it will be bloodshed and pitched battles in the city streets, some decades down the road.
And you can kiss that entire tourist industry goodbye. Just like Egypt and Tunisia.
A key issue is what transpires in Italy in the next five years. I don’t have a sense of how things will go there, but it could get bad fairly soon.
Looks like southeastern Europe is completely trashed.
Germany is gonna be a huge disaster.
France is at great risk.
England is acting basically like Occupied France.
I have a bad feeling about all this.
Europeans need to stand for their defenders, and throw off the Islamofascist-friendly collaborationists.
( The following in spoken English w/ subtitles. )
Was mich an der Europäischen Flüchtlingskrise ärgert
15,524
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43UX0XOTUHY
Die europäische Migrationskrise entstand durch die steigende Anzahl an Migranten – einer Kombination aus Wirtschaftsmigranten und Flüchtlingen – die aus dem Mittelmeerraum, dem Balkan, aus Afrika, dem Nahen Osten und Südasien in der Europäischen Union (EU) Asyl suchen.
Myxlplik says
You don’t day, the Danish Embassy torched in Damascus? I thought Syria was home to the peaceful Muslims?
sidney penny says
“The Danish embassy in Damascus was set on fire. ”
That was in 2005 and it was provocation by Denmark.
Today Damascus is a very safe place and the Muslims there very peaceful. unlike in 2005.
gravenimage says
Thanks for the laugh–grimly hilarious.
Westman says
Fear. Is this the strongest motivation of humans?
Fear of a never-seen God who only communicates to one, perhaps fictitious, man whose personal exploits are a study in bloodlust, rules the behavior of almost 1/5 of humanity. Children are indoctrinated with visions of an impossible sadistic Hell and death for abandoning Islam.
There is no question that this is not the God of Christians, but rather, some kind of sadistic monster who comes closer in character to the leader of North Korea. He also imprisons people and treats them as slaves.
There is also little doubt that this ideology will lead to massive warfare sometime in the future where whole nations will perish and it won’t be Israel.
I’m Agnostic, with religious biases only based on the fruits of their ideologies and their social benefits to freedom and movement. Islam has brought little more than blood and horror for the last 1400 years. When progress is made, secular governments appear. Where unearned wealth exists(oil) Islam has more power to rule. Turkey is a good example of Islam’s destruction of economies. Ataturk gave Turkey a way forward under secularism that resulted in prosperity. Now Erdogan is taking Turkey backwards toward the Sharia of a new Caliphate and the economic decline that always follows in the absence of a host(oil or another culture).
It is sad to see Europe cowed by an ideology that announces, in advance, that it intends to take their wealth, freedom, and if they don’t comply, their life. There are only two realistic outcomes for Europe, freedom or capitulation to a vacuous, vapid, cultureless, bare existence.
TheBuffster says
Excellent post, Westman.
Joseph says
Westman, an Agnostic with a belief that Israel will not perish?
I am impressed and a little confused at the same time. A tiny nation against all odds.
Man O man would I like to sit around the campfire having a few and talking to you about this in depth.
Angemon says
Not “fully accepted in Western society” but “fully accepting Western society” – that’s the problem.
TheBuffster says
Good catch, Angemon.
Theodoric says
Recently reported theolinguistic evidence indicates conclusively that the so-called “Prophet” Muhammad was actually a DINOSAUR. Doesn’t it seem quite possible that there will be a massive exodus of Muhammadans from Islam when this fact becomes common knowledge?
Scholars Are Asking: Was The “Prophet” Muhammad Actually A DINOSAUR?
An obscure yet eminent theolinguist has recently determined that the Quranic word Kafir, mistakenly translated as “Infidel” or “Disbeliever” for many centuries until today, was in fact originally used by the “Prophet” Muhammad simply to mean a NON-DINOSAUR.
But after Muhammad died, human beings eventually gained control of Muhammad’s religion, and deviously changed the meaning of the word Kafir, thereby turning Islam completely away from its original purpose as conceived and revealed by the “Prophet” Muhammad — who simply desired to slay or subjugate the pesky Non-Dinosaurs.
Muhammasaurus Rasulex:
* Last of the Prophets among the Dinosaurs
* Last of the Dinosaurs among the Prophets
https://drawthevileprophet.wordpress.com/2015/05/09/scholars-are-asking-was-the-prophet-muhammad-actually-a-dinosaur/
PRCS says
Muhammasaurus Rasulex
Heh, heh.
Wellington says
The root of the problem for the West, and not just in Denmark, remains the refusal by so many in the West, and most especially the Western elites in the political realm, the media, and that extra pathetic part of the West known as “academia,” to properly characterize Islam for the totalitarian ideology which it is.
Yes, this is the root of the problem. Right now, the “problem” looks in no way being fixed, being solved, courtesy principally of the fools whom I have already mentioned. After all, a la Ayn Rand, those who make excuses for evil are actually worse for mankid than evil itself.
Much more nonsense to come, replete with deaths, maiming and the whole nine yards of shit that occurs wherever Islam, or willful ignorance of Islam, reigns.
A new Dark Age may be upon the West. And, if so, the fault lies not first and foremost with the barbarians, i.e. the Saracens, but with the many anti-Charles Martels out there, for instance Obama, Merkel and Cameron——–oh yes indeed, a la the Archbishop of Canterbury’s statement to Henry V, the sins upon their heads forever.
TheBuffster says
I think Rand would say the West is giving the “sanction of the victim” to Islam, sacrificing itself to the enemy of freedom as if sacrifice to your enemy -sacrifice for sacrifice’s sake – is some kind of noble ideal.
gravenimage says
Quite right, Wellington and Buffster–this is *exactly* the sort of willingness of the good to suffer at the hands of evil, to accept the role of sacrificial victim to atone for the “sin” of having civilized values. And even worse, to urge others to submit to victimization as well, and to castigate those who fail to do so.
We see this all the time.
And while Ayn Rand passed away before Islam was seriously on much of anyone’s radar in the West, she was quite clear-eyed about the nature of the “Arab” war against Israel–whether she fully understood its ideological roots in the foul creed of Islam or not.
By the way, her work in part inspired Bosch Fawstin to leave Islam. Here’s a good interview:
http://www.islam-watch.org/ExMuslims/Mohammed-to-Ayn-Rand.htm
He also mentions Robert Spencer.
mortimer says
The JIHADISTS’ VETO.
If we say Islam promotes violence, they will kill us to prove it isn’t.
Dave J says
This self-censorship shows that Islamic tactics work, I’m sure they are full of glee seeing this.
Unfortunately beheadings, terror attacks and constant threats of more violence are quite effective in convincing people to cave in to Sharia.
The response from our political leaders has been to deceive us about Islam’s true intent, probably because they are not eager for a religious war and also due to the influence of billions of Arabic dollars.
However this only delays the inevitable while their numbers and influence continue to grow. If we’d had the courage to put out foot down immediately (say after 9/11) and declared this “religion” to be in total conflict with our Constitution and therefore illegal in this country we would have saved ourselves a mass of trouble in the long run.
gravenimage says
Speaking on the 10th anniversary of the publication of the 12 cartoons, Flemming Rose, formerly the culture editor of Denmark’s “Jyllands Posten” newspaper, said a new concept of blasphemy was required in order to “save the social peace in a multireligious, multicultural, multiethnic society.”
………………………………………
Why would Flemming Rose–of *all* people–believe that Muslims have *any* interest in saving the “social peace in a multireligious, multicultural, multiethnic society”?
What they want, quite obviously, is to impose Shari’ah norms on the Danes–and on all civilized Infidels.
Still, as weak as this response is, I still (mutedly) applaud Jyllands-Posten, Flemming Rose, and Kurt Westergaard for bringing the issue up at all–rather than just letting the anniversary quietly pass. Even this takes more courage than many in Europe now seem to possess.
Here’s my Heroes Against Jihad tribute to Kurt Westergaard:
http://s478.photobucket.com/user/gravenimageartist/media/JWHKW.jpg.html
More:
In Denmark, Muslim leaders remain uncompromising in their opposition to the cartoons.
“We don’t accept the cartoons as a picture or a caricature anything of the prophet,” Imran Shah, spokesman for the Islamic Society told DW, “but the very notion of connecting bombs with the religion of Islam – with a very acknowledgement of Islam where you propose that there is no God but God and the last messenger of God sent to this earth was Muhammad – connect that with a bomb, that’s a very immature and uncivilized way of starting the debate and discussions.”
………………………………………
This is especially laughable in the wake of the Muslim massacre at Charlie Hebdo. These Mohammedans have no shame.
James says
Why should a small newspaper, in a small country like Denmark not submit in 2015?
The world’s only superpower – the United Stated – submitted back in the mid 1990s, when muslims demanded that the US Supreme Court frieze (which depicts Mohammed as well as other historical figures) be destroyed. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/supcourt/stories/sculpture.htm
The craven American people submitted. The American government stated that this image was not of Mohammed but of someone who might look like Mohammed would have looked.
With the massive economy, massive military, America submitted decades before a newspaper in tiny Denmark.
America submitted 20 years ago, and then 9/11 followed. If the very heart of the American state cannot stand up to a muslim population of 1% or less (as it was in the 1990s) why should Denmark be able to survived with a muslim population 4x greater?
If the United States had faced down muslims over this frieze in the mid 1990s, then Jyllands Posten might never have had to carry the responsibility it has carried.
ECAW says
Well said indeed James!
Note how polite and weasely they were “in the spirit of religious tolerance and pluralism” back then. Today they would take a far more aggressive stance and Obama would probably oversee the sandblasting himself.
I too think it unfair to expect the Jyllen Postens to invite the same thing again when practically the whole of the Western media let them charge out of the trench by themselves last time.
kay says
Re: “I too think it unfair to expect the Jyllen Postens to invite the same thing again. . .”
—————————–
TRUTH.
They already did their part. Same goes for Charlie Hebdo. The Paris offices were attacked twice, and after the first time they probably knew it was only a matter of time.
Hail the victorious dead.
The public battle is not ended; it has just begun. The fight is in the online social media space. That is the frontline. I do a lot of trench warfare. And even charge out of the trenches myself, in online virtual terms. Beyond being a sentimentalist, I am also a patriot. Screw Vichy France.
Come join the war. The battle rages on many fronts. And we have nothing to lose but everything.
Casablanca Final Scene
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G62tkd2t7qk
Could use some help over here:
“Melissa Boigon is a graduate of the NYU Gallatin School. . . Her studies focused on the relationship between international political dynamics and prejudices against Muslims in the United States.”
Islamophobia: Melissa Boigon at TEDxGallatin 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8htxQmVybM
And other such places.
Can’t personally cover every game in youtube town. Could clean her clock in fifteen minutes, but the critical need is to rather recruit for the overall online fight. Maybe some people here know of real and active patriots who will engage these frontlines? Yes? Maybe?
Have a big youtube backlog to handle. And the bad guys have shown up in force. They are very persistent, dishonest, arrogant, and often vicious and underhanded. They don’t fight fair. Have won many engagements, but there are too many frontlines to cover. And I canna keep up this tempo. No one can.
Will be doing work handoffs to others after my main set of online bridges and positions have been built and defended.
You can show up if you want. There’s a war on. We need more good people. To hunt orc.
Let’s Hunt some Orcs LOTR 1.28 [HD 1080p]
James says
“The fight is in the online social media space. That is the frontline.”
No. We delude ourselves we are fighting, when in reality we are in a cyber-ghetto, tilting at windmills. In the real world, muslims are taking over towns and councils, and the indigenous population are fleeing, not fighting. Muslims take over street after street, building after building — real bricks and mortar. We retreat to our cyber-ghetto and tell ourselves we are “La Resistance”.
When an army invades a country, they kill off the middle class, who might organise resistance. Our middle class are already Quislings who work for the invading enemy. The people who will fight are the working class, and they are not reading the comments of blogs.
As Mark Steyn pointed out, the British police visited newsagents to find out the names & addresses of anyone who bought a copy of Charlie Hebdo. In the real world people are harder to track and real resistance can begin. Everyone who comments here is already being tracked by the state.
Don’t fool yourself that posting a comment in some crevice of a blog is ‘the frontline”. Not just having the mass media, but also in schools and universities, the traitorous elite are brainwashing the next generation, just like the Hitler Youth movement was used to brainwashed the next generation. As the song in Cabaret says “Tomorrow Belongs To Me”. Demographics is destiny, and your children and grandchildren are to be deceived by the state about “The Religion of Peace”. Their future is that of slaves in their own lands.
Already in London, the indigenous British are a minority. The immigrants of London are never going to have the unity or will to stop muslims from taking over that city. Henrik Broder is right: there is no saving European civilization. It is dhimmitude or war.
Never have the people of Europe been so betrayed. Even the statistics we rely on to try to gauge how long we have before subjugation are fraudulent. And governments will stop publishing official statistics as the truth becomes harder to conceal. It has already been stated that the 2011 Census in the UK was to be the last. The political class do not want the people to discover the scale of the treachery.
kay says
Re: “As Mark Steyn pointed out, the British police visited newsagents to find out the names & addresses of anyone who bought a copy of Charlie Hebdo…”
——————————————
This is completely shocking. Even to consider.
Especially since their police completely fell down on the job wrt Oxfordshire and Rotherham. They should want to prove that they are defending the public, not serving a fascist foreign regime. Sounds like a right bloody Vichy type Britain going on across the Pond.
This really sucks.
Well, I get your meaning. But that can’t be right. The only way to wage a big war is to use and co-ordinate all available resources for maximum effect. If the police serve the bad guy culture so blatantly then they are to treated as known bad guys.
Of course losing primary London turf to the bad guys is disastrous. Of course this is all government level betrayal of the people up to and including the EU. But people will only put up with so much overt fascism. We still have social media and that remains a powerful tool for many reasons. Social media becomes more important.
I understand the concepts of brainwashing and demographics. The good guys need to connect up and stick together. That is why I am massively promoting this resource and many others on social media. I have a strategy. And I know it is actually working because of some objective stats. Am getting some real traction.
And I would like to see that specific Mark Steyn reference. That would help.
voegelinian says
James underestimates the importance of the war of ideas theater of this war we are in — with that theater’s main context, forum & vehicle being the Internet. If the Internet were as trivial and ineffectual as James implies, why are the Islamopologists working tirelessly around the clock throughout all the social media of the Internet?
kay says
Re Vo: “James underestimates the importance of the war of ideas theater of this war we are in — with that theater’s main context, forum & vehicle being the Internet. If the Internet were as trivial and ineffectual as James implies, why are the Islamopologists working tirelessly around the clock throughout all the social media of the Internet?”
—————————————-
TRUTH.
I attest to that. The carpet pilots have some people working youtube discussions really hard. They know it is important. There is a huge carpet pilot disinformation campaign. One of the major parts of it is to bury discussions in unrelated nonsense. Or to deflect by reversing the criticisms onto somebody or something else.
There is no straight argument with these people.
And the Koran is perfect for con jobs and swindles. It’s literally unreadable. The collation order for verses is useless!
The Internet is huge. And the frontlines/ battlefronts of social media are many. This is not just a battle of ideas; it is a WAR of ideas.
James is clueless. He doesn’t get the Twenty First Century. That’s okay. I have a 21st c. strategy and it’s works. It’s called social media.
The really dumb thing is that James is using social media to say social media are unimportant! Complete self-contradiction.
But then again, most of what I see in public discourse is ridiculous one way or another.
Just listened to a good Robert Spencer interview on youtube. Here it is:
London Imam gets shot down by Robert Spencer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfyXUszMyOk
That is so typical of the kind of pseudo-communication the imams and other Islamists use. The imam claimed ignorance! He claimed “context” of verses. But he didn’t GIVE ay contexts! He’s bogus. They’re all liars and con artists.
The truth is that I simply could not find the key information I need in written journals or standard mass media. Gotta go online and find the key stuff with google and social media.
Without effective social media research, AND sharing of diverse resources, and well-constructed counter-attacks we will lose. To ignorance, stupidity, dishonesty and sociopathy. By default we lose overtime.
Only a good social media strategy works.
gravenimage says
There has certainly been a great deal of cringing dhimmitude, both here in the US and in Europe–but the idea that we submitted to the destruction of this frieze is quite incorrect.
sidney penny says
“Why should they apologize for defending the freedom of speech?”
Super comment in the right place.
Nobody apologizes for the violence in the name of Islam.
sidney penny says
“In Denmark, Muslim leaders remain uncompromising in their opposition to the cartoons”
This sentence is missing in the above article – and should have followed the above sentence.–.Muslim leaders defiantly refuse to apologize for the violence.
Instead we get this below about the victims!.
Both men defiantly refuse to apologize.(referring to Rose and Westergaard )
What is wrong with journalist nowdays?
voegelinian says
Diana West also has reported more than once that Yale University caved as well:
“Yale sold itself out in 2009 — or tried. That was the year that Yale University Press submitted to the dictates of sharia and eliminated the 12 Danish cartoons of Mohammed in a book about the 12 Danish cartoons of Mohammed.”
See her essay, Lux et Dhimmitude
http://dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/980/Lux-et-Dhimmitude.aspx
That book was The Cartoons that Shook the World by Jytte Klausen, who had originally intended to include “a drawing for a children’s book; an Ottoman print; and a sketch by the 19th-century artist Gustave Doré of Muhammad being tormented in Hell, an episode from Dante’s “Inferno” that has been depicted by Botticelli, Blake, Rodin and Dalí.”
A perfectly reasonable and unremarkable thing, one would think, for a scholarly writer to include visual images in his book about a subject that centrally involves visual images. But when it comes to Muslims, the West is increasingly throwing reason out the window…
a special compendium soliciting several different intellectuals and scholars to weigh in on the issue of the Danish Cartoons phenomenon. That a book by academics about a topic whose central point revolves around visual images fails to include any reproduction of those visual images, is surreal — or, rather, it’s the “New Real”.
voegelinian says
— that last paragraph I didn’t intend to include in my comment…
Rikki H says
This was the one time that I had a good feeling that things will work out, the legt and right finally saw eye to eye that islam is anti-freedom of speech, or freedom of any kind for that matter. Ten years later this should be a celebration of freedom expression and posterity would view it as a significant turning point. Instead they dhimmi out just like the BBC News and cencor their own cartoon. I remember it inspired such fury that people where creating even more controversial cartoons as a matter of principal. Will things ever change for the better?
voegelinian says
kay — there’s a guy on you tube who has done good work skewering and mocking the insufferable Islamopologist Cenk Uygur
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCg6MuFVugHwWCp1YDQDAy1w/videos
For more info, see my essay —
Jihad of the Tube: Cenk Uygur of the “Young Turks” news site
http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2014/12/jihad-of-tube-cenk-uygur-of-young-turks.html