“In Germany,” claims the Washington Post, “anti-Muslim extremists may pose as big a threat as Islamist militants.”
True, but only to the reputation of the Post.
"It is not worth the while to go round the world to count the cats in Zanzibar" – Henry David Thoreau
What’s the point?
Why do they even bother lying to us when we all know no one believes a word these people have to say?
Sharia teaching is being “misused” and “exploited” to discriminate against Muslim women, the Home Secretary, Theresa May, has claimed, as she unveiled plans for an independent inquiry into the issue.
But she insisted that many British people “benefit a great deal” from the guidance offered by Sharia teaching and other religious codes.
Why even pretend to an enquiry when the result is so blatantly preordained before it even starts?
I’d be delighted to learn where Ms May received the Koranic training she is so happy to share with us before the inquiry even opens.
Truly, these people regard the rest of us with the deepest contempt, and they don’t even try to hide it any longer.
There was a young fellow from Ankara,
Who was a terrific wankerer.
“Till he sowed his wild oats,
With the help of a goat,
But he didn’t even stop to thankera.
Not the greatest of poetic verse, but coming from someone who may one day be PM of an infamous Turkish great-grandfather (Ali Kemal), carries a little more weight than better written doggerel on this specific subject.
I actually prefer Douglas Murray’s efforts on the subject.
Recep Erdogan is the Turk’ll
Never tire of rim-jobs from his circle
Yet his chief-est delight
(Now Khilafa’s in sight)
Are the felchings he gets from Frau Merkel
As for myself, I was never a one for the burlesque, but if the guys from the Turkish embassy are “kicking butt and taking names” then my only contribution is that Mr. Erdogan can go fuck himself with a cactus and if he doesn’t have one to hand I am happy to supply it.
I was expecting public poetry readings in Berlin once the prosecution got going, but Douglas Murray at the Spectator is jumping that particular gun, and good for him:
At the end of last month, during a late-night comedy programme, a young German comedian called Jan Böhmermann included a poem that was rude about Erdogan. Incidentally the point of Mr Böhmermann’s skit was to highlight the obscenity of Turkey already trying to censor satire in Germany.
What happened next happened in swift order. First of all the Turks complained to their German counterparts. Within a few days the programme had been pulled. A few more days and it was whitewashed out of existence altogether. In the meantime Mr Böhmermann himself was forced to go under police protection. The worst blow then came late last week when Chancellor Merkel allowed the prosecution of Mr Böhmermann to go ahead in Germany. Strangely enough, Chancellor Merkel is currently pretending that the trial of a German comedian in Germany for insulting a foreign despot is a liberal act. Don’t we all understand, she asks, that the courts will decide? Well no – the very possibility of putting someone on trial for being rude about Erdogan is as illiberal or rather anti-liberal as these things come. It will be hardly more of a relief if he is found ‘not guilty’ than if he is found ‘guilty’. The fact such a trial could even be contemplated demonstrates that Germany is becoming little more than a satrapy of Erdogan’s.
Well I’m a free-born British man, and we don’t live under the blasphemy laws of such despots. So in honour of this fact I have spent the weekend writing rude limericks about Mr Erdogan. And I would hereby like to invite all readers to join me in a grand Erdogan limerick competition.
Unfortunately, my parents left me lacking in the poetry gene department, so I will not be joining this competition. However, I beg that, despite my well known abhorrence of casual abuse and obscenities in both the postings and commentary here at CCiZ, all visitors to this site heap all the abuse and ordure onto the head of Cunty McCuntface Erdogan that this lying, intolerant and totalitarian Islamist caprine fornicating* unwashed excretory orifice deserves. Likewise, that fat, festering, foetid, fly blown blob of sycophantic STASI shit, Angela Merkel. Give her your all. For, as Mark Steyn put it, “You can take the girl out of East Germany, but you can’t take East Germany out of the girl”.
Just as jihad covers many types of behaviour, so also does crusade. These suppurating pustules of venereal infection are on a jihad, fine, I’m on a crusade.
Join the crusade to take back our civilisation from the Quislings and preemptive dhimmis, and please invite your friends to do the same. While I suspect these vile and vicious dick-cheese thugs are unaware of the meaning of the Streisand effect, I also suspect that they will achieve enlightenment in the not too distant future.
While I would certainly prefer elegance and subtlety to graphic bluntness, all contributions will nonetheless be welcome. Remember, points will be awarded for wit and originality, and what do points mean?
POINTS MEAN PRIZES.
At least, so I am informed by a normally very reliable source, a Mrs Trellis of North Wales.
* for those lacking Latin, goat fucking.
Regular readers will know I have little or no time for the only country on the planet that forbids women from driving. They also stone homosexuals. I on the other hand have got stoned with homosexuals. I have also been in cars driven by women. The times we live in eh?
It’s coming out. I knew. I just knew the camel-fucking bastards were up to their fucking necks in 9/11 (and the rest).
I don’t care for their depravity but depravity is just that. Being implicit in the murder of nigh on 3000 people is another matter entirely. I don’t care if they want to make my ancestors who embuggered monks on Lindisfarne and stole their plate look civilized. But that was over a thousand years ago. Things move on. The last gift my country got from Norway was a Christmas Tree. What have we ever got from Saudi Arabia? Hatred, evil and 15/19 on 9/11.
The time has come…
We build nuclear because Saudi you have nothing but oil. Nothing. I mean nothing. Let’s put this bluntly. This is not Islamophobia – oh, no! This is straight horror at our bending-over for a vile regime. I have visited some of the great Mosques of the World. I was treated with respect and I showed them respect.
I have dirty little secret. I do. I like photographing religious buildings and Islam does seem much more amenable than Catholics for example.
This is not Islam. This is an unspeakably corrupt regime we have enabled.
This has to end. Now.
What’s the difference between progressives and liberals/conservatives/libertarians? The difference between the left and the rationally observant?
Often, just time. In Trevor Phillips case, about 20 years.
I’ve read a number of articles about his apparent damascene conversion, and there is nothing he is saying which has not been said a thousand times before, just not by him.
Well, at least, someone with impressively impeccable progressive credentials is now speaking the obvious, and apparently backed with equally impressive research data.
Frankly, I can’t see this being a game changer, there are too many influential people with too much invested in the fanciful narrative of Islam being both supremely tolerant of others, and a Religion of Peace. It is just too hard to halt this particular juggernaut, certainly not on a dime. However, normal people are not stupid, and change is emerging – albeit slowly:
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
We are now well past ‘some of the time’, and people are aware of the extent of the snivelling dishonesty, deceit and craven multicultural submission of those who claim to be our leaders.
As to Islamaphobia, which term Phillips apparently popularised? How to counter that charge? Simple, be honest; attack as abusive anyone who uses the term. Treat the accusation with the contempt it deserves, point out the truth to them, to wit:
In a free society I have the right to analyse, criticise, satirise, mock, lampoon and ridicule any belief and opinion to any extent I see fit, without let or hindrance. ‘Islamophobia’ is a fatuous and intellectually junk term whose combined purposes are to smear the target, deceive listeners and protect Islam from this critical analysis, placing it above all other belief systems in this society – a position to which it has no entitlement.
The sole legitimate role the state has in the matter is to ensure both my freedom to do this, and my security following.
Don’t bother explaining how a dislike of Islam isn’t a phobia, an irrational fear. Just go straight in, and point out, by virtue of their using the term, the reality of their demonstrating contempt for and seeking to breach your human rights – I find progressives often just can’t cope with that, it makes them go all defensive. If people cannot defeat your position through rational argument, they have no argument to put.
Speaking of lampooning:
"Three days ago, there was a gesture of war, of destruction, in a city of Europe by people who don’t want to live in peace," he said.
"Behind that gesture there were arms manufacturers, arms traffickers, who want blood, not peace, who want war, not brotherhood," he said.
In a reference to the Brussels attackers, Francis condemned "those poor creatures who buy weapons in order to destroy brotherhood," comparing them to Judas Iscariot, the apostle who the Bible says betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of silver.
I’m sorry, Popey old babes, but these particular adherents to the Religion of Peace, to which you make reference here, made their own bombs, in their own domestic premises. So, unless you can make a serious case for lumping agricultural chemicals manufacturers in with the artillery manufacturers, and can demonstrate how purveyors of nitrogenous fertilisers have the same motivations as the lowest forms of arms traders, you are speaking a load of horse shit.
If you want to maintain respect for your office in this world, you are going to have to seriously lift your game.
Really, how did this bloke get the job? He really is just another lefty, spouting the usual boilerplate bromides and platitudes.
I don’t know if you have noticed, but on this occasion not a single one of our World Leaders has leaped to a microphone to assure us that “Islam is a religion of peace”.
I guess they are starting to understand that we are aware of the extent to which this piece of bilge is an insult to our intelligences.
What do you want to call it?
Apologies for the Allo Alloisms, but this has got to be the worst case of whistling Dixie in many a year.
First Frau Merkel invites the whole of North Africa an the Middle East over to her place for schnitzel, frankfurters and endless free stuff, then when things don’t turn out quite the way they were supposed to, like Cologne, they suddenly have second thoughts. Doh!
Scratching progressive heads over blatant ingratitude is firmly shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Listen up… Islam never has, and never will, integrate with any other society. Its sole purpose is to turn the whole world into Islam, either through conquest or demography, thinking that Islamic immigrants are suddenly going to have the scales fall from their eyes and get with the progressive programme is sheer fuckin lunacy.
The secret to successful negotiation is for both sides to come away satisfied, feeling that they got what they wanted.
Take the Iran nuclear deal, Obama and Kerry wanted a deal, any deal, and the Iranians wanted to carry on developing nuclear weapons with minimum interference. If the Iranians could get away with making the American government look like sycophantic lickspittles, well, so much the better.
See, each side did get what they wanted. We have satisfaction all round and a thoroughly successful negotiation.
In this fight to retain our freedom, which is the root of the Garland flap, Shari’ah Law and Islamicisation of the West are the adversary. But the principles for which we fight are just as much if not more at risk in the project to Fundamentally Transform the Whole World into some Marxist-Leninist-Progressivist nightmare, and the means by which we fight Islamicisation are to be applied also in this other, all-encompassing fight.
As for the present instance: If we held such events as “Draw Mohammed” every month (but responsibly, as the Garland event was held); if we met every attempt at intimidation by being unimpressed, for instance if our own papers had published the Danish cartoons; such actions would show our enemies that we mean what we say, we will stick by it, we will stand by our principles and defend them in word and deed. If the enemy then wants to impose his will on us by force, by terrorism and war, he will have at least some evidence that we will not run from the fight, fearfully and virtuously clucking our disapproval of it.
With luck he might conjecture that while we would prefer not to meet force with force, we certainly will do so if it is necessary in order for us to live our lives as free men and women and not as serfs or slaves who are at the disposal of other human beings and who are allowed to exist only at their pleasure; and that if we are forced to war in self-defense, we have more than enough strength of will to prevail.
In the ’30′s, Britain and France telegraphed their reluctance to face the facts and to defend themselves against force with force. The guy with the moustache picked up the message and calculated that he could get away with it…and almost did.
How many times must we repeat the same mistake!
The following points have been made by the Prosecution against Pamela Geller (hereinafter, “P.G.”). Each point is followed by rebuttal from the Defense.
1. P.G. held the event specifically to provoke Muslims.
She did not. The underlying point of the event was to EXERCISE freedom of speech in a way that would show that Americans are serious about protecting it. I point out that this is true regardless of whether that freedom is under attack by Islam, the PC crowd, or anybody else … and there are lots of “anybody else’s,” as I hope the various video clips have shown.
But in particular, we in the West are being undermined by capitulating to various strictures of Shari’ah, in this case that one must not even draw the Prophet, let alone criticize, let alone mock him. P.G.’s direct and immediate point in the event was to show that we are determined NOT to “submit” to that stricture.
There is a second point to the event that is equally important, and that is to bring the situation of “creeping Shari’ah,” in this case Shari’ah against Freedom of Speech, into broad public awareness, so that “we” will become not just a few hundred thousand or a few million resisters, but the bulk of the American people: hundreds of millions of resisters.
2. The event predictably invited and incited violence against AFDI, the attendees, and the American public generally. P.G. should, must, have known this, and therefore should not have put others at risk by holding it.
P.G. was well aware that there might be a violent response. That is why she provided additional security forces to the tune of some $37,000 – $ 50,000, according to different published claims.
But in fact no Muslims were forced to respond violently. They chose to do so of their own free will. Miss Geller responds, “This is the same argument as the one claiming that the rape victim is responsible for her being raped because she wore a short skirt.”
(This argument has actually been made often enough against those who claim to have been raped, but the fact is that is both illegal and morally wrong to rape anybody for any reason, even if the victim did intentionally wear a short skirt in a dangerous neighbourhood. We rightly hold the rapist accountable just the same.)
3a. P.G. has the right, specifically the legal, First-Amendment right, to hold the event and say what she wants, but she should not have done it [this may be express or only implied, by the question "…but should she have?"].
This amounts to devaluing all previous statements of defense. It’s like “damning by faint praise.”
(Look for a posting about this line of thought at some point, because there is a good impulse behind it as well as the cowardly refusal to give a fully-committed defense in public.)
3b. Besides, this type of speech, this type of event, “even if it’s allowed, it shouldn’t be done, because it has no value, this type of discussion at this type of event.” Megyn Kelly asks Eugene Volokh to comment on this claim, at 7:09 in their video in Part 5.
Prof. Volokh replies [boldface mine]:
“Well, surely this kind of discussion does have value, it has value in debate about Islam and about the role of Islam and about the action of some Muslims, fortunately only a small portion of Muslims to these kinds of things.
But beyond that, it has value as a re-affirmation of our free-speech rights, it has value as an act of defiance, it has value as people saying “look, we are not going to be shut up. When you tell us that we cannot draw pictures of Mohammed, when you tell us that we cannot say these things or else you’ll kill us, that just means we’re gonna [sic] do it again and again to show that you can not threaten Americans into submission. …. The whole point of this was to say, “You cannot tell Americans, you cannot tell a free people what [they] can and cannot say.” And that’s a very important message to say, especially in times like these.”
I have heard people saying … it’s too provocative. Well, look, there are times when First Amendment rights have to be defended. And they have to be defended by saying [we're] going to say these things even though we realize there’s a risk of violence, even though we realize there’s a risk of attack. The only way we can protect our free-speech rights is by re-asserting our free-speech rights.
By “re-asserting,” Prof. Volokh means showing the existence of the right by using it.
I note that it is up to the Courts through their rulings, and up to us as American (and Western) individuals through our words and actions, to confirm publically the existence of the right and our insistence on not being intimidated into being silenced, on this or any other issue.
4. The event shows that P.G. is “racist,” an Islamophobe, and hates all Muslims.
Horsefeathers. It shows that Miss Geller is aware of the threat from jihadists of both the violent sort and the lawfare/public-condemnation-public-opinion sort, and is fully committed to resisting both.
5. Cartoons at the event clearly are obscene and mock the Prophet.
I haven’t seen any of the cartoons from the contest except Bosch Fawstin’s winning one, which is certainly not obscene in any way. It does call attention to the fact that Mohammed lacks the power to enforce obedience to his command, and I suppose that might be a form of “mockery” in that shows him as “full of sound and fury,” but powerless.
A few, a very few, on Fox and elsewhere have seen fit to defend Pamela Geller’s “Draw Mohammed” contest and the Garland, Tex. Free Speech convention in a fully-committed way, that gets to the heart of the issue and the real meaning of the event and the of the terrorist response; as well as to the MSM’s capitulation to Shari’ah’s objective of silencing opposition, as shown by their finger-wagging and jaw-flapping character assassinations. Among them are Sean Hannity and Megyn Kelly in the clips below. Each is in two parts, and each is enlightening.
Hannity, Pamela Geller: with Brendan Darby of Breitbart, who was on the scene, shortly after the shooting. (The uploader says 11 a.m. Eastern, 5/4/15, but there’s no statement that that’s when the recording was made.)
Hannity, Pamela Geller: “Mainstream Media Rewarding Jihad Terror,” with clips from various MSM nasties pontificating:
Megyn Kelly, with Eugene Volokh, who points out the practical value of the event as a part of our defense of free speech:
Megyn Kelly follows up with Alan Dershowitz and Rich Lowry, who concur with the bottom line. She makes the core point in her opening:
UPDATE: I think it would be good to let Miss Kelly and Robert Spencer, of Jihad Watch, Stop Islamisation [sic] of America, and AFDI, make another very important point.
Some of the milder MSM videos in which Pamela Geller takes heavy fire from the “I believe in free speech, but…” crowd.
There are probably more here than anybody has the stomach for, and these are not the really nasty ones! But although the bottom line is the same in all, each differs somewhat in points made or in facts presented or both, so I think I will give you three from Fox, one from CNN, and one from ABC. To close, Senator Rand Paul weighs in, and finally leftist lawyer Alan Dershowitz.
“Judge Jeanine” Pirro, Fox:
In opening her show on May 9, “Judge Jeanine” defended free speech strongly, even including Miss Geller’s right to hold her Free Speech event. But she ended her remarks by saying ‘that she thought Geller’s event, which was attacked by two gunmen last weekend, was probably a “dumb move,” which is pretty much all the critics of it are saying,’ as the video’s uploader observed.
Martha MacCallum, Fox:
O’Reilly, Donald Trump (!), Laura Ingraham, Fox:
Greta van Susteren, Fox: Never mind, you get the idea.
Alisyn Camerata, CNN:
Jake Tapper, ABC:
. . .
Senator Rand Paul.
With Glenn Beck, The Glenn Beck Program:
With Megyn Kelly, Fox. Most of this is about the Iraq War and the Patriot act. Segment on “Draw Mohammed” begins about 6:46.
Raymond Arroyo, Alan Dershowitz, “Free Speech Limits,” EWTN: