• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Hugh Fitzgerald: One More Time: “What Race Is…”

May 30, 2016 2:21 pm By Hugh Fitzgerald

Anti-Islam Protest

The other day, in Melbourne, an anti-Islam rally was announced by the United Patriotic Front, and, in immediate response, a counter-rally was quickly organized, to be held at the same time, and same place, by a group of assorted leftists eager to confront the anti-Islam group. It was billed as the “No To Racism” rally. And the two groups went at it, while the police, with great difficulty, tried to keep them apart.

It was depressing, if unsurprising, to see how the event was reported.

First there was Al Jazeera. Its headline to the story reads: “Anti-Islam protest descends into violence.” A hasty reader might be forgiven for thinking that the “violence” was a product of, came from, was caused by, those taking part as supporters of the “anti-Islam protest.” But of course it takes two to tangle. It was the anti-Islam rally that had first been announced, and there would have no violence at all had the “No To Racism” rowdies not shown up, but decided, instead, to hold their own rally at a different time and place.

Even reporters clearly sympathetic to the “anti-racism” side were compelled to convey what had been caught on tape – the “anti-racist” people, armed with poles and sticks, were the ones hell-bent on violence, as they “persistently circumvented police lines”:

“There was a heavy police presence, fighting against the crowd as the two sides marched toward each other, but the anti-racist activists persistently circumvented police lines, armed with poles and crates.”

The subheading to the Al Jazeera report affixed yet one more flattering epithet to those protesting against the anti-Islam rally: “Police arrest seven as violence breaks out between anti-Islam and anti-fascist groups in Melbourne.” So the counter-protesters are also now being described for readers as “anti-fascist,” a word that through overuse and misuse has largely been emptied of meaning, but still employed by left-wing groups everywhere as one of those self-labels that puts them on the side of the angels, and credulous and lazy reporters are perfectly happy to pass on that label to their lazy and credulous readers.

Jihad Watch’s genius domus never tires of asking the question “What race is Islam again?” and, in the reports from Melbourne, that question ought to have been asked many times. “Anti-racist” and “anti-racism” appeared all over the place. For example, here:

“Police in Australia have used pepper spray to separate more than 300 angry protesters as anti-Islam and anti-racism groups clashed in the streets of Melbourne, the country’s second biggest city.”

If one group of protestors describes itself as “anti-racist” because it is opposed to another group that calls itself “anti-Islam,” the sleight-of-word conclusion for those too lazy to think, is that being “anti-Islam” is to be “racist,” and thus, Islam becomes a “race.” Q.E.D., in the nonsense world of the universal Left, which for a long time has been winning the battle of language, with its humpty-dumpty strategy: when the Left uses a word it always means what the Left wants it to mean.

Meanwhile, the violence seemed clearly to be more pronounced on the “anti-racist” side.

Even Al Jazeera had to admit that their “anti-fascist” and “anti-racist” good guys had been violent:

“In one incident, a member of the United Patriots Front (UPF), which organised Saturday’s anti-Islam and anti-immigrant rally, fell to the ground [and] was kicked several times by two anti-racism activists.”

And the report from another source, television’s 9News, included a statement from the police that suggested, obliquely, that the “anti-racism activists” were less sinned against than sinning:

“We [the police] will be looking at the footage to track these people down….We saw inappropriate and cowardly behaviour of people wearing masks and hiding their identity, making them more violent.”

On which side were the mask-wearers? These are the very same “Anonymous” or “Guy Fawkes” masks favored by Leftist protesters ever since Julian Assange was in the headlines; the police statement suggests that the worst violence came from those wearing the masks, “hiding their identity, making them more violent,” that is, the “anti-racist” side.

With its loaded epithets, 9News did just as Al Jazeera had done:

“Opposing rallies in the north Melbourne suburb of Coburg have erupted into violence, with anti-racism activists clashing with the extreme right-wing United Patriots Front.”

For 9News, in this corner, wearing white, were “the anti-racism activists” and in that corner, wearing black, was “the extreme right-wing United Patriots Front.” The viewer or reader has his adjectives, and thus his attitudes, supplied at no extra cost.

The coverage in The Guardian began and ended with the same sentence: “In November, a survey by the Western Sydney University found that Muslims in Australia experience racism three times the national average.” We have no idea what questions were asked, or how they were answered, for anyone to arrive at such a conclusion. (How many times you received dirty looks? How many times someone shouted at you? What exactly constituted “experiencing racism”?) More importantly, this (pseudo) information is irrelevant to the coverage of the clashing groups. But it is most relevant and useful if your aim is to keep raising the issue of this putative “racism” against Muslims in Australia, and thereby to support, and not merely report on, the leftist “anti-racist” protesters. And between the two identical sentences at the beginning and end of The Guardian’s piece, there was still more mention of “anti-racism,” including the caption to a photograph that accompanied the text:

“Riot police use capsicum spray to separate more than 300 rival protesters after things turn nasty between anti-Islam and anti-racism groups.”

I checked the Huffington Post of Australia; its coverage of Melbourne contained a photograph of an “anti-racist” protester’s poster: “Muslims Are Welcome, Racists Are Not.” The text mentioned a “No To Racism” rally. And the Huffington headline was to the (anti-) anti-Islam point: “Seven Arrested in Melbourne Anti-Islam, Anti-Racist Rallies.” It might have read: “Seven Arrested In Clash of Protestors.” But then it would no longer be the Huffington Post.

A glutton for punishment, I then decided to see how the French and Italian television news covered the Melbourne clashes. But I stopped counting the number of times — once I had reached fourteen — that the word “anti-racist” (and an occasional “anti-fascist”) was used to flatteringly describe the leftist protesters.

So whatever the medium, the anti-Islam groups (in Australia, in Germany, in Austria, etc.) are always described as “racist” or “fascist” or “anti-immigrant” or “hard-right,” and those protesting them, no matter how hard left they may be, as “anti-racist” and “anti-fascist,” defending too against those who, it is claimed, are “anti-immigrant.”

Why did I bother subjecting myself, and you, too, come to think of it, to this tedious toting up of the tendentious? Because we all need to keep reminding ourselves that one of the weapons of Jihad is the war of words, a war the Jihadis are winning because we in the West allow it. It is the steady stillicide of these words, dripping into our collective (un)conscious, that causes so many to assume that Muslims must be the victims of “racism.” Mere repetition imposes its reality.

So do your bit. If among the unenlightened company, and The Subject comes up, unhesitatingly point out, that Islam is not a race, by continually asking, in the Spencerian manner, “What race is Islam again?” Put others on the spot; force them to try to defend what is indefensible in both senses of that word, force them to think. Don’t tire of the task. “What race is Islam again?” Repeat ad libitum. Run that up the collective mental flagpole, and you might be surprised at who, if you keep at it, starts to salute. And if you are asked by a frustrated opponent to supply another name to describe the protesters who are against the people who are against Islam, why not offer something both simple and true? What about “pro-Islam”?

If instead of reading that “anti-Islam and anti-fascist groups” or “anti-Islam and anti-racism groups” clashed , you were to read: Anti-Islam and Pro-Islam groups clashed in Melbourne, that would be much closer to the necessary, if dismal, truth.

Why not run that up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes?

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: Featured, journalistic bias Tagged With: Al Jazeera, Huffington Post


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. SoCalMike says

    May 30, 2016 at 2:32 pm

    Too bad the cops didn’t just gun down the club and pole wielding fascists.

    • Luke says

      May 31, 2016 at 11:39 am

      The police can’t gun down no one if they didn’t attack the police at the same time those protesters who are anti-racist by saying Muslims are welcome are mostly members of the stolen generation or white Aboriginals who support Islam due the hatred and racism they have experienced in mainstream society by others in Australia. They should also be careful because they are not even liked by Muslims in Australia. Also these anti-racism protesters just welcome Muslims because they in a hidden manner support terrorism in Australia and have experience hell of lot of racism and abuse in past.

  2. Andra says

    May 30, 2016 at 3:12 pm

    It´s the same all over the West. At the times when German msm mentioned Pegida and other Islam critical rallies the attacks from the counter rallies were always connected with Pegida etc. in the headlines.

    It is interesting and frightening that the instituions in charge don´t deny the counter rallies the same place and time. How could it happen that islamophil lefties took over all our countries?

  3. Wellington says

    May 30, 2016 at 3:42 pm

    CogitoErgoSum a couple of days ago here at JW made a brilliant point about this whole race nonsense, to wit, that if you concede, for argument’s sake, that the Muzzies and their leftist allies are correct about Islam being a race, then Christians are a race, so are Jews, ditto for Hindus, Buddhists, etc., and the Koran time and time again calls for subordination or extermination of all “races” but the Muslim “race” and what could be more racist than this?

    It’s sometimes a good idea to give your opponent what they claim even though the claim is ridiculous and then proceed to demonstrate how vile and egregiously wrong they really are by using their own asinine claim against them. This is exactly what CogitoErgoSum did the other day and I commended him for it then as I do now.

    • WorkingClassPost says

      May 30, 2016 at 3:53 pm

      Isn’t that what is sometimes called ‘Giving them enough rope…’?

      Quicker the better is all I have to say.

      • Pete says

        May 31, 2016 at 8:18 pm

        I do find it to be amazing that Leftists DEMAND that we accept an ideology that would instantly take away every freedom they love to abuse.

    • Mockingjay says

      May 30, 2016 at 7:11 pm

      Yes I also find it is often highly useful to agree with an opponent in an argument or discussion.
      CogitoErgoSum showed how effective this can be in exposing the weaknesses and absurdities in the others’ reasoning.

    • Concerned Indian says

      May 31, 2016 at 4:03 am

      Wellington,just send the statement to Australia First Party.Especially,the one where you quoted Quran–Exterminate all races but the Muslim race.They might not be knowing this.Next time they might find that useful.

      • Mark Swan says

        May 31, 2016 at 8:35 am

        Concerned Indian—Here is their contact page

        http://australiafirstparty.net/australian-identity/contact-us/

    • gravenimage says

      May 31, 2016 at 10:24 am

      The problem with this, Wellington, is that most of the Anarchy and “Occupy” crowd considers Christians a ‘race’–but a ‘race’ of bad, politically-incorrect ‘white people’ (even when they are, for instance, black Africans)–so I’m not sure this would help.

      • Jay Boo says

        May 31, 2016 at 10:35 am

        gravenimage,
        I do not believe that Wellington is foolish enough to think this will change their hearts.

        My take on this is:
        that Wellington is talking about (Controlling the message).

        • gravenimage says

          May 31, 2016 at 1:00 pm

          Oh, Jay Boo, I assure you I do not consider the erudite Wellington foolish!

        • Ivan Bogdanov says

          May 31, 2016 at 1:09 pm

          Back in your kennel J_POO. Limit your yapping to 2-3 sessions per day, maximum. Two if your BB Phil_Itsarski is involved.

          More Later….

        • Jay Boo says

          May 31, 2016 at 1:31 pm

          @gravenimage

          Do you still stand by your reply contradicting his opinion?

          Then surely you must agree then, that his comment appears to be not about changing the opinions of the enemy and more about — (Controlling the message).

          I will be away and comment in the AM if you reply

        • gravenimage says

          May 31, 2016 at 7:49 pm

          Why is the witless Ivan Bogdanov posting here again? Jay Boo has something salient to say here–you never have, that I’ve noticed.

        • gravenimage says

          May 31, 2016 at 7:58 pm

          Jay Boo wrote:

          @gravenimage

          Do you still stand by your reply contradicting his opinion?

          Then surely you must agree then, that his comment appears to be not about changing the opinions of the enemy and more about — (Controlling the message).
          …………………………….

          I wouldn’t say I am contradicting Wellington–and I do very much see the point he and CogitoErgoSum are making.

          But I respectfully think this may not be the best approach–this is subtle, and those who characterize opposition to Islam as ‘racist’ are anything but.

          Of course, reasonable people can disagree on tactics.

      • Wellington says

        May 31, 2016 at 1:41 pm

        You have a point, gravenimage, but the approach first proffered by CogitoErgoSum is worth trying nonetheless I think. No downside to it really. Besides, one making this argument can stress Hindus and Buddhists over Christians and Jews to drive home just how “racist” Islam is. Well, whatever works, no?

        • Demsci says

          May 31, 2016 at 5:40 pm

          Well, yes, good thinking, Wellington

          So, for this to work, a counterjihadist really should have a set of memorycards ready with abominable “racist” verses in the Quran, Sahih Hadiths, Sira on them. There are enough of them!

          Then, when once again, an Islam-critic get’s the label “Racist” the response can be:
          A. Do you or do you not give me the space to answer that? Or do you run away from discussion? Or do you simply drown my answer in shouts and interruptions.
          Or B. Will you hear me out? Otherwise you get the stigma of the eternal discussionstopper.

          Then, when the opposition listens; Our man/ woman can say;
          ” I have here on this memory card a quotation from Quran, Hadiths, Sira.”

          And if Muslims are a race, then so are Christians and Jews (well, Jews ARE a race). And see how racist this verse is against those races is.

          So if you, …leftist, want to avoid measuring with double standards, why do you condemn me and not the Quran, Hadits or Sira?

          I like the idea. By the same token; When once again, for the millionth time we hear:

          “Do not paint all Muslims with the same brush!”

          We can retort: “OK, we will refrain from painting all Muslims with the same BLACK brush”, so long as YOU, leftist, refrain from

          “Painting all Muslims with the same WHITE brush”.

          See, we give in to the demand not to declare all Muslims guilty, if the other side concedes that by the same token, not all Muslims are innocent either.

          Or: You seem to think different Muslims interpret Islam in different ways; OK. if we concede that, then you of necessity must also concede that some interpretations of Islam are disastrous. And therefore that Islam is multi-interpretable and prone to disastrous interpretations and therefore it is rather irresponsible to choose such a volatile religion.

          As you say, we don’t have to agree with the leftists about this, but we can use their own rhetoric against them.

        • Wellington says

          May 31, 2016 at 7:59 pm

          Demsci: Arguing A route (here that Islam is not a race), but then also arguing B route (that Islam is a race) for the purpose of “arguing in the alternative” to demonstrate that the opposition is wrong whether they adhere to A or B, is a time honored legal way of destroying the opposition no matter what their position. Being the American lawyer that I am, I applaud this “approach” because it is almost foolproof.

          All this you have gathered and so good for you. I would like also to congratulate you on your excellent English even though Dutch is your first language. Take care, my friend.

        • gravenimage says

          May 31, 2016 at 8:09 pm

          Thanks for your considered reply, Wellington.

          I just think it is important that we remain strictly rational here–including emphasizing when the opposition is not. That includes noting that Islam is not a race.

          I think if we cede essential rationalism to them, we are bound to lose–for one thing, both Islam and Anarchists are really “good” at unreason–it is unlikely that we will out-maneuver them at this.

          Also, while I see the point you and CogitoErgoSum are making–and it is a sharp and witty one, taking their “argument” to its ‘logical’ conclusion–I doubt they will follow it, because most of them are not rational people who have just made an honest error and are apt to change their opinions once their mistake is pointed out.

          Instead, they use “racism” as a cudgel with which to silence good people concerned about the violence of Islam.

          What we have is truth on our side–I think it best that we stick with that at all times.

          Of course, as I said to Jay Boo, people of good will may disagree on tactics.

          As always, hope you are well.

        • Wellington says

          May 31, 2016 at 10:08 pm

          Thank you for your reply, gravenimage. I would like to further clarify this matter.

          What CES proposed and which I endorse is what is known in the law as “arguing in the alternative.” Essentially it goes like this, to wit, even though what you propose is ridiculous and indefensible, and even though I don’t accept your premise (in this case that Islam is a race), nonetheless, even giving you your premise you still lose because………

          In short, it’s a way of cutting off any argument the opposition has. Yes, in many cases, and as you have correctly indicated, the rubes on the other side won’t follow things, but they already don’t follow the eminently reasonable argument (e.g., that Islam is not a race) and so what is there to lose showing them that even their “unreason” leads to results that run counter to what they want? It’s just putting icing on the cake, so to speak.

          I mean, while you’re arguing with inferiors, why not take the time to show them not only your reasonable argument but in addition that their silly argument ALSO works against them? Will such rubes learn? Probably not. But that’s not the real point. Rather, the real point is having third parties who have been on the fence (for instance a judge or jury) being even more likely to accept your take on the matter at issue and even less likely to accept the other side’s argument because you not only argued your position well but you also destroyed their argument in toto by using it against them. In short, you’re playing first and foremost to an audience and not to your opposition.

          Just thinking like a lawyer here so forgive me. Hope you and yours are doing well, my friend.

        • CogitoErgoSum says

          Jun 1, 2016 at 12:28 am

          Wellington, Demsci and Gravenimage, my thinking on this subject of Islam and racism is that either way you argue it you have to define what you mean by “race.”

          If you argue that being anti-Islam is also being racist you have to explain why you think a person’s religion defines his race. Then, if a person’s race CAN be defined by his religion, you should agree that the Jews, for example, can be classified as a race separate from Islam. Next, if you take a look at what the Quran and Muhammad had to say about the Jews and how the Jews are vile and are descendants of apes and pigs and are the lowest of creatures who are marked by Allah for extermination, you should logically conclude that Muhammad was a racist and, therefore, so is anyone who accepts the teachings of Islam.

          If you argue that no, that’s ridiculous; Islam cannot be racist because race is not determined by religion, then you have just demolished the assertion that being against Islam is also being racist.

          The idea that someone can use racism as a weapon against those who are anti-Islam is an idea that is doomed to boomerang and explode in the face of the user. It does take some thought but most people of at least average intelligence should be able to follow the argument. However, I will admit that is where I could possibly be wrong.

          In any case I wish you all well and I want to say a special thank-you to Wellington.

        • gravenimage says

          Jun 9, 2016 at 10:14 pm

          As I said, I do take your point, Wellington, and I am familiar with this form of argument.

          But while I believe it could work in a courtroom, I think its subtleties would be apt to get lost in most other scenarios.

          As always, though, good to hear your views.

        • Chris Malan says

          Jun 10, 2016 at 2:12 am

          @Wellington
          You said everybody should “drive home just how “racist” Islam is.” Words have meanings (semantics). They just don’t mean what you want them to mean. Islam is not ‘racist.’ Islam is not a race, it’s a religion which has supporters among most likely all races on Earth. I remember that in Al Hada, Saudi Arabia, while working there, among the foreign workers was an American with red hair, as mad as a hatter, who was a staunch Muslim. He was as Caucasian as can come. Cat Stevens is a Muslim, as was Idi Amin – people from two different races.

          Don’t be a moron, use words correctly. Don’t join the imbeciles who say Donald Trump is racist because he objected to a Mexican judge. Mexican is not a race. Donald Trump had things to say about Mexico which will most likely leave much of Latin America cold, but upset Mexicans. Donald Trump will most likely not object to an Argentinian judge.

        • Angemon says

          Jun 10, 2016 at 1:09 pm

          Chris Malan posted:

          “Islam is not ‘racist.’ Islam is not a race, it’s a religion which has supporters among most likely all races on Earth.”

          I believe Wellington is saying “islam is racist” in the same way one would say “Nazism is racist” – not because it is limited to a specific race of people but because it promotes racist beliefs.

        • Chris Malan says

          Jun 12, 2016 at 12:59 am

          @ Angemon
          You said: “I believe Wellington is saying “Islam is racist” in the same way one would say “Nazism is racist” – not because it is limited to a specific race of people but because it promotes racist beliefs.”

          How can one ignore facts so totally? The end-all and be-all for the Nazis was the Aryans, a subset of the Caucasians. That is a specific biological group. There is nothing like that in Islam. Your comparison of Islam to Nazism in this respect is totally flawed.

          Race is genetically determined. Islam is all about religion. For them, a Jew is someone of the Judaic faith. There is no Jewish race, as such. Neither is there a Muslim race or Christian race.

          Think before you write and speak. Like a tattoo, factual mistakes, words wrongly used, bad grammar, and spelling all hint at low intelligence. You don’t want to be perceived as slow-witted, do you?

        • Angemon says

          Jun 13, 2016 at 4:21 pm

          Thank you for your feedback, Chris Malan. I was charitable enough to consider the hypothesis you were simply dim-witted and/or obtuse before simply beieving you were purposely distorting Wellington’s words. I’ve now seen the error of my ways.

        • Chris Malan says

          Jun 14, 2016 at 1:28 am

          @Angemon
          You said: ” before simply beieving you were purposely distorting Wellington’s words. I’ve now seen the error of my ways.”

          To start off with, you spelled “believing” wrong. Your reply is typical of the emotionally driven, as opposed to the intellectually driven. You don’t offer any facts or logic to make your point. You simply revert to an emotional outburst. It’s easier to feel than think. Race has nothing to do with religion. It is biological. It’s that simple. You think if you can label anything or anyone ‘racist’ you have played a politically correct ace from which your opponents cannot recover. Every liberal do-gooder thinks that. It’s only because you don’t know the meaning of the word ‘race’ that you think that.

        • Angemon says

          Jun 14, 2016 at 5:42 am

          Chris Malan posted:

          “@Angemon
          You said: ” before simply beieving you were purposely distorting Wellington’s words. I’ve now seen the error of my ways.”

          To start off with, you spelled “believing” wrong.”

          “To start off with”, and to end with, because that’s as far as you go about my post – discussing a typo. What an intellectual behemoth you are!!!

          “Your reply is typical of the emotionally driven, as opposed to the intellectually driven.”

          Nah, it just appears that way to you because you’re way out of your depth and you need to make up for your ignorance with baseless assertions. Much easier to claim someone is “emotionally driven” than to address what they write, right? I stated that islam promotes racist beliefs. You have yet to challenge that assertion, let alone prove it wrong.

          “You don’t offer any facts or logic to make your point.”

          Like I said, you’re way out of your depth.

          “You simply revert to an emotional outburst.”

          I can assure you there was no outburst on my end, emotional or otherwise. Like I said, you need to make up for your ignorance with baseless assertions. I stated that islam promotes racist beliefs. Nothing you wrote so far challenges that assertion.

          “It’s easier to feel than think. Race has nothing to do with religion. It is biological. It’s that simple. You think if you can label anything or anyone ‘racist’”

          I “think if I can label anything or anyone racist”? Oh, you can read my mind now, eh? I pointed out, correctly, that islam promotes racist beliefs. Nothing of the nonsense you wrote so far denies that. Nothing of the nonsense you wrote even addresses that. Feel free to rant about feelings instead of emotions, if there’s anyone here caving in to feelings and making emotional rants that would be you.

          “you have played a politically correct ace from which your opponents cannot recover.”

          Nah, I correctly pointed out that islam promotes racist beliefs. A fact you’ve yet to address, let alone rebut. You’re limited to discussing a typo. BTW, islam also promotes sexist beliefs.

          “Every liberal do-gooder thinks that. It’s only because you don’t know the meaning of the word ‘race’ that you think that.”

          Oh, great, another mind-reader that can’t discuss a point without ascribing falsehoods to others. I know what race is. I, unlike you, know what islam teaches. Islam promotes racist beliefs. Nazism is not a race. Nazism promotes racist beliefs. Nazism is comparable to islam because they both promote racist beliefs. Of course, none of this will enter your head, not because you’re as sharp as a bowling ball and twice as thick (even though that seems to be the case), but because your goal here is to defend islam.

          I maintain that islam promotes racist beliefs, and that anyone who knows more about islam than simply “it’s an ideology” should know that. Go ahead and prove me wrong.

          P.S.: you wrote:

          The end-all and be-all for the Nazis was the Aryans, a subset of the Caucasians. That is a specific biological group.

          How do you account for all those blond-and-blue-eyed Poles, Jews (some of them German) and Russians – all far more Aryan than Hitler ever was – who were lumped in together with Africans as “slave races”? What biological group were they? Not to mention the alliances with Italy, Japan and treaties with Spain and Portugal – none of them peopled mostly by Aryans. Your argument is a cautionary tale about relying on oversimplifications.

        • Peter Emig says

          Jun 21, 2016 at 9:12 am

          I may agree with some of what you’ve written but your comments on intelligence pretty much destroys any point you may have made. You see, even as a child I understood that making sweeping generalizations about people you know nothing about is usually only a ploy used by Liberals and generally, not a smart move. Your comments: “Think before you write and speak. Like a tattoo, factual mistakes, words wrongly used, bad grammar, and spelling all hint at low intelligence. You don’t want to be perceived as slow-witted, do you? ” To automatically assume that because someone has a tattoo hints at low intelligence is an asinine comment. I have 3 tattoo’s and all commemorate significant events during my 28 years of US Military service and I can guarantee that anyone that’s ever met me will tell you, I have anything but a “low intelligence.” Though I may not agree with your mindset I would still offer my life to protect your freedom to say stupid things. It would seem that YOU should use your own advice and think before you write.

  4. Georg says

    May 30, 2016 at 3:55 pm

    Hardly a day goes by where one doesn’t see an article with the BBC’s or CNN’s “anti-fascists” physically battering people for their opinions.

    • SBJ says

      May 31, 2016 at 4:08 am

      That’s because the BBC & CNN are fascist news sites.

    • gravenimage says

      May 31, 2016 at 10:28 am

      So true, Georg. The cognitive dissonance–or worse–is stunning.

      • Jay Boo says

        Jun 1, 2016 at 1:49 am

        gravenimage
        It appears that you and Wellington have covered that earlier point I mentioned quite well already. There is probably not much I could add at this point.

        • gravenimage says

          Jun 1, 2016 at 1:14 pm

          Thanks, Jay Boo.

  5. Alarmed Pig Farmer says

    May 30, 2016 at 4:40 pm

    Most leftists are probably ignorant of the fact that Islam is non-racial, but some know the score. But that doesn’t matter, because attaching it to race gives it racism as a foe along with all the attendant heroism that gets media and government support for any “struggle” against “racism”. Moslems are fully aware that Islam is not racial, they’ve know that since the Arabs took over the Persians in the 7th century. But they’re quite happy to take the booty of political power that its misapplication garners.

    In the same way, we will see a long string of riots and even deaths attendant to Trump’s campaign this summer. It’s already started, but is sure to escalate, in no small part because the media and government are sympathetic to the cause of illegal aliens. Thus when they riot along with their leftist brethren, few are arrested and nobody does time in jail. Without having to pay a price, why not riot to advertise the threat very bad things are in the offing in Trump’s “racist” promise to enforce standing immigration law is allowed to happen. The statement made by the Mexican flags at all the riots is not unlike the statement made by Moslems in America wearing skull caps, hijabs, niqabs and even burkas.

    The illegal aliens will raise the price of their deportation to months of low grade civil war, economic instability and blood. Thus they will not be deported. We can look forward to the same situation if and when the Moslems are taken on by forces trying to maintain civilization in places like America, Oz, England, France, Scandinavia, and yes, Germany.

    • gravenimage says

      May 31, 2016 at 12:03 am

      Alarmed Pig Farmer wrote:

      In the same way, we will see a long string of riots and even deaths attendant to Trump’s campaign this summer.
      …………………….

      I don’t see it getting that bad, APF. But there will, of course, be continued efforts to discredit his campaign, and ginning up violence is, if no one pays enough attention to where the violence is coming from, a major way to do that.

  6. Salome says

    May 30, 2016 at 4:44 pm

    And every time the Muslims in the Middle East burn down a Christian church or attack Christians, it’s ‘an outbreak of religious violence’.

    • gravenimage says

      May 31, 2016 at 12:04 am

      Yup.

    • SBJ says

      May 31, 2016 at 4:11 am

      ‘an outbreak of religious violence’….lol
      like an erupting pimple, soon to go away.

    • Alexius Comnenus says

      May 31, 2016 at 8:45 am

      But do the ‘good’ muslims protest? Nope. They rejoice because others have done their work.
      Did they protest when an 70 old woman was beaten in Egypt by the muslims and was paraded naked through the streets? Nope.

  7. Demsci says

    May 30, 2016 at 4:48 pm

    Hugh Fitzgerald can se eloquently describe this subtle war of words. And why all these ordinary people hesitate to protest against Islam, for fear of being labeled “racist”. This was the fate of Pim Fortuyn and Geert Wilders, and his PVV, who were discredited with this term so much.

    So yes, it is much better to describe the abovementioned clashes as of those between “Anti-Islam” and “Pro-Islam”.

    But of course, believing in the axioms of Positive Psychology, I like it even better if “our side” was Pro-something and the other side Anti-something.

    And then the question becomes: What precisely is it that we value, and see threathened, or which is in competition with Islam? For what is Islam an obstacle? And here we seem to have to experiment until we get it right, because out of hand it seems none of us is able or interested in naming what exactly it is that these Anti-Islam-protesters are defending.

    Is it the full democratic system, with it the pursuit of happiness, both for the individual as for the society at large?

    So can the clashes be called “Pro-Democratic against Anti-Democratic protesters”? Or perhaps “Pro-tolerance against Anti-tolerance” protesters? (Because being against intolerant Islam is being pro Tolerant societies). The protesters on our side called themselves Patriottic, so is “Pro-Patriotic versus Anti-Patriottic”, something that will work?

    Or perhaps “Pro-Democratic against Pro-Islam”?! Might that work? Because it rightly juxtaposes Islam and Democracy.

    • gravenimage says

      May 31, 2016 at 12:07 am

      Geert Wilders is very much still with us, and he has not given up.

      • Mark Swan says

        May 31, 2016 at 8:54 am

        Demsci “What precisely is it that we value, and see threathened, or which is in competition with Islam? For what is Islam an obstacle?”

        FREE SPEECH—

        Constantly asking “What Race Is Islam“—keep asking that on all the social media sites
        —will help get the point across—expose one of their ploys.

        • Demsci says

          May 31, 2016 at 2:57 pm

          Yes, free speech, as one of the 5 pillars of democracy, as I see it; Freedom of speech, freedom of the individual (so also the woman), constitutional state, fair elections, separation of church and state.

          I am experimenting with the thought that real, you know, scientific, way of pursuit of happiness,

          for which there are so many books (for instance from the Israeli Tal Shahar, teaching in America).

          Because it is THE spiritual goal Sam Harris promotes for atheists, who to many might seem to lack both moral values and spiritual components in their beliefs.

          And WITH some moral values and spiritual components the political aim of democracy can perhaps some day be the ideology that people can be in favor FOR.

          And that would then be DHATI (Democratic Happiness Alternative To Islam).

          Because Islam’s tenets, values, laws can be taken as baseline, and as examples of what we don’t want, and so also what it is that we do want.

          Examples; We don’t want deathpenalty for apostasy; Opposite, true freedom of religion, also for Muslims. – We don’t want protection from criticism for Muhammad, so we want that all political, religious leaders from past and present can be criticized, even ridiculed.

          And so, out from Islam, DHATI can be formulated and from there expanded. This is a different kind of opposition; presenting a better alternative!

          then ask these anti-racists, anti-fascists; what is your better alternative in opposition to our thoughts?

        • gravenimage says

          May 31, 2016 at 8:13 pm

          Good post.

        • Mark Swan says

          Jun 1, 2016 at 12:23 am

          Demsci—I have always appreciated Your Philosophical writing.

          Well Democracy does seem to be the favorite—yet it still represent no absolutes—
          compromise does not render the best solutions—just the best we can achieve
          through it—I agree with Mr. Churchill, it is probably the form of government I dislike,
          the least—as long as there are humans there will be Human error.

          You mentioned Atheists—I have a great deal of respect for anyone who is their self—
          don’t much care for phony—when someone says they do not believe in God—I respect
          that—when someone says they believe in God—I respect that.

          It seems there are always another good book out—buy it and we contribute to
          the economy of book writing—it is said the best things in life are free—that must
          certainly include our ability to have and maintain common sense—a most valuable
          free possession.

          This force that tends to pull too hard to the “Left” right now, can reach its limit, and
          it can snap back too far to the “Right”. So goes the history of Human error.

    • JMB says

      May 31, 2016 at 7:38 am

      Please note also; Australia’s One Nation party will be contesting the upcoming Federal election.
      One nation has not gone away, the main parties hate them, One Nation has strong anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim policies. Under recent voting rule changes they have a very good chance of winning senate seats in our general election early July.
      Needless to say One Nation is constantly crucified by the media and politicians alike.

    • gravenimage says

      May 31, 2016 at 10:33 am

      And Demsci, you are very much right that we have to not just protest, but to *affirm our own civilized values*–something all too many in the West are now vague about, or even perversely faintly embarrassed by.

      • Demsci says

        May 31, 2016 at 2:44 pm

        Thanks, Gravenimage, that means a lot to me!

  8. Champ says

    May 30, 2016 at 4:55 pm

    Bravo, Hugh! Another *brilliant* essay, thank you!

    • gravenimage says

      May 31, 2016 at 10:34 am

      I am so glad to see Hugh Fitzgerald back here. He was sorely missed!

      • dumbledoresarmy says

        Jun 3, 2016 at 10:13 am

        I also.

  9. killerjools says

    May 30, 2016 at 6:21 pm

    Leftists once again demonstrating how peaceful and tolerant and what great defenders of free speech they are – by trying to bash the heads of those who disagree with them.

    • gravenimage says

      May 31, 2016 at 12:07 am

      So true.

  10. Guest says

    May 30, 2016 at 8:33 pm

    The signs of anti-islam protests need to clearly state

    Islam is racist against Jews [Jews are a recognised race]

    Islam allows Wife-beating

    Islam is not a race

    Islam oppresses Christians and Jews

    Read ‘Islamic Fascism’ by Hamed Abdel Samad [you shouldn’t get in trouble for just quoting the title]

    And other short, clear statements that will take the wind out of the others’ sails. Make is clear: the reason we don’t want islam is because we don’t want want racists and fascists.

  11. Paul says

    May 30, 2016 at 8:55 pm

    Unwashed left-wing reprobates will certainly get their comeuppance,
    of that you can be 100% certain. This will either be at the hands of the
    ‘far-right’ (whatever that’s supposed to mean), who’ll eventually respond
    to violence with much greater violence – not nice, but that’s what will
    inevitably happen, or they’ll be dealt with by the muslims in a much worse
    way should they ultimately prevail. They’ll deserve everything they get.

    • gravenimage says

      May 31, 2016 at 12:10 am

      Paul wrote:

      This will either be at the hands of the
      ‘far-right’ (whatever that’s supposed to mean), who’ll eventually respond
      to violence with much greater violence…
      …………………….

      Why do so many insist that opposition to Islam means violence in the streets?

      Some are clearly out to discredit us; with others the motivation is less clear…

      • Paul says

        May 31, 2016 at 2:52 am

        All peaceful and reasonable opposition to islam seems to be
        completely stifled and suppressed, especially at the hands of
        these violent and government funded ‘anti-fascist’ groups. I’m just
        making the point that a cycle of increasing violence will ultimately be
        the natural consequence of this.

        • gravenimage says

          May 31, 2016 at 1:21 pm

          I think good people *will* eventually counter Islam when they overcome their denial that Islam is not a threat.

        • Paul says

          May 31, 2016 at 4:53 pm

          Let’s hope so.

  12. Concerned Indian says

    May 30, 2016 at 9:01 pm

    Take down the names of the organizers of the counter rally and confront them as and when crimes start rising.If the Leftists say–they don’t have wives so they rape-then the Leftists should be told to get women from their own party.If they say-they don’t have jobs-then the Leftists should be told to give them employment in their own homes.

  13. Paul says

    May 30, 2016 at 9:14 pm

    Somebody should conduct an experiment whereby they film
    themselves openly espousing extremely misogynistic homophobic
    and anti-Semitic views in the presence of ‘anti-fascists’. When
    the latter express their feigned outrage it’d be interesting to contrast
    that reaction to the subsequent grovelling apologies that would surely
    come when that person reveals themselves to be muslim.

  14. gravenimage says

    May 30, 2016 at 9:24 pm

    Hugh Fitzgerald: One More Time: “What Race Is…”
    ………………………………

    Why do Islamophiles continue to characterize being Islam as a race? It is clear–because racism in and of itself really is ugly and irrational. But opposing–or supporting–and ideology depends on the morals of the individual and the nature of the creed itself.

    This is the case with Islam–if one opposes the violence and oppression of that baleful creed, that has *nothing* to do with ‘racism’. But it scores points if others can be led to believe that it does.

    More:

    First there was Al Jazeera. Its headline to the story reads: “Anti-Islam protest descends into violence.” A hasty reader might be forgiven for thinking that the “violence” was a product of, came from, was caused by, those taking part as supporters of the “anti-Islam protest.”…
    ………………………………

    If Al Jazeera and those like them can lead the public to believe that criticism of Islam is not just ‘racist”, but somehow intrinsically violent, so much the better.

    More:

    Even reporters clearly sympathetic to the “anti-racism” side were compelled to convey what had been caught on tape – the “anti-racist” people, armed with poles and sticks, were the ones hell-bent on violence, as they “persistently circumvented police lines”.

    “There was a heavy police presence, fighting against the crowd as the two sides marched toward each other, but the anti-racist activists persistently circumvented police lines, armed with poles and crates.”

    The subheading to the Al Jazeera report affixed yet one more flattering epithet to those protesting against the anti-Islam rally: “Police arrest seven as violence breaks out between anti-Islam and anti-fascist groups in Melbourne.”
    ………………………………

    This should surprise no one here.

    And these thugs are not described as “anti-racist”, but “anti-fascist”, as well, which is just as grotesque.

    More:

    On which side were the mask-wearers? These are the very same “Anonymous” or “Guy Fawkes” masks favored by Leftist protesters ever since Julian Assange was in the headlines; the police statement suggests that the worst violence came from those wearing the masks, “hiding their identity, making them more violent,” that is, the “anti-racist” side.
    ………………………………

    The irony, of course, is that if–God forbid–Islam ever does gain ascendancy here, these useful idiots will be wiped out by the supremacist Muslims they are now violently shilling for.

    This has, in fact, happened before: in Iran the Mullahs savagely liquidated the members of the Communist Tudeh Parts as soon as they consolidated power in Iran in the early ’80s. A lot of these leftists went to their deaths incredulously crying that they had always supported the revolution. They simply could not conceive that their ‘Islamist’ “allies” would murderously turn on them.

    And this was in a Muslim-majority country–the shock here would, no doubt, be even greater.

    And so much of the media would be nonplussed, as well–but the very Muslims they would help put in power would shut them down before they would have a chance to publicly decry their fate.

    Of course, they are dragging the rest of us down along with them.

    • Paul says

      May 30, 2016 at 10:02 pm

      You occasionally hear about some of these ‘No Borders’ idiots
      who get battered or raped by the medieval savages they’re trying
      to sneak into relatively uncontaminated countries, and yet still
      persist with their traitorous activities, as well as going to great lengths to
      keep things quiet! Obviously, they’re insane, but their persistence
      must surely show the depth of their hatred for their compatriots,
      or at least complete unconcern for their safety. The height of
      callousness.

      • gravenimage says

        May 31, 2016 at 1:25 pm

        True. Here’s one such suicidal case:

        “Norway: Leftist feels guilty that Muslim who raped him was deported”

        https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/04/norway-leftist-feels-guilty-that-muslim-who-raped-him-was-deported

        • Paul says

          May 31, 2016 at 4:57 pm

          I remember hearing about that. When I told other people
          about it, I started with a caveat – “No, it’s not me telling some
          sort of sick joke, this is for real.”

        • gravenimage says

          May 31, 2016 at 8:21 pm

          I know–hard to believe, but true. There are more and more of these cases.

  15. R says

    May 30, 2016 at 10:06 pm

    If one group is anti-jihad terror and anti-Sharia Law that means the opposing group must be pro-jihad terror and pro-Sharia Law.

  16. mortimer says

    May 30, 2016 at 10:43 pm

    Conflating Islam with brown races or Indonesians is the red herring of the Left. It is a form of begging the question (petitio principii).

    ‘Incongruent Conflation’ (a form of petition principii) happens when the identities of two separate concepts sharing some characteristic in common, are presented as being a single identity, and the separate categories appear to become lost. This produces errors or misunderstandings since a fusion of distinct subjects obscures analysis of either concept. Leftists conflate Islam and race intentionally to win an argument with a fallacy of thought.

    We need to say to conflators:

    “You are begging the question. You did not prove your first claim (that Islam is a race) and then you mistakenly concluded that since Islam is a race of people that the person who criticizes Islam (an ideology) is ‘racist’. Before before you can claim that it is ‘racist’ to criticize Islam (an ideology), you must demonstrate that Islam is race. ”

    “So, please tell us once again, HOW DID THE IDEOLOGY OF ISLAM BECOME A ‘RACE OF PEOPLE’ IN YOUR CREATIVE MIND? OR ARE YOU CONFLATING THE TWO INCONGRUENT CONCEPTS OF RACE AND IDEOLOGY?”

  17. Anonymous says

    May 30, 2016 at 11:11 pm

    Who exactly are these anti-fascists / anti-racists? In almost every article that I have read about them, the accompanying photographs always show them hidden behind masks.
    I recollect reading somewhere that the antifa was constituted of jobless youth who have been paid to wreak mayhem.
    As far as the question, “what race is islam”, that is probably not a very fruitful line of defense. Leftists can always come back with, “When we say ‘racist’, we mean ‘bigoted’. As it is, the word ‘racist’ has lost all meaning, it is just a convenient accusation that can be thrown around at will.

  18. Matthieu Baudin says

    May 31, 2016 at 1:47 am

    “… It is the steady stillicide of these words, dripping into our collective (un)conscious, that causes so many to assume that Muslims must be the victims of “racism.” Mere repetition imposes its reality…”

    What a fine description of the persuasive power of sheer repetition.
    Of course these New Left and Anarchist activists are in reality about as anti – fascist as the Brownshirts and allied groups of the 1930’s whom they closely resemble in their anti democratic stratagems and taste for violent confrontation.

  19. Freedom Lover says

    May 31, 2016 at 2:35 am

    I am constantly pointing out that Islam isn’t a race, so it isn’t racism.. Apparently there is a ‘racism definition’ that also includes religion. I can’t find it on google myself, but it constantly gets posted, to ‘prove’ racism includes religion.

    • gravenimage says

      May 31, 2016 at 1:34 pm

      Of course, this is nuts. Race is intrinsic–a person simply is one race or another (although race itself is rather meaningless in the biological sense, but that is a separate issue). So it really is bigoted to hate, or like, someone simply for their race. Racism really is wrong, and that is why the accusation carries so much weight.

      But religion–or adherence to any ideology or creed–is *not* intrinsic, and so the creed must be judged on its merits–or lack of same. That is what Islam is.

      Culture often conflates with race; but it is a separate issue. This may be where some get confused–or more likely the charge of racism is so loaded that many just back away from it, whether it applies or not.

      • Mark Swan says

        Jun 1, 2016 at 5:17 pm

        Absolutely

  20. Chris Malan says

    May 31, 2016 at 3:35 am

    Race, from dictionary.com “Zoology. a variety; subspecies.” Again, subspecies: “a subdivision of a species, especially a geographical or ecological subdivision.” From zoology, it’s also said that said subspecies should breed true, i.e. their offspring should be just like their parents. Purebred Poodles always have purebred Poodles as offspring, never a Fox-terrier or Alsatian. Subspecies can differ in many ways, e.g. Greyhounds are faster than Bulldogs and Poodles are way more intelligent than Boxers – all these on average or statistically. Members of the same species can interbreed and consistently have fertile offspring. The human species, Homo Sapiens, is zoologically divided into different subspecies, like Caucasians, Negroids, Bantus, etc. There is no emotional connotation to the word subspecies. Like dog or horse races, the human races also differ statistically. That’s just the way it is. Way too much emotion is involved when people talk about these things.

  21. BC says

    May 31, 2016 at 4:06 am

    Is it not ironic , well maybe not, that the so called anti fascists use exactly the same tactics as their Nazi forbears did in the 30s?

    • Marty says

      May 31, 2016 at 4:36 am

      Because they have the same values & mindset.
      To these ill educated thugs anything branded “left”
      or “anti racist” is virtuous per se, regardless of its actual content.
      Try this for an example from today’s press
      “Labour councillor who called Israel a ‘terrorist state’ and was married to two women at the same time is appointed equality chief in Birmingham”
      He hates Jews & is a polygamous misogynist & mohammedan.
      You can imagine his views on “equality”.
      The latter, like “racism” is now a meaningless term in the UK.

      • Mark Swan says

        May 31, 2016 at 9:14 am

        Good One Marty

  22. Larry says

    May 31, 2016 at 5:42 am

    No reporter ever tags those “anti-fascist” groups for what they are, and always have been, which is hard core communists. The very first antifas were established in Vienna in May of 1945 by the Soviets as a means of intimidating pro-democracy organisations in post War Austria.

    They’ve continued to run intimidation rackets against pro-democracy groups ever since.

    • Concerned Indian says

      May 31, 2016 at 5:50 am

      How have the Left liberals managed to survive worldwide?In India they obstruct,oppose and generally intimidate the Govt. But they have survived with their strange perspectives.

      • Mark Swan says

        May 31, 2016 at 9:18 am

        Humans allways run things in the ground—the worm will turn.

  23. Nelson Taylor Sol says

    May 31, 2016 at 7:05 am

    Excellent article! This is perhaps the most needed of the battles to be waged. We could easily counteract those headlines with “pro violence groups disrupt and clash against anti Islamic demonstrators”.
    I regularly watch BBC, Euronews and DW. They all bring interesting topics and reporting that are worth watching, but they all follow and exploit the tiring mantra of “hard right…”.
    I have been for years on a self imposed crusade against the language used by the main stream media because ours is a philological war, same as the one waged by communist regimes. Coming from Cuba, I happen to know it first hand and it has lasting and devastating consequences on the social psique, whereby good turns evil and viceversa. It’s a classic Orwellian double speak.
    In the recent Austrian presidential election, the media was performing literal contortions to explain how the “hard right” was a about to win. Had the “hard right” candidate eventually won, I wonder how on earth the media would have managed to statistically group the majority of Austrians as “hard right”, when by definition anything hardened usually lies on the fringes. Nevertheless, I twitted my usual and always unanswered question to the reporter: how do you define so-called hard right? Given that Nazis were National Socialists, why are neo Nazis not grouped as ultra left?

    • gravenimage says

      May 31, 2016 at 1:43 pm

      Yes–anyone who understands the Jihad threat is branded “far right”, even when it makes no sense. Geert Wilders is a leftist socialist when it comes to economics–but he is deemed “far right”. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an African feminist–but he is deemed “far right”. Bruce Bawer is a Liberal Gay Rights activist–but he is deemed “far right”.

      People who champion free speech and the rights of women, gay people, and free thinkers are deemed “far right”.

      This would be funny if it weren’t so harmful.

      • gravenimage says

        May 31, 2016 at 8:26 pm

        For Ayyan Hirsi Ali, “he” should have been “she”. Bad typo.

      • Peggy says

        Jun 1, 2016 at 12:15 am

        Then the “far right” is where I want to be. The way Islamists and their supporters use that term I’ll wear it as a badge of honour.

  24. Michael says

    May 31, 2016 at 9:12 am

    It was the other way around we countered the “anti racism” this time as they always do the same.

  25. Jay Boo says

    May 31, 2016 at 9:42 am

    Pat Condell
    Islamophobia awareness

  26. Jay Boo says

    May 31, 2016 at 9:42 am

    Pat Condell
    A Society of Cowards

    • gravenimage says

      May 31, 2016 at 1:50 pm

      Excellent, important stuff from Pat Condell. Thanks for posting it.

      • Ted Tyler says

        May 31, 2016 at 2:55 pm

        Pat Condell is spot on and Atheists are also not happy with Islam. Christopher Hitchens believes that the worst religion is Islam. I think that the atheist view is that religions are bad but not dangerous – with the exception of Islam which is evil and dangerous.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIUyMwOJ3aw

        • Champ says

          May 31, 2016 at 5:28 pm

          Ted wrote:

          I think that the atheist view is that religions are bad but not dangerous …

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          How could anyone–atheist, or not–consider Jesus Christ to be “bad”? Jesus Christ is the Good Shepherd!

          Question: “What did Jesus mean when He said ‘I am the good Shepherd’?”

          Answer: “I am the good shepherd” (John 10:11) is the fourth of seven “I am” declarations of Jesus recorded only in John’s Gospel. These “I am” proclamations point to His unique, divine identity and purpose. Immediately after declaring that He is “the door” in John 10:7, Jesus declares “I am the good shepherd.” He describes Himself as not only “the shepherd” but the “good shepherd.” What does this mean?

          Excerpt here: http://www.gotquestions.org/Good-Shepherd.html

        • Ted Tyler says

          May 31, 2016 at 10:18 pm

          Champ, the statement is: “…..the atheist view is that (most) religions are bad – but not dangerous….” So we are talking about religion in general and not Jesus in particular. Here, the atheist view is that Jesus is not divine – but is basically good (not bad).

          Now you have been trained in the Christian Faith, so it is no surprise that you believe the entirety of the Christian doctrine. Does it not seem reasonable then, that a person trained in the Islamic Faith would believe that Muhammad is the ideal man?

        • Western Canadian says

          Jun 1, 2016 at 1:25 pm

          “Champ, the statement is: “…..the atheist view is that (most) religions are bad – but not dangerous….” ”

          No, that is not the statement you made, or what Champ replied to. Closer to the truth perhaps, but NOT what you offered.

          As for being ‘trained’, I was not in ANY faith, I was raised in an atmosphere of mocker and contempt for Christian belief systems. But having noticed that nothing of substance was ever offered to back up the mockery, I began to examine belief systems, and while Champ may have been ‘raised’ a Christian, it cannot be compared to being brainwashed a muslim.

        • Ted Tyler says

          Jun 1, 2016 at 2:05 pm

          Western, I admire your courage. Most people will simply go along with whatever religion they are exposed to as a child. Do as your family does, do as your community does, and do as your country does. To challenge the established system requires considerable effort and most people will not expend that effort.

          I have no problem seeing how a person can go from no religion or to any other religion to Christianity as Christianity is basically good. What I cannot see is how anyone can convert from no religion or any religion to Islam. In particular, why would a woman convert to Islam? I am working on that question. At this point, my guess is as follows:

          1. They do not know the doctrine of Islam.
          2. They wish to be abused and enslaved.
          3. They abhor freedom and wish to be told how to live their lives.

  27. Florida Jim says

    May 31, 2016 at 9:51 am

    Islam demand the practice of “taqiyya” lying to everyone to advance their foul philosophy it is not a religion it is way of life to rule the world beheading millions on the way unless we stop them. I suggest deporting all muslims from every country to cleanse the world.They have proven themselves to be unfit to live anywhere even among other muslims who eventually turn on each other.Other nations cannot take a chance on losing the freedom of their nation to prove Islam is a foul way of life.They are waiting in each mosque to attack their neighbors just as they did in the 7th century.

  28. Richard Paulsen says

    May 31, 2016 at 9:58 am

    This is what´s happening in Sweden. Family forced to leave their home because of “newcomers” from Africa and arabic countries.
    http://mitti.se/familjen-tvingas-att-lamna-sitt-hem/

  29. tedh754 says

    May 31, 2016 at 8:03 pm

    “anti-fascist + anti-racism” = useful idiot

  30. Kepha says

    May 31, 2016 at 9:31 pm

    Every anti-liberty, truth-hating, violent moron who can afford a bumper sticker claims to be “anti-fascist”. Argue for the de-regulation of education and a wider space for private education of all stripes, and someone will call you a “fascist”.

  31. Peggy says

    May 31, 2016 at 11:21 pm

    Champ said:

    BTW, Angemon does not “nitpick”, and this is just another one of “Fess’s” fantastic fictions that he tries to employ.
    ====================
    I have no desire to enter into this argument you have with Fess but I have to correct you on that statement.
    All one has to do is look at any of those loooong replies he serves me with picking everything I said apart and then some.

    • Champ says

      Jun 1, 2016 at 12:00 am

      Peggy, I completely disagree with you …

      To “nitpick”, by definition, is this:

      nit-pick

      1. to be excessively concerned with or critical of inconsequential details.

      2. to criticize by focusing on inconsequential details.

      3.a carping, petty criticism.

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      So, with this definition in mind, I do not see Angemon as doing *any* “nitpicking” whatsoever by “focusing on inconsequential details” or making “petty criticism” of the things that “Fess” writes–quite the contrary! Angemon is raising very important issues and presenting “Fess” with valid questions that need to be addressed. In fact, more people ought to join Angemon in his effort of challenging “Fess” with similar types of questions. Frankly, I think it’s shameful that he practically stands alone in this effort. And in case you haven’t noticed, “Fess” has been attacking Robert Spencer, Hugh Fitzgerald, and the vast majority of other posters here on Jihad Watch. So I say Kudos! to Angemon for tackling many of “Fess’s” egregious comments and “Fess’s” campaign against those I’ve mentioned above.

      As to the exchanges you claim to have had with Angemon–I’m sorry, but I haven’t been paying very close attention to anything he may have written to you.

      Take care. 🙂

      • Peggy says

        Jun 1, 2016 at 12:12 am

        Hello Champ,

        I was talking about Angemon doing it when he is talking to me. I had no intention of commenting on your discussion with Fess.

        • Champ says

          Jun 1, 2016 at 2:16 am

          Hi Peggy …

          You wrote:

          “I have no desire to enter into this argument you have with Fess but I have to correct you on that statement.”

          Oh, I knew that you didn’t want to weigh-in on the “Fess” issue, but I thought that you were correcting me, in general, based upon your above comment.

          Sorry for the misunderstanding …take care 🙂

      • Angemon says

        Jun 1, 2016 at 8:22 am

        Champ posted:

        ““Fess” has been attacking Robert Spencer, Hugh Fitzgerald, and the vast majority of other posters here on Jihad Watch”

        Indeed, and it’s always with the same subtext: people who have been studying islam for decades, published books on the issue and even trained law enforcement know nothing while he knows everything. What learned analysts say is crap but what he says goes. One would only need to look at the tapestries of sophistry he tries to pass as “criticism” to see how dishonest he is – like that time he claimed that Mr. Spencer was genuinely expecting the Islamic State would apologize for the public beheadings.

        • Champ says

          Jun 2, 2016 at 3:56 am

          Angemon, I agree with everything you’ve stated because it’s all so True!

          Also, notice that Mr.Know-It-All hasn’t gained *any* traction, through support from others, with his supposed immigration plan–which isn’t a viable plan, at all–but a pipe dream, at best.

      • Angemon says

        Jun 1, 2016 at 11:03 am

        Champ posted:

        “To “nitpick”, by definition, is this:

        nit-pick

        1. to be excessively concerned with or critical of inconsequential details.

        2. to criticize by focusing on inconsequential details.

        3.a carping, petty criticism.

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        So, with this definition in mind, I do not see Angemon as doing *any* “nitpicking” whatsoever by “focusing on inconsequential details” or making “petty criticism” of the things that “Fess” writes”

        Indeed. It’s all about loaded language and the capability of dismissing someone out of hand without actually addressing what they’re saying – it’s not that I’m rebutting Fess’s or Peggy’s core arguments, it’s just “nitpicking” (fussing over inconsequential details – the implication being that whatever it is they write is right), even if, by her own admission, I reply to every point she raises.

        • Champ says

          Jun 2, 2016 at 4:09 am

          “It’s all about loaded language and the capability of dismissing someone out of hand without actually addressing what they’re saying” …

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          You’re absolutely right, Angemon; and I’ve **never** thought of your comments as “nitpicking”, but they’re formidable and quite intelligent.

    • Angemon says

      Jun 1, 2016 at 8:20 am

      I see you’re still consistent in being a hypocrite, Peggy – quick to say “I’m not talking to you so don’t reply to me” but seeing nothing wrong with talking to (not to mention about, like in this case) others even though no one is addressing you to begin with.

      Now run along child – I think I saw someone on another topic saying something about Russia and Putin that’s not complete and total praise.

      • Champ says

        Jun 2, 2016 at 3:30 am

        Excellent point, Angemon. I can see that Peggy was goading you and “correcting” me in one fell swoop …

  32. Chris Malan says

    Jun 22, 2016 at 2:57 am

    @Peter Emig
    You said: “your comments on intelligence pretty much destroys any point you may have made.” A declarative statement is no way verified or falsified by how nice the person who made the statement is. I said Islam has nothing to do with race as race is biological and Islam a religion or ideology. They also don’t mention race in any way and it is not part of their beliefs. That’s true unless you can prove otherwise.

    As for tattoos. Search for ‘statistical association of tattoos.’ Tattoos are statistically associated with low education level, illegal behaviour, a higher incarceration level, higher alcohol and drug use. See this: http://www.abc.net.au/cm/lb/5060732/data/new-document-data.pdf Tattooed people also have a higher incidence of sexually transmitted disease than the non-tattooed population. Note that the tattoo is not the cause of this – it’s those who are attracted to tattoos in the first place. If you carefully read what I wrote before you complained, you would have seen I said tattoos ‘hinted at.’ That means statistics are involved. I never said every last person with a tattoo is stupid.

    Your MP’s would have been able to tell you they had more troubles from the tattooed crowd. I’ve worked with prisoners and it was the odd one out who wasn’t tattooed – far more than 90% were tattooed.

    You may not like this, but it is factually true.

    • Angemon says

      Jun 22, 2016 at 5:07 am

      Chris Malan posted:

      “They also don’t mention race in any way and it is not part of their beliefs. That’s true unless you can prove otherwise. ”

      Funny little juxtaposition “they don’t say it unless you can prove otherwise”. One would assume that someone making that claim you’re making would have read the texts and would know for a fact whether or not they mention race. Which they do.

      • Chris Malan says

        Jun 22, 2016 at 6:08 am

        @angemon You question whether I know much about Islam. I worked in Saudi Arabia. I am interested in religion, see http://chrismalan.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/the-case-against-trinity.html. Just one of the things I wrote about. One chemist at the hospital I worked at was a staunch Muslim. He thought I was a candidate for conversion. He plied me with books, e.g. the Gospel of Barnabas and the Koran. I read all of them. I frequently talked with the other medical staff, mostly Muslims, about religion. I know what Islam is about. They welcome anybody, regardless of sex, race or nationality. For them, there are only two groups – Muslim and non-Muslim. The Saudis vary in colour from about Mediterranean (Spanish, etc.) to black. Islam couldn’t care less about race.

        Download the Quran in English and read it so you can talk with knowledge about it. It’s quite boring, with no history or places one can use to externally verify it. It’s mainly a social code and tells you over and over how great Mohammad was.

        • Angemon says

          Jun 22, 2016 at 6:54 am

          Chris Malan posted:

          “@angemon You question whether I know much about Islam.”

          I do, and you, in your post, showed me your ignorance in an unequivocal fashion.

          “I worked in Saudi Arabia.”

          Meaningless and irrelevant to whether or not you know about islam.

          “I am interested in religion”

          Also meaningless and irrelevant.

          “One chemist at the hospital I worked at was a staunch Muslim. He thought I was a candidate for conversion. He plied me with books, e.g. the Gospel of Barnabas and the Koran. I read all of them. I frequently talked with the other medical staff, mostly Muslims, about religion. I know what Islam is about.”

          Clearly you don’t.

          “They welcome anybody, regardless of sex, race or nationality. For them, there are only two groups – Muslim and non-Muslim. The Saudis vary in colour from about Mediterranean (Spanish, etc.) to black. Islam couldn’t care less about race.”

          Oh, really? Is that why Saudis and Pakistanis hate each other’s guts? Or Saudis and Iranians? Oh, BTW, “Mediterranean” is the designation of a geographic area and “Spanish” is a nationality- neither of those are a race or ethnicity. Go look at a Gallego (Galician), a Vasco (Basque) and an Andaluz (Andalusian) and then come and tell me, who lived in Spain for several years, about a “Spanish” or “Mediterranean” race, you ignoramus.

          BTW, not a good sleight of hand – we’re talking about what islam teaches, not how some Saudis act.

          “Download the Quran in English and read it so you can talk with knowledge about it. It’s quite boring, with no history or places one can use to externally verify it. It’s mainly a social code and tells you over and over how great Mohammad was.”

          And this is what settles how ignorant you are. “Go read the quran”? Well, Mr. “I know what Islam is about”, do you know that islam is more than just the quran? The sirah and ahadith make up the bulk of islamic orthodoxy, and guess what? Black people, muslim or otherwise, aren’t exactly regarded as equals to arabs. Guess what is the worst possible example of a ruler the author(s) could come up with?

          But since you claim to know what islam is all about, and insist I should “read the quran” – which, BTW, I did – so I can “talk with knowledge about it”, perhaps you can “educate” me. Islamic orthodoxy says that muslims are to pray (at least) 5 times per day. Where is that specified in the quran? Also, where in the quran are the five pillars of islam specified? And finally, the quran has mixed messages about alcohol, ranging from being tolerable to drink as long as you don’ go to pray drunk to it being haram. How do muslims know which is the final word on alcohol from the quran alone?

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • James Lincoln on Erdogan: ‘Turks must defend the rights of Jerusalem, even with their lives’ for ‘the honor of the Islamic nation’
  • Carol on Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, France and UAE conduct joint military exercises amid rising Turkish threat
  • James Lincoln on EU Parliament members call for firing of border agency director for preventing illegal migrants from entering Europe
  • Jayme on Canadian Mental Health Association studies Muslim women’s mental health due to ‘discrimination’ and ‘hate crimes’
  • GreekEmpress on EU Parliament members call for firing of border agency director for preventing illegal migrants from entering Europe

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.