Geert Wilders’ great plan to save the west


by Sunny
6th May, 2009 at 9:08 am    

I recently wrote about the Dutch MP Geert Wilders being slammed by the right-wing lobby group Anti-Defamation League, but forgot to put his comments in context. The Dutch MP made an acceptance speech for the Freedom Award he was given by the Florida Security Council in Miami. And Geert Wilders certainly believes in ‘freedom’, because he advocates a ten point plan to Save Western Civilisation:

1. Stop cultural relativism. We need an article in our constitutions that lays down that we have a Jewish-Christian and humanism culture.
2. Stop pretending that Islam is a religion. Islam is a totalitarian ideology. In other words, the right to religious freedom should not apply to Islam.
3. Stop mass immigration by people from Muslim countries. We have to end Al-Hijra.
4. Encourage voluntary repatriation.
5. Expel criminal foreigners and criminals with dual nationality, after denationalization, and send them back to their Arab countries. Likewise, expel all those who incite to a ‘violent jihad’.
6. We need an European First Amendment to strengthen free speech.
7. Have every member of a non-Western minority sign a legally binding contract of assimilation.
8. We need a binding pledge of allegiance in all Western countries.
9. Stop the building of new mosques. As long as no churches or synagogues are allowed to be build in countries like Saudi-Arabia we will not allow one more new mosque in our western countries. Close all mosques where incitement to violence is taking place. Close all Islamic schools, for they are fascist institutions and young children should not be educated an ideology of hate and violence.
10. Get rid of the current weak leaders. We have the privilege of living in a democracy. Let’s use that privilege and exchange cowards for heroes. We need more Churchills and less Chamberlains.

via BenSix. The BNP could certainly learn from Geert Wilders because I think they only got as far as ‘voluntary repatriation’, closing Islamic schools and ending all immigration.

In the UK, among Wilders’ biggest fans is Douglas Murray of the Centre for Social Cohesion (supposedly), who has written various articles in slavish support, for the Spectator and The Times. Most recently, when Wilders was banned from coming into the UK, Murray loudly defended him on ConservativeHome by saying, “Wilders attacks Islam, not Muslims.” — which is now of course shown to be rubbish. Yet Murray will no doubt keep defending Wilders.

Ben has more on the nutjobs who attended the conference alongside Wilders. What nice company Wilders and Douglas Murray keep.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Islamists,Race politics,Religion






184 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. pickles

    New blog post: Geert Wilders’ great plan to save the west http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/4470


  2. Internet Marketing Email » Blog Archive » Pickled Politics » Geert Wilders' great plan to save the west

    [...] Sunny added an interesting post today on Pickled Politics » Geert Wilders' great plan to save the westHere’s a small readingStop the building of new mosques. As long as no churches or synagogues are allowed to be build in countries like Saudi-Arabia we will not allow one more new mosque in our western countries. Close all mosques where incitement to violence … [...]


  3. Wilders’ plan to save the West « Amused Cynicism

    [...] like Muslims — has a ten point plan to “save the West” from militant Islam. Here it is (with my comments): 1. Stop cultural relativism. We need an article in our constitutions that lays [...]


  4. Naadir Jeewa

    Geert Wilders’ great plan to save the west: I recently wrote about the Dutch MP Geert Wilders being slammed by t.. http://tinyurl.com/ccy3y2


  5. This Week’s Wilders Round-up « Defend Geert Wilders

    [...] Pickled Politics – Geert Wilders’ great plan to save the west [...]


  6. The CSC’s BNP report is a farce | Free Political Forum

    [...] directed by BNP members sounds suspiciously like what the Dutch politician Geert Wilders would say ‘to save the west’? Oh look – the BNP website has written approvingly about Geert Wilders repeatedly! Douglas [...]


  7. pickles

    @ByrneTofferings you may want to learn more about Geert Wilders before defending him http://bit.ly/oFpcO


  8. Luke Bozier

    RT @pickledpolitics @ByrneTofferings you may want to learn more about Geert Wilders before defending him http://bit.ly/oFpcO


  9. I thought The Grand Turd Lord Pearson of UKIP believed in freedom of speech? « Mohammed Abbasi

    [...] liberal eh? Geert Wilders also came up with a 10-point plan to save the west, which included measures like: encouraging voluntary repatriation; have every member of a [...]


  10. arizona dennizen

    @ME_Leclerc1776 how does this play on bases? http://is.gd/bjDgV


  11. Dominion Pundit

    @gilcarvr http://is.gd/bjDgV


  12. arizona dennizen

    way past time for that @dominionpundit http://is.gd/bjDgV


  13. Dominion Pundit

    @thomasowen http://is.gd/ciF15


  14. Dominion Pundit

    @unambig Islam cannot be stopped with nukes. But we can start at home. http://is.gd/bjDgV


  15. sunny hundal

    @edwestonline no, but he's awfully for the kind fo discrimination you claim to be against http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/4470


  16. :::

    Geert Wilders: Acquitted, but still an arsehole. "I disagree with what you say, but will defend it etc" http://t.co/eNtekla
    #geertwilders


  17. Krapuulklets

    Geert Wilders 10 stappen plan om het Westen te redden:
    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/4470

    Dus geen op… http://bit.ly/qEFeOW


  18. Jacqueline Wouters

    @HGroen Geert Wilders 10 stappen plan om het Westen te redden:
    http://t.co/yGPbe7d


  19. hans groen

    @HGroen Geert Wilders 10 stappen plan om het Westen te redden:
    http://t.co/yGPbe7d




  1. Ravi Naik — on 6th May, 2009 at 9:46 am  

    Even though I tolerate Geert Wilder’s right to speak his mind, I am less tolerant when people are full of contradictions.

    They want to strengthen freedom of speech, yet they want to ban religious freedom? The claim they are for democracy, yet they want to enforce their view of “Jewish-Christian and humanism” on to citizens, and want to get rid of “weak” leaders?

    That’s “democracy” with the stink of fascism.

  2. Bert Rustle — on 6th May, 2009 at 10:09 am  

    Discussing an article by Rober Spencer at Frontpage magazine, Lawrence Auster agrees and disagrees with Gert Wilders http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/013140.html

    … Islam is indeed both a religion and a totalitarian political ideology, but the fact that Islam is a religion is practically of no importance to us non-Muslims. … Islam is indeed a political ideology aimed at subduing us under its power. Therefore, while Wilders’s statement that Islam is only an political ideology and not a religion is not objectively correct (since Islam is a religion), Wilders’s statement is practically correct.

    … Spencer says that jihadist activity could be successfully suppressed … by enforcing existing federal laws against sedition … This would leave untouched the main thrust of Islam, consisting of the non-violent spread of sharia through demographic, cultural, and political infiltration. If .. sedition only means seeking to overthrow the U.S. government by force, then enforcing laws against sedition will not stop the Islam danger. Therefore the only recourse will be to suppress Islam itself. And to suppress Islam itself, there must be, at the minimum, a federal statute or constitutional amendment declaring that Islam is not a religion …

    Which, ironically, brings us back to Wilders’s view that Islam is not a religion at all, but only a political ideology. So maybe there’s even more to his position than I thought. …

  3. alez — on 6th May, 2009 at 10:17 am  

    Sunny, if you read what Murray writes about Wilders in the articles you link to, you will see that at no point does he say that he agrees with his hardline views on Muslims and Islam. But of course asking you to read long articles in full may be a bit of wishful thinking on my part.

    The difference between wilders and real hate preachers is simple: yes his views on Islam are too hard core and very right wing, but he has never incited hatred or murder against Muslim communities anywhere in the world.

    You seem to have a real obsession with Mr. Murray at the moment – 2 articles in a week where you use roundabout methods to force the stream of your mediocre articles to somehow seek him out.

  4. Jai — on 6th May, 2009 at 10:46 am  

    Bert Rustle,

    Before we go any further, there is a matter which requires some clarification on your part.

    Ravi Naik recently posted a comment directed at you on another thread here on PP, specifically in relation to the fact that the BNP’s website includes an individual named “Bert Rustle” in the organisation’s publically-displayed list of members. You did not reply to Ravi’s query.

    Could you please confirm if the BNP member concerned is indeed you, or if this is actually a horrible coincidence ?

  5. Ravi Naik — on 6th May, 2009 at 11:08 am  

    Therefore, while Wilders’s statement that Islam is only an political ideology and not a religion is not objectively correct (since Islam is a religion), Wilders’s statement is practically correct.

    This is not a half-full, half-empty scenario. When Geert says he wants to ban Islam on the basis that it is *not* a religion, then he is basically and unequivocally incorrect.

    Furthermore, Geert would like to impose his views on society and change our secular system, how is that any better from where we are? These crusaders for “freedom of speech” are the latest reincarnation of extreme-right wingers. They just found a loophole, though anyone with two brain cells can understand what is going on.

    If you really believe that society benefits with freedom of speech that you simply do not ban religions, or fear the presence of Islamists. Our laws can handle “jihadists” and their minions, and we don’t need pompous arse politicians to save the West with a powerpoint slide.

  6. Ravi Naik — on 6th May, 2009 at 11:18 am  

    Could you please confirm if the BNP member concerned is indeed you, or if this is actually a horrible coincidence ?

    Jai, I would be very impressed with the BNP if they are attracting the likes of Bert. He is certainly a joy to debate, as opposed to the “I don’t hate you and don’t take it personally, but you should go back to India” kind of crowd.

  7. fugstar — on 6th May, 2009 at 11:20 am  

    might be an idea to see how the dutch political (and dare i say … intellectual and cultural) field is countering Wilders.

  8. Sunny — on 6th May, 2009 at 11:31 am  

    Alez – why would anyone write such fawning articles about a racist and fascist? Does Murray make a habit of doing that? Would he be doing that for others as well, I wonder?

    Nice try t trying to deflect attention though. I suppose just because Geert Wilders hasn’t yet advocated putting people who don’t sign up to his allegiance pledge into concentration camps – we should embrace him.

  9. douglas clark — on 6th May, 2009 at 11:31 am  

    Well Bert,

    Are you who they say you are, or not?

    A reply would be good.

  10. Katy Newton — on 6th May, 2009 at 11:55 am  

    That ten point plan scares the bejeebers out of me, frankly. It’s like a blueprint for another Holocaust. (Some of us think Holocausts are bad whoever they happen to, you know?)

  11. BenSix — on 6th May, 2009 at 11:58 am  

    Thanks for the links, Sunny.

  12. alez — on 6th May, 2009 at 12:07 pm  

    That’s right Sunny, I clearly said that we should embrace Wilders – you really are good at attributing to people things they have not actually said.

  13. Anonymous — on 6th May, 2009 at 12:15 pm  

    Sunny, if you read what Murray writes about Wilders in the articles you link to, you will see that at no point does he say that he agrees with his hardline views on Muslims and Islam.

    The Times piece from February 2006 that Sunny links to is a report from the Pim Fortuyn Memorial Conference on Europe and Islam, at which Murray himself was a speaker.

    Modestly, Murray refrains from quoting his own speech to the conference, in which he stated:

    “The collision of forceful Islam with European spinelessness and dhimmitude is fatal for our free societies…. Why is it that time and again the liberal West is crumpling before the violence, intimidation and thuggery of Islam? …

    “It is late in the day, but Europe still has time to turn around the demographic time-bomb which will soon see a number of our largest cities fall to Muslim majorities. It has to. All immigration into Europe from Muslim countries must stop…. Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board: Europe must look like a less attractive proposition.”

    And this differs from Wilders’ “hardline views on Muslims and Islam” in what way?

  14. David T — on 6th May, 2009 at 12:42 pm  

    The Home Secretary was clearly right to exclude this man from Britain. His position is indistinguishable from that of the European far right.

    He also, as you say, clearly makes no distinction between Islamism (a political ideology), Islam (a religion which manifests itself, like any religion, in a variety of forms) and Muslims.

  15. Bert Rustle — on 6th May, 2009 at 1:13 pm  

    Jai 5 wrote … Ravi Naik recently posted a comment directed at you on another thread here on PP …

    Please provide the link.

    Jai 5 wrote … You did not reply to Ravi’s query. …

    Are you certain of this?

    douglas clark 10 wrote … Are you who they say you are, or not? …

    Who did I say I was, or was not? Where did I say this?

    As far as I am aware, my arguments are self-supporting. I would welcome a link to any argument I have made which appears otherwise.

  16. saeed — on 6th May, 2009 at 1:14 pm  

    He is also frontpagemags. Person of the year…remember Nick cohen writes for this crazed conservative website…

    The bollocks that comes out of the US right on Muslims and Eurabia is threatening to undermine decent people like you David T…you have to confront these people head on…

  17. Jai — on 6th May, 2009 at 1:31 pm  

    Bert Rustle,

    Please provide the link.

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/4366#comment-160081

    Full text of Ravi’s comment:

    “Is it true that you are a BNP member, Bert? I would love to hear from in what other ways the BNP is being smeared.”

    The words “BNP member” in Ravi’s comment constitute a URL link going to http://bnp.org.uk/members/bertrustle/ .

    Are you certain of this?

    Yes.

  18. bananabrain — on 6th May, 2009 at 1:41 pm  

    gosh, what a chilling programme. it is fascistic in the extreme. what katy said at #11.

    We need an article in our constitutions that lays down that we have a Jewish-Christian and humanism culture.

    EH? what on earth is “jewish” about any of this? this is such lazy thinking, such lazy language. people who use words like “judeo-christian” are invariably ignorant of the fact that a) judaism is not actually european b) judaism is not, as they seem to believe, a sort of “christianity without jesus and christmas trees” c) judaism as an integrated system for living has far more in common with islam than it does with christianity.

    2. Stop pretending that Islam is a religion. Islam is a totalitarian ideology. In other words, the right to religious freedom should not apply to Islam.

    by that logic, this totalitarian ten-point plan should also be banned.

    7. Have every member of a non-Western minority sign a legally binding contract of assimilation.

    well, that’s me out. and, i suspect, almost everyone else who is a member of a religious minority.

    9. Stop the building of new mosques. As long as no churches or synagogues are allowed to be build in countries like Saudi-Arabia we will not allow one more new mosque in our western countries.

    this would actually be quite satisfying, except for the small matter that we’re actually supposed to be better than these people, not playing tit-for-tat with them.

    10. Get rid of the current weak leaders.

    yes, that’s what we need, a strong leader who can tell us all what to do and smack the pesky muslims around. they used to have a chap just like that in germany, i wonder what he’s up to these days?

    If you really believe that society benefits with freedom of speech that you simply do not ban religions, or fear the presence of Islamists.

    precisely.

    Our laws can handle “jihadists” and their minions, and we don’t need pompous arse politicians to save the West with a powerpoint slide.

    that point doesn’t actually follow from the last one, ravi – and it’s far less convincing, unfortunately.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  19. douglas clark — on 6th May, 2009 at 1:47 pm  

    Bert,

    Yes or no?

  20. David T — on 6th May, 2009 at 2:17 pm  

    “you have to confront these people head on…”

    I regard them as objectionable in pretty much the same way and for the same reasons as I object to Islamists.

    Frankly, I don’t think that you should make alliances with these people.

  21. douglas clark — on 6th May, 2009 at 2:40 pm  

    David T,

    saeed is clearly not making alliances with those people. Perhaps if you were to come out and say that you weren’t then that would be within your competence. Although your comment columns might be a tad diminished.

    And I too, think you are a decent chap, although the word decent has been dragged through the mud recently, don’t you think?

  22. Cabalamat — on 6th May, 2009 at 2:45 pm  

    @15 David T: The Home Secretary was clearly right to exclude this man from Britain. His position is indistinguishable from that of the European far right.

    His position is clearly different from that of the BNP, who want to deport all non-white and mixed race people from the UK.

    (As an aside, I suspect there are those in the BNP who would like to rebrand it as anti-Muslim as opposed to anti-darkies; they’d probably be more electorally successful if they did.)

  23. Bartholomew — on 6th May, 2009 at 2:45 pm  

    So, loyalty oaths for everyone; special loyalty “contracts” for minorities; minority citizens to be told we’d rather they left the country…that’s a step beyond even his usual anti-Muslim ramblings, surely?

    (PS David T – what’s up with the website?)

  24. Shamit — on 6th May, 2009 at 3:06 pm  

    This is chilling.

    Bert — I find your argument silly.

    It is a religion — and the world’s largest Muslim country is a democracy with a very strong civil society and before that it was a military junta led country. Either way it was not then or now an Islamic Country like say Saudi.

    And the world’s second largest Muslim country is now trying to do its best to get rid of the Taliban.

    You wrote:

    “This would leave untouched the main thrust of Islam, consisting of the non-violent spread of sharia through demographic, cultural, and political infiltration.”

    I could replace Islam with the Catholic Church, the Evangelical Christian Community, the Hindu nutcases — so why pick on Islam only. or is it just the flavour of the day for BNP and us racial foreigners or whatever those racist losers and pariah’s call us nowadays.

    You are not very clever are you now?

    *************************************

  25. Shamit — on 6th May, 2009 at 3:07 pm  

    By the way the country with the third largest Muslim population is a secular democracy and happens to be the World’s largest democracy.

  26. Bert Rustle — on 6th May, 2009 at 3:07 pm  

    Jai 18 I thank you for the link.

    I provided the link to the CIF thread upon which the comment by Ravi Naik 29 at http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/4366#comment-160081 is based. Within that same CIF thread I gave a response http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/24/bnp-black-asian-britons?commentid=7a5c9c39-084e-41bf-b88d-28d85bde67a3 to some of the assertions therein.

    To be explicit, whether I am National Socialist, International Socialist, Zionist, or a lobotomised Benedictine Monk has absolutely no bearing on the validity of my arguments or the veracity of my references. I would welcome a link to any argument I have made which appears otherwise.

  27. douglas clark — on 6th May, 2009 at 3:15 pm  

    For goodness sake Bert, are you or aren’t you? It’s a simple enough question.

    Your idea of explicit and mine are not the same.

  28. David T — on 6th May, 2009 at 3:24 pm  

    saeed is clearly not making alliances with those people.

    I am not suggesting that he is!! I’m just saying that people shouldn’t

    Perhaps if you were to come out and say that you weren’t then that would be within your competence.

    That is what I’m saying.

    Although your comment columns might be a tad diminished.

    As my comment boxes consist of people arguing against each other about various things, I’m hardly “in alliance” with all of them. If you read the discussions in the comment boxes, you can see who I agree with and who I argue with.

    His position is clearly different from that of the BNP, who want to deport all non-white and mixed race people from the UK.

    Wilders is an essentialist. For example, he’d regard my Muslim neighbours, colleagues and friends as a threat merely because of their religion, irrespective of what they actually believe, or do.

    For Wilders and the BNP, identity is everything.

    David T – what’s up with the website

    This:

    http://weblog.mediatemple.net/weblog/category/system-incidents/754-gs-grid-service-cluster02-web-availability/

  29. Bert Rustle — on 6th May, 2009 at 3:34 pm  

    douglas clark 29 wrote … Your idea of explicit and mine are not the same. …

    Address the message, not the messenger. That is as simple as I can make it.

  30. alez — on 6th May, 2009 at 3:52 pm  

    David,

    I completely disagree that Smith was right to ban Wilders. Although I disagree with pretty much everything Wilders says – one should be able to be as critical as he likes about a religion without fear of punishmnent. As far as I know, nothing he has said or done transgresses any British laws, but do correct me if I am wrong.

  31. qidniz — on 6th May, 2009 at 3:59 pm  

    Address the message, not the messenger. That is as simple as I can make it.

    You are on the wrong site for that. Your message is irrelevant. All that matters is your politics. If your politics are acceptable here, your message may be treated as information. Otherwise it will be dismissed as propaganda.

    This is sometimes called “debating a priori”.

    HTH.

  32. Martin — on 6th May, 2009 at 4:12 pm  

    There’s little controversial here if you happen to believe that Western civilization is worth protecting from Islamic savagery.

    Martin

  33. douglas clark — on 6th May, 2009 at 4:14 pm  

    qidniz,

    I like sharing our hosts web space with people like you and Bert.

    The fact that Bert won’t answer a simple question says more about him than it does about me, I think. It isn’t going to make any difference to how I view his comments, but he is singularily lacking in the transparency that you, of all people, expect of others.

    Just saying.

  34. Cabalamat — on 6th May, 2009 at 4:14 pm  

    I’ve written about this more extensively on my blog, but one point I’d like to make here is it’s abit silly for Wilders to be against Islam but for Christianity and Judaism, since all three religions are cut from the same cloth.

  35. alez — on 6th May, 2009 at 4:19 pm  

    Cabalamat,

    That is exactly right, Islam is but a forgery based on past forgeries in Christianity and Judaism. Though I am not sure how relevant that is here, we should be allowed to support and criticise all religions as much as we damn well please.

  36. BenSix — on 6th May, 2009 at 4:32 pm  

    There’s little controversial here if you happen to believe that Western civilization is worth protecting from Islamic savagery.

    Who could fail to be swayed by such an argument? Coulteresque in nuance, Hannitian in logic and Wildean (or should that be Wildersian?) in sagacity.

  37. Martin — on 6th May, 2009 at 4:56 pm  

    Let’s hear of one state with a muslim majority that lives in peace with its own non muslim citizens & does not discriminate against them.

    Let’s hear of one muslim state that lives at peace with its neighbours.

    Let’s hear of one muslim state where women have identical rights to men

    Tell us about them BenSix.

    I speak as a liberal.

    Martin

  38. Katy Newton — on 6th May, 2009 at 5:02 pm  

    Look. Religion is what you make of it, like everything else. The problem is nasty aggressive people, who do things nastily and aggressively. If you are an inclusive, cheerful, delightful sort of person, you’ll be an inclusive, cheerful, delightful sort of religious person. If you’re an atheist, you’ll be an inclusive, cheerful, delightful sort of atheist. If you’re aggressive and unpleasant, you’ll be an unpleasant and aggressive sort of religious person or atheist.

    That’s why stupid ten-point recipes for hatred and genocide don’t begin to solve the real problem. The real problem is not Islam or Judaism or Christianity or Zoroastrianism or Indonesian chicken worship – it’s horrible aggressive people like, well, Geert Wilders, for a start.

  39. alez — on 6th May, 2009 at 5:09 pm  

    Katy,

    I disagree, as we see time and again, religion actually makes otherwise decent people do the most unspeakable things, it is a poison. With Islam we have boys who blow themselves up and kill everyone around them who were previously known as good, family men. With Christianity we have the Lord’s Army in Uganda, which kidnaps children and makes them machete their family members to death to prove that they are ready to do god’s work. As their leader always says: ‘God is with us’.

  40. Jai — on 6th May, 2009 at 5:14 pm  

    Bert Rustle,

    I provided the link to the CIF thread upon which the comment by Ravi Naik 29 at http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/4366#comment-160081 is based. Within that same CIF thread I gave a response http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/24/bnp-black-asian-britons?commentid=7a5c9c39-084e-41bf-b88d-28d85bde67a3 to some of the assertions therein.

    I’m well aware of that. You are also presumably aware that I provided several further counter-responses on the PP thread concerned.

    Address the message, not the messenger. That is as simple as I can make it.

    The issue is not quite as “simple” as that, because one’s motivations for attempting to promote a certain message can call into question the validity of the message itself, particularly when it impacts certain third-parties and most of all when the third-parties concerned are part of the intended audience.

    This would especially apply in cases where the organisation has a certain prejudiced and hostile agenda in relation to various third-parties, whether we’re talking about — for example — the RSS, the Taliban, Al-Muhajiroun, the KKK, or any other similar outfit. Including the BNP.

    So, again, to clarify the situation: Bert, are you a member of the British National Party ?

  41. alez — on 6th May, 2009 at 5:15 pm  

    Also, for what other reason other than the pious and religious would humans be chopping off pieces of their children’s reproductive organs with blunt cutting instruments? (FGM etc)

  42. Ravi Naik — on 6th May, 2009 at 5:24 pm  

    Let’s hear of one state with a muslim majority that lives in peace with its own non muslim citizens & does not discriminate against them.

    Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey?

    Let’s hear of one muslim state where women have identical rights to men

    Not sure about equal rights, but Jordan and Turkey are pretty liberal when it comes to women’s rights. Mind you that while the West is definitely ahead in women’s rights, the previous generation had to deal with a lot of glass ceilings, including minorities. It takes time.

    Let’s hear of one muslim state that lives at peace with its neighbours.

    Indonesia? Malaysia? Morocco? Of course, these moslem warmongers should be more like the European… these peaceful people who never had wars against each other, no “world” wars… no, nothing of the sort. Peaceful.

  43. damon — on 6th May, 2009 at 5:27 pm  

    I’m a bit torn here, between the thing about banning people or not.
    I read quite a bit of that Spiked-online website, and today they said this:

    ”The war on tension-stirrers is really a displacement activity. Rather than addressing serious political problems at home, such as officialdom’s failure to socialise or integrate certain minorities, the government prefers to point its finger at cranky foreigners, accusing them of wanting to warp ‘our youth’. Uncertain of its own values and outlook, and its ability to convince the public of the New Labour way of life, the government desperately tries to outlaw anyone from overseas who pushes the boundaries of legitimate political discussion. ”
    http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6637/

    I often tend to agree with them, but on the other hand, Ireland, with a much more recent Islamic population than Britain and other European conntries has seen it’s major mosque and Islamic center in Dublin coming into the orbit of Yusuf al-Qaradawi’s European Council for Fatwa and Research.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Council_for_Fatwa_and_Research

    A government might (might it not reasonably?) regard people like that setting up in a country with a fledgling muslim population (and more disprate than Britain’s as there is more of an ”asylum seeker from Libya or Algeria” base to Ireland’s muslim population, than Britain’s economic and family ties based Pakistani and Bangladeshi population.)
    Or that’s how it has seemed to me from an anecdotal point of view, (visiting both of the big Dublin mosques for friday prayers a few years ago, and chatting with people afterwards in the cafeteria).

    That Qaradawi has his institute based in Dublin, is surely a legitimate concern for the Irish authorities, who having embarked down the immigration road quite late in the day compared to many of their EU co-members, might reasonably have thought through some of ‘the mistakes’ that Britain and other countries made 20 and 30 years ago.

    And by ‘mistakes’ I’m not talking about limiting immigration, but more about issues to do with integration and pluralism.

  44. BenSix — on 6th May, 2009 at 5:38 pm  

    “Let’s hear of one state with a muslim majority that lives in peace with its own non muslim citizens & does not discriminate against them.”

    Er, Malaysia’s fairly free and peaceful. Not perfect, certainly, but I’d be on the first plane there if Wilders took charge here. Also Jordan, to a great extent Lebanon; probably others…

    “Let’s hear of one muslim state that lives at peace with its neighbours.”

    Malaysia, Mauritania, Bangledesh…I could go on, but I’m not sure what your point is. Assuming that you have a point.

    “Let’s hear of one muslim state where women have identical rights to men…”

    Well, I’d guess that none have identical rights, but, then, I’m not supporting religion, I’m supporting people. Some Muslims I like, others I don’t, but above all I think that defaming them, persecuting them and encouraging them to leave is bigoted, authoritarian and, in essence, shit. Imagine a curly, bleach blonde head butting into you forever.

  45. Bert Rustle — on 6th May, 2009 at 5:45 pm  

    douglas clark 35 wrote … The fact that Bert won’t answer a simple question says more about him than it does about me …

    I have answered you as best I can and so I ask you to reconsider my replies.

    Jai 42 wrote … one’s motivations for attempting to promote a certain message can call into question the validity of the message itself, …

    I would ask you to address my argument, not your perception of my motivation. What possible relevance is your perception of my motivation to the quality of the argument I present? Reportedly Isaac Newton was a mystic, does that invalidate the arguments he presented?

    To be explicit:

    a) 1+1=2

    b) 1+1=0

    The validity of these two statements does not depend on who wrote them.

  46. Imran Khan — on 6th May, 2009 at 6:01 pm  

    Its nonsense to blame religion for people’s extremes as those same people will use whatever excuse for the power and status they crave.

    The same “libertarians” who say Islam is a threat then want their ideology imposed on Muslims so they are just another extreme.

    It is also complete and utter crap to say that these right wingers and neo cons haven’t killed people. The wars they started using outright lies and deception have led to more people dying than killed by Muslims or religion.

    If Wilders wants a complete break from Muslims thats his perogative but then let him live up to his mightly claim and ensure that in all his travels cheap Muslim resources are not used and his car and jet use more expensive western oil!!

    That Holland doesn’t trade with the Muslim world and only select Judeo-Christian countries and lets see how well Holland does.

    This is all about men wanting to impose their will on people be they Bin Laden or Wilders and in between they have lost sight of the fact that the ideology they say is better is in fact far more tolerant and just than what they say it advocates. Its that simple.

    This is little boys saying they want to impose the rules of the game.

  47. Jai — on 6th May, 2009 at 6:04 pm  

    Shamit,

    Very good points in #25 and #26, mate.

    Just to add to your remarks: Firstly, several of the major world religions in their formal organised forms have associated political ideologies/systems which may or may not be implemented to various degrees, in the modern day and at various points in history. Islam is certainly not unique in this matter. For an example close to home, let’s not forget that the Christian Church in its numerous varieties played a massive (often formal) role in political governance in Europe until relatively recently in the history of this part of the world.

    Secondly, the suggestion that Islam is “only a political ideology, not a religion” and involves the “spread of sharia through non-violent infiltration” is ridiculous on both counts — because it betrays a considerable level of ignorance of the religion itself and its history in various countries. As we both know, Islam isn’t a monolithic entity, and historically there have been a number of high-profile interpretations of the religion in South Asia in particular which took a very different view to what is being suggested here, including the presumed dictates of Sharia (the more hardline versions of which were often ignored or disregarded altogether) — irrespective of what the clergy/ulemma and/or “scholars” may have thought. Again, none of this is unique to Islam either, particularly the very last point in my previous sentence.

    I’ve mentioned these individuals and groups previously, but again it would be a very good idea for people to educate themselves by doing a little research on South Asian Sufism (especially the Chisti order), Bulleh Shah, Baba Farid, Nizamuddin Auliya, Amir Khusro, Lal Shahbaz Qalandar, and (to a lesser extent, but still significant culturally) more recently Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, since all of these have had a significant impact on the interpretation of Islam by “the masses” in the subcontinent during the past 1000 years.

    It is imperative for interested parties to understand that Islam isn’t just about the claims & actions of the Wahhabis, the Salafis, and other groups whose ideologies originate in the Middle East. Neither is it just about the theological ideas of the Taliban and similar extremist groups in the region, in both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

    And I’m saying all this as a person who isn’t a Muslim himself and whose ancestors sometimes suffered immense trauma at the hands of individuals claiming to be acting in the name of Islam.

  48. Jai — on 6th May, 2009 at 6:15 pm  

    Bert Rustle,

    What possible relevance is your perception of my motivation to the quality of the argument I present?

    Your motivations can undermine the quality of the argument you attempt to present, from the perspective of your audience.

    The validity of these two statements does not depend on who wrote them.

    It certainly does if the individual’s existing stance, prejudices and assumptions influence the quality and rationality of his thinking, especially if this occurs to the extent that he is claiming that “1 + 1 = 0″ and his motivations are not based purely or even predominantly on objectivity, intellectual honesty or goodwill towards his audience, particularly if the audience includes individuals directly impacted by the assertion he is attempting to promote.

    So, for the third time, Bert: Are you a member of the British National Party ?

    If the answer is “No”, then this little detour may well be an amusing (albeit time-wasting) intellectual exercise in logic for you but it would be more constructive to clarify your affiliation and, hopefully, your non-membership of the BNP.

    However, if the answer is “Yes”, then have the guts, the integrity, and the courage of your convictions to admit it.

  49. Ravi Naik — on 6th May, 2009 at 6:20 pm  

    a) 1+1=2
    b) 1+1=0

    The validity of these two statements does not depend on who wrote them.

    That’s only because “1+1=2″ is a tautology. Under no interpretation can this be false. Pretty much like the statement “Napoleon’s white horse is white”.

    As you can imagine, these type of statements are quite boring to discuss. Which is why the messenger’s credibility and background are, when tackling issues that are more controversial. Like race, immigration and multiculturism.

    Which leads me to the BNP. This party has learnt to use codewords to be more mainstream, so when they talk about immigrants – they are not talking about Danish or French, but dark-skinned people, no matter how assimilated or British they are. So, when the BNP talks about immigrants, Muslims or multiculturalism, I know they are talking about them darkies living among white folk.

    So yeah, it makes a different who the messenger is.

  50. Ravi Naik — on 6th May, 2009 at 6:27 pm  

    Which is why the messenger’s credibility and background are

    … very important when tackling… (missed a few words)

  51. qidniz — on 6th May, 2009 at 6:44 pm  

    b) 1+1=0

    There are 10 kinds of people: those who understand two’s complement and those who don’t.

  52. damon — on 6th May, 2009 at 6:47 pm  

    Points number 4 and 7 have me thinking of the yellow stars that had to be visable on clothing in Nazi occupied Europe 75 years ago.

    Geert Wilders could get some ‘ammunition’ from a Christian couple from Kerela that used to live in my house.
    She (the woman) had first contracted to go from India to Riyadh (Saudia Arabia) as an overseas nurse.
    She told me of her and the people she travelled on the plane having a horrible time on arrival at the airport, and having their Christian belongings (bibles and rosary beads) confiscated and dumped in a bin on arrival.
    And being a lone woman, confined to a ‘unacompanied women’s lounge’ after going through customs, and being handed a burka and told to just sit and wait (for ages) and denied access to a phone, when their employer and sponsor was waiting for them in the arrivals area.
    When they went to ask if they could just use the phone and tell the people waiting outside for them what was going on, they were told to keep quiet and sit back down.
    I’m sure Geert Wilders and Douglas Murray would love to hear tales like that

    Honest. I was told this story two years ago by the woman who used to live in the same house as me.

    How true all this is I have no idea. But when her husband got a visa to join her in the UK (months later) – after (him) working at the airport in Riyadh (at a baggage handler level) – he too, (when prompted) – had all these tales to tell about life as an Indian non muslim in Saudia Arabia.

    About how it was in the shopping malls when the call to prayer was broadcast – and you and your wife were not muslim. I think I remember them saying that police would walk through the shopping mall and shoo all the non muslims away from public view.
    Push them into the access areas and parts of the mall that weren’t so visabble.
    But I’m saying this from memory from two years ago.

  53. BenSix — on 6th May, 2009 at 6:59 pm  

    “There are 10 kinds of people: those who understand two’s complement and those who don’t.”

    Tsh. I reject ALL sweeping statements.

  54. Bert Rustle — on 6th May, 2009 at 8:12 pm  

    Jai 50 wrote … Your motivations can undermine the quality of the argument you attempt to present, from the perspective of your audience. …

    Please give an example, preferably of one of my comments.

    Jai 50 wrote … It certainly does if the individual’s existing stance, prejudices and assumptions influence the quality and rationality of his thinking … his motivations are not based purely or even predominantly on objectivity, intellectual honesty or goodwill towards his audience, particularly if the audience includes individuals directly impacted by the assertion he is attempting to promote. …

    Please give an example of how a benevolent intent of the author alters the validity of:

    a) 1+1=2

    b) 1+1=0

    Please give an example of how a malevolent intent of the author alters the validity of:

    a) 1+1=2

    b) 1+1=0

    Jai 50 wrote … this little detour may well be an amusing (albeit time-wasting) intellectual exercise in logic …

    It is time wasting in that I unable to see how to simplify my argument so that it is self-evident, despite several attempts. I have endeavoured to be logical; however I would not be surprised to learn of errors in my arguments and I would welcome such errors being brought to my attention.

    I endeavour to have the guts, the integrity, and the courage of my convictions to adhere to logical arguments and to eschew others.

    I find it remarkable that Bert Rustle 3 has not been addressed directly.

    quidniz 53 wrote … There are 10 kinds of people: those who understand two’s complement and those who don’t. …

    Indeed. Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

  55. Ravi Naik — on 6th May, 2009 at 8:32 pm  

    There are 10 kinds of people: those who understand two’s complement and those who don’t.

    Hehehe… that’s brilliant, qidniz. I stand corrected, 1+1=0 is valid in at least one interpretation. :)

  56. Katy Newton — on 6th May, 2009 at 8:38 pm  

    This is getting a bit silly. Bert, just so you know, I’m assuming that your very peculiar, long-winded and convoluted responses which boil down to “why does it matter whether I am or not?” mean that you are or have been a member of the BNP but for some reason you don’t want to say so.

  57. Bert Rustle — on 6th May, 2009 at 9:04 pm  

    Katy Newton 58 wrote … This is getting a bit silly. … I agree.

    Katy Newton 58 wrote … your very peculiar …

    My responses are indeed atypical.

    Katy Newton 58 wrote … long-winded and convoluted responses …

    I would appreciate any abbreviations or simplifications to the arguments I have presented, with the caveat that everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

    Katy Newton 58 wrote … you are or have been a member of the BNP but for some reason you don’t want to say so. …

    The reason is that as far as I am aware my arguments are self-supporting.

    To be explicit, I do not endeavour to argue that because entity ABC states that DEF is true that “it follows”/”everybody knows”/”only a lunatic would deny” that GHI is a Revealed Truth. Rather that I endeavour to argue that logical deductions drawn from the statistical analysis of empirical data are superior to illogical deductions drawn from the emotive analysis of subjective data.

  58. Ravi Naik — on 6th May, 2009 at 9:22 pm  

    To be explicit, I do not endeavour to argue that because entity ABC states that DEF is true that “it follows”/”everybody knows”/”only a lunatic would deny” that GHI is a Revealed Truth. Rather that I endeavour to argue that logical deductions drawn from the statistical analysis of empirical data are superior to illogical deductions drawn from the emotive analysis of subjective data.

    Is that your idea of presenting an argument as simple as possible, but not simpler? :) What a pompous way of saying absolutely nothing.

  59. Shamit — on 6th May, 2009 at 9:26 pm  

    Jai – Thanks mate. As usual no response from Bert so I have decided to write him an open letter.

    ***********************
    Dear Bert

    Did you get a chance to read 25 and 27. I did respond directly with clear examples and I don’t need any links to prove my case on those.

    Do you have any response to those? Or being a racial foreigner I am not entitled to a response.

    Your argument is flawed and I have no sympathies for Islamists or the BNP style racism that you encounter in UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the lot.

    I actually despise their ruling classes and many of their citizens because the way they treat South Asians in general.

    And what pisses me off most about them is they have funded Osama bin laden after he lost everything when Sudan kicked him out. He had no money and the money came from those fuckers in Saudi primarily and other middle eastern states.

    Where your argument gets flawed is you take them and so does most of the uneducated world that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and that lot there are representative of Islam — when probably less than 20% of the Muslim population live there. So, why should we take them to be any more representative of Islam than BNP is of white people.

    And, just because BNP and Klu Klax Klan are bunch of knobheads and think they are superior to us the racial foreigners, if I follow your logic, then I must hate white people. Well I don’t because that would be stupid — I am sure you would agree.

    Should I hate Catholics just because the dumb church excommunicated a nine year old girl who had to have an abortion after being raped by her step father — of course not. But you would want me to isn’t it.

    What you accuse Islam of doing the Catholic Church because of its position in the world have been trying to do for many many centuries. So, I should hate Christianity — am I right?

    ************************************
    Qidniz,

    Disagreeing is something we do often here. And, I disagree with many regulars all the time..and if thats such a burden on your intellect — aren’t there other blogs to visit? Just asking

  60. Martin — on 6th May, 2009 at 10:17 pm  

    Ben Six

    I think what Mr Wilders is trying to say is that Islam has nothing to offer the Western World & should be shunned.

    Our only profitable dealings were with Muslim slave wholesalers,
    a practice some Muslims continue with. Personally, I’m rather glad we banned it 2 centuries ago. I’m told it still survives in Muslim lands,
    but that’s their problem.

    Incidentally, if the best you can offer is Lebanon & Turkey, you’re not into serious debate.

    Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country & at every level non Muslims are subject to discrimination.

    Incidentally, has anyone noticed that the only subject of Mr Wilders’ concern is Islam ? Most of us Europeans have been forced by the facts of life to dump racism – rightly.

    But when an extreme idealogy, way beyond Nazism, claims the advantages of colonists in the West, some Westerners get brassed off.

    Think of Wilders as a white Ghandi.

    Martin

  61. Cabalamat — on 6th May, 2009 at 10:35 pm  

    @41 Alez: religion actually makes otherwise decent people do the most unspeakable things, it is a poison

    You’re right. Good people do good things, and bad people do bad things, but it takes religion to get good people to do bad things.

    This is not to say that all religious believers are evil — most are not — but religion tends to make things worse, both for individuals and societies.

    Religion is also fundamentally wrong, because it states things that aren’t true, i.e. the existance of the supernatural.

  62. limpia — on 6th May, 2009 at 11:09 pm  

    the thought of outlawing Islam, whether or not it fits the definition of something else,is not fair, feasible or a good way to go. Very impractical and fascist. Yet , he says other things that are sensible. Why should criminals stay if they have dual nationality and incite jihad?Why should some immigration not be tinkered with, depending upon what the situation requires? Every country does that.Also, the number of religious institutions being built or existing in a certain area: should there be a blanket kneejerk acceptance of all buildings? Particularly, when u have seen extremists goading youths into jihad in similiar institutions? Get real ! Re Wilders- dont throw out the baby with the bathwater!

  63. BenSix — on 6th May, 2009 at 11:41 pm  

    Sorry, Martin, but this…

    “Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country & at every level non Muslims are subject to discrimination.”

    …this…

    “But when an extreme idealogy, way beyond Nazism…”

    …and this…

    “Incidentally, if the best you can offer is Lebanon & Turkey, you’re not into serious debate.”

    …are all examples of the bare assertion fallacy. Moreover, this…

    “I think what Mr Wilders is trying to say is that Islam has nothing to offer the Western World & should be shunned.”

    …is an example of the ignoratio elenchi fallacy. It’s possible that Islam has nothing to offer societies, but Muslims certainly do; as much as any other citizens, indeed, in innovation, labour, cultural insight etc. But, then, Wilders isn’t even arguing that Islam, or Muslims, are of no worth, he’s arguing that Muslims are dangerous and should be specified for persecution.

    I’m not sure what to make of this…

    “Incidentally, has anyone noticed that the only subject of Mr Wilders’ concern is Islam ?”

    Yes, he’s certainly single-minded. Then again, so’s Omar Bakri, what’s your point?

    This…

    “Our only profitable dealings were with Muslim slave wholesalers…”

    …is even more bewildering, and will come as news to anyone who’s bought, say, dried fruit from Iran, textiles from India or, most controversially, oil from the Middle East.

    Incidentally, this…

    “Think of Wilders as a white Ghandi.”

    …made me giggle helplessly. Will Wilders be hunger striking until a pledge of allegiance is introduced?

    Ben

  64. Bert Rustle — on 7th May, 2009 at 6:06 am  

    Shamit 61 wrote … As usual no response from Bert …

    Excepting:

    Bert Rustle 16
    Bert Rustle 27
    Bert Rustle 30
    Bert Rustle 47
    Bert Rustle 56
    Bert Rustle 59

    Shamit 61 wrote … Did you get a chance to read 25 … I missed it.

    Shamit 25 wrote … You wrote: …

    I wrote no such thing. Bert Rustle 3 commences with … Discussing an article by Rober Spencer at Frontpage magazine, Lawrence Auster agrees and disagrees with Gert Wilders … What follows is italicised. It is a quotation. I summarised the posting of Lawrence Auster and quoted it on this thread. I was of the opinion that the argument presented therein would be additive to this thread.

    Shamit 25 wrote … I could replace Islam with the Catholic Church …

    I seem to recollect Lawrence Auster arguing against this point. I may be wrong and I do not have a link. In my opinion an examination of the substitution you suggest would be illuminating.

    Ravi Naik 60 wrote … Is that your idea of presenting an argument as simple as possible, but not simpler? …

    Yes. It is the best that I can do, though it is clearly inadequate.

    Shamit 61 wrote … Did you get a chance to read 27 … I wrote it.

    Shamit 61 wrote … being a racial foreigner …

    I endeavour to address the argument presented by “Shamit nn” or indeed any other label. Whatever the author(s) of “Shamit nn” are or are not is irrelevant. In my opinion. Whatever other label(s) these author(s) may or may not be using is irrelevant. In my opinion.

    Shamit 61 wrote … I am not entitled to a response. …

    See above.

    Shamit 61 wrote … Your argument is flawed …

    Which argument? Please be precise.

    Shamit 61 wrote … why should we take them to be any more representative of Islam than BNP is of white people. …

    I am not aware of any reason to do so.

    Shamit 61 wrote … if I follow your logic …

    I would welcome that. In my opinion an examination of some of the other points you raise would be illuminating. Perhaps http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/ may have covered some of these.

  65. Ravi Naik — on 7th May, 2009 at 6:29 am  

    I seem to recollect Lawrence Auster arguing against this point. I may be wrong and I do not have a link. In my opinion an examination of the substitution you suggest would be illuminating.

    Bert, this “Vulcan” act of yours is a farce. You are not responding to people’s arguments even though you are replying to them, nor are you making any arguments of your own – you are just hiding behind authors like Lawrence Auster – whose books and writings are completely in tune with Geert Wilders.

    I have responded to #3 in #6. Your author discredits himself by one hand saying that Islam is a religion, and on the other saying that Geert is “practically” correct even though he wants to ban Islam on the grounds that is not a religion.

    While Shamit tends to write emotional open letters from time to time, I totally agree with him – there are strong parallels between the Catholic Church and Islam, and I would welcome any argument against that point. If the secular liberal democracies in the West are able to cope with the Church, they are sure able to put radical Islam in its place.

    People like Geert are either political opportunists, or do not really believe or understand diversity. Fascists are like that, they one feel secure when everyone around is like them.

  66. Bert Rustle — on 7th May, 2009 at 8:13 am  

    Ravi Naik 67 wrote … You are not responding to people’s arguments even though you are replying to them …

    I have done the best I can.

    Ravi Naik 67 wrote … nor are you making any arguments of your own …

    In my opinion Bert Rustle 3 added to this thread. Indeed it gave rise to a comparison between Islam and the Catholic Church which I had not seen before. In my opinion it would be illuminating to see this argument developed, unfortunately I do not have the time to do so.

    Ravi Naik 67 wrote … you are just hiding behind authors …
    I summarised an argument appearing elsewhere. In my opinion, it could as well be presented as a hypothetical question without attribution, however that would be plagiarism.

    More generally, I do cite academic research of which I have not personally verified all of the empirical data or statistical analysis. I do not see how this can be avoided.

  67. munir — on 7th May, 2009 at 8:57 am  

    Shamit
    “Where your argument gets flawed is you take them and so does most of the uneducated world that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and that lot there are representative of Islam — when probably less than 20% of the Muslim population live there.”

    Actually the population of Saudi and Kuwait combined is about 30 million which means they represnt about 2% of the worlds Muslim population, and about half of their population are expats.

  68. Jai — on 7th May, 2009 at 9:33 am  

    Bert Rustle,

    Jai 50 wrote … Your motivations can undermine the quality of the argument you attempt to present, from the perspective of your audience. …

    Please give an example, preferably of one of my comments.

    Jai 50 wrote … It certainly does if the individual’s existing stance, prejudices and assumptions influence the quality and rationality of his thinking … his motivations are not based purely or even predominantly on objectivity, intellectual honesty or goodwill towards his audience, particularly if the audience includes individuals directly impacted by the assertion he is attempting to promote. …

    Please give an example of how a benevolent intent of the author alters the validity of:

    a) 1+1=2

    b) 1+1=0

    Please give an example of how a malevolent intent of the author alters the validity of:

    a) 1+1=2

    b) 1+1=0

    I believe Ravi and Katy have provided effective responses in #51 and #58 respectively.

    Indeed. Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

    It’s unfortunate that you refused to apply the same logic to the simple question of confirming or denying your membership of the BNP.

    My responses are indeed atypical.

    On the contrary, they’re very typical indeed for racists who don’t have the guts to be open about their racism (particularly when they’re in the presence of people who will oppose them for it) and hide their bigotry behind pseudo-intellectual arguments & terminology while engaged in flawed reasoning and a highly selective reading of any facts they presume to support their assertions.

    The reason is that as far as I am aware my arguments are self-supporting.

    No, Bert, they’re self-rationalising, frequently based on circular logic and a very linear, narrow, biased sequence of assertions.

    I would appreciate any abbreviations or simplifications to the arguments I have presented, with the caveat that everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

    Multiple commenters, including myself, have repeatedly been doing exactly that, both on this thread and on several others where you have previously made certain assertions about racial matters. The fact that none of this appears to have psychologically registered with you shows exactly how lost you are in the haze of your distorted perceptions.

    However, on this occasion I’ll make it very simple indeed for you. Your membership of the BNP, a disgusting organisation run by the pathetic Nick Griffin and with an explicitly racist agenda against non-white people, invalidates the credibility of everything you say and do on this website in relation to any discussions about race and/or non-white people, throws into question your motivations regarding any statements you make on these issues and indeed your own agenda and motivations for participating on this website full-stop, raises the question of your real stance and attitude towards non-white people on this website and in the real world, and kills any trust and goodwill other commenters and the website’s wider non-white audience may have previously had in you.

    In a nutshell, deliberately supporting an organisation consisting of delusional, flat-earther racist rednecks (with the associated political agenda) means that you’ve discredited yourself. Simple enough for you, I hope. It’s not rocket science, and is a self-evident situation that should not have required an explanation for your benefit.

    It would have been better for you to have just admitted to supporting the BNP rather than disingenuously avoiding giving an answer and thereby continuing to dig an increasingly deep hole for yourself. Your membership of the BNP is unfortunate, although it does explain your pattern of behaviour during your participation on this website, and I’d had my suspicions for a while anyway. It’s disappointing to find these suspicions confirmed, to say the least.

    But it’s good that the truth is finally out.

  69. qidniz — on 7th May, 2009 at 9:40 am  

    Ravi,

    While Shamit tends to write emotional open letters from time to time, I totally agree with him – there are strong parallels between the Catholic Church and Islam, and I would welcome any argument against that point.

    Unfortunately, neither you nor Shamit seem to have read Auster’s blog entry, and Bert’s excerpt has misled you.

    In full, Auster wrote:

    Spencer says that jihadist activity could be successfully suppressed, not by outlawing Islam itself, but by enforcing existing federal laws against sedition. This sounds like a promising approach, and I’m not prepared to say that it is not a viable approach. However, the federal law Spencer quotes, Section 2385 (I’m not sure if that’s a section number the U.S. Code), is not helpful to us, because it only outlaws activity aimed at overthrowing the government by force. This would leave untouched the main thrust of Islam, consisting of the non-violent spread of sharia through demographic, cultural, and political infiltration. If, under existing U.S. law, sedition only means seeking to overthrow the U.S. government by force, then enforcing laws against sedition will not stop the Islam danger.

    The parallels, real or supposed, are better discussed in this specific context: that the sedition laws don’t cover subversion. In what way, for example, would you say that the main thrust of Catholic church could be subversive in the US? Or the “Hindu nutjobs”?

  70. Jai — on 7th May, 2009 at 9:45 am  

    Martin,

    re: #62

    I suggest you (re-)read my post #49 and undertake some research on the various matters I mentioned there.

    Also, in addition to BenSix’s excellent response #65, I recommend you do some background reading on the issue of bilateral British trade and diplomatic relations with the Indian subcontinent, particularly the huge region covered by the Mughal Empire and specifically the timeframe from the 15th century to the early 19th century. You appear to be arguing from a position of considerable historical and cultural ignorance.

  71. Shamit — on 7th May, 2009 at 9:52 am  

    Jai

    “The fact that none of this appears to have psychologically registered with you shows exactly how lost you are in the haze of your distorted perceptions.”

    Damn — that is good.

    You know that saying about clutching straws — it kind seems apt for Bert especially since he is fishing for credibility.

    But Jai you have to forgive him — He is a bit slow so you have to write a few times for him to understand. I pointed out in 25 and 26 as well as 61 and Ravi has reiterated in many places yet he wants to know where his argument is flawed.

    So lets see if this helps;
    Bert, your argument is flawed because as I have demonstrated its not only Islam but the nature of religion is to use soft power to try to convert. And what you accuse Islam to do — Christianity has done for many many years — look at South Asia.

    How did so many people convert to Islam and Christianity over the years? The soft power exemplifying equality etc etc..and in many cases they have been a force for good especially when it came to remove the stigma of caste etc, education etc.

  72. Shamit — on 7th May, 2009 at 9:59 am  

    “In what way, for example, would you say that the main thrust of Catholic church could be subversive in the US? Or the “Hindu nutjobs”?”

    Qidniz@71– in what way would you say that Islam as a religion is focused on being subversive in the US. There are islamist factions who hate anything that does not conform to their stupid ideology —

    And religious bigots everywhere especially in the Catholic and Evangelical churches in the US are committed to imposing their will on individual free will — something that is against the Constitution of the United States.

    The Constitution of the US demands clear separation between church and state — and the right wing evangelicals trying to otherwise is undermining the supreme law of the land — isn’t that subversion?

  73. Adnan — on 7th May, 2009 at 9:59 am  

    “This would leave untouched the main thrust of Islam, consisting of the non-violent spread of sharia through demographic, cultural, and political infiltration.”

    @71

    This assumption is the crux of Auster’s argument i.e. stop Islam from taking over the US by stealth by classifying it as something other than a religion so that it can be excluded from legal protection. So, the argument depends on that “fact” (in the case of qidniz) or an unsubstantiated belief against it (in the case of the wishy washy lefties on this blog).

    So how is Islam serously going to take over the US or any Western nation using a combination of these mechanisms. I think you and Bert will be surprised to find that Muslims, like most other citizens, act in their (individual) self-interest rather than as some sinister bloc.

  74. Jai — on 7th May, 2009 at 10:02 am  

    Shamit,

    Christianity has done for many many years — look at South Asia.

    Not just South Asia (hello, aggressive Christian evangelism from the Victorian era onwards ?) — look at large swathes of Africa and the indigenous populations of the entire American continent (North, Central and South America respectively).

    Adnan,

    So how is Islam serously going to take over the US or any Western nation using a combination of these mechanisms. I think you and Bert will be surprised to find that Muslims, like most other citizens, act in their (individual) self-interest rather than as some sinister bloc.

    Not only that, but the Muslim population (those whose ancestral roots lie overseas in the recent past, not just Muslim African-Americans) in the United States is far more assimilated and integrated than its counterparts in Europe. Claims about “infiltration” and “the threat due to conversion by stealth” are absolute nonsense in the context of the US.

  75. Shamit — on 7th May, 2009 at 10:04 am  

    Martin

    “Think of Wilders as a white Ghandi.”

    Are you being serious? Gandhi preached equality of all religions and he single handedly stopped many riots during the partition of the subcontinent — especially in Calcutta with his hungerstrikes.

    Wilders is the same — thats an insult to Gandhi’s legacy

  76. Ravi Naik — on 7th May, 2009 at 10:25 am  

    Unfortunately, neither you nor Shamit seem to have read Auster’s blog entry, and Bert’s excerpt has misled you.

    You are right, I did not read Auster’s blog entry but relied on Bert’s excerpt. Thanks for clarifying though, it makes Auster’s text less radical.

    The parallels, real or supposed, are better discussed in this specific context: that the sedition laws don’t cover subversion. In what way, for example, would you say that the main thrust of Catholic church could be subversive in the US? Or the “Hindu nutjobs”?

    I do not see it. This was my point when I talked about equivalence: I do not see why we need to change our laws or constitution to tackle Muslims, as if Islam was any different from other religions. What is your opinion on the subject?

    Anyway, the irony is that the US does have a problem with subversion activity. According to the recent DHS report – white supremacist groups are growing due to Obama’s victory, and dream of race war and overthrowing the US government. Why people like Geert, Bert, the BNP and Auster not focusing on that as well, if they are concerned in saving the West?

  77. Ravi Naik — on 7th May, 2009 at 10:55 am  

    Stop cultural relativism. We need an article in our constitutions that lays down that we have a Jewish-Christian and humanism culture.

    That’s Geert’s point #1, and it highlights one of the inherent flaws of nationalism: they arbitrarily stop the clock at some point of time, and claim: this is the absolute definition of our national identity. One needs to ask, why Britain or the West should always be defined by a Judeo-Christian identity, specially since it comes from the Middle-East (like Islam :) . Why not Paganism? Or whatever came before?

    Instead, our identity is defined by the present. Chicken Tikka, British Asians and Blacks are very much part of what Britain is today. It wasn’t a part 300 years ago, but will most likely continue to be a part in the next 500 years or more, before we are all extinct by nuclear Armageddon. :)

  78. Jai — on 7th May, 2009 at 11:11 am  

    One needs to ask, why Britain or the West should always be defined by a Judeo-Christian identity, specially since it comes from the Middle-East (like Islam :) . Why not Paganism? Or whatever came before?

    Something else which is darkly amusing is when white racists in this part of the world trumpet the “classical Graeco-Roman roots” of Western civilisation.

    Both the ancient Greeks and the Romans had extensive diplomatic relations with the Indian subcontinent (bilateral Indian trade with the Roman Empire was absolutely massive) and, particularly in the case of the Greeks, this included heavy cultural and philosophical exchanges.

    Neither the Romans nor the Greeks believed they possessed some kind of “inherent racial superiority” in relation to South Asians. Therefore, in that sense, our modern-day rednecks are more backward and uncivilised than Europe’s greatest superpowers were over 2000 years ago.

    So much for progress.

  79. qidniz — on 7th May, 2009 at 11:21 am  

    This was my point when I talked about equivalence: I do not see why we need to change our laws or constitution to tackle Muslims, as if Islam was any different from other religions. What is your opinion on the subject?

    My personal opinion is that laws should be uncompromisingly secular: that religion, in either doctrine or practice, cannot be the basis for any claim, right, entitlement, exception or exemption (i.e. that others, especially non-co-religionists, would be legally bound to concede).

    As for Islam being “different” in this (public or political) context, consider Matthew 22:21. It’s the basis for the Christian “concession” to democracy. But there is nothing even remotely like it in Shari’a, and modern apologists’ efforts excepted [*], the tradition on the whole has been more than a little dogmatically quite to the contrary: that laws are only for Allah to make (which, in the strict interpretation, would make democratic legislation an abomination.)

    Note that this is not an issue of whether Muslims can abide (kafir) democracy. Of course they can, and they do. The issue is one of the ulama (“official Islam”) justifying this through the classical texts. To the extent that they don’t (or can’t), the “thrust” to promulgate Shari’a hegemonistically will remain, and I don’t think I’d have to argue too hard that this would be subversive.

    [*] Sachedina’s The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism is a remarkable effort in this class. He devotes an entire book to dodging questions such as “Is Shari’a compatible with democracy? With legislation from profane sources?” by nattering on and on instead about “pluralism”.

  80. Ravi Naik — on 7th May, 2009 at 12:01 pm  

    My personal opinion is that laws should be uncompromisingly secular: that religion, in either doctrine or practice, cannot be the basis for any claim, right, entitlement, exception or exemption (i.e. that others, especially non-co-religionists, would be legally bound to concede).

    We are in agreement on that. But let’s not pretend like the Vatican and other religious bodies do not exert pressure to change the law, like criminalising abortion, or banning gay marriage in states like California. Is that subverting, or an exercise in democracy?

    As for Islam being “different” in this (public or political) context, consider Matthew 22:21. It’s the basis for the Christian “concession” to democracy.

    I rather consider the Historic events over the last two millennia. And also to the fact that the Bible that we know today was translated and compiled by the Roman Catholic Church, who had a lot of power in Europe, and therefore such passages would be very convenient to control the faithful.

    The issue is one of the ulama (”official Islam”) justifying this through the classical texts.

    Not different than Christians using the Bible to change the Law, the constitution or censoring material, because they feel their religious beliefs are being infringed.

    My point is that we do not need special laws to tackle radical Muslims, since they are not different from radical Christians, radical Pagans and radical atheists. It’s in my view that fundamentalists are the problem – and Geert is certainly included there, and we should tackle them as a homogeneous group, not focus on Muslims and certainly not outlawing Islam.

  81. Refresh — on 7th May, 2009 at 12:18 pm  

    ‘Geert Wilders is the white Ghandi.’

    Now I’ve seen it all!

  82. Martin — on 7th May, 2009 at 1:07 pm  

    Trouble with the anti Wilders chaps is they don’t seem to have any pride in, or liking for Western culture.

    Just because you despise your family, it doesn’t mean all other members have to.

    Martin

    ps I seem to remember Ghandi’s followers were less than enamored with Muslims in 1948.
    Forget the exact number of deaths, but certainly it led to the creation of Pakistan, a state which characterizes all the fault lines in Islamic ideology.

  83. Refresh — on 7th May, 2009 at 1:17 pm  

    ‘ps I seem to remember Ghandi’s followers were less than enamored with Muslims in 1948.’

    I am sure Jai would be in a better position to respond to this. But as I understand it, there was already a fascist movement who were anti-Ghandi and directly responsible for stirring up trouble – and decades on they are still there and from time to time even in office. I believe it was their supporters that assasinated Ghandi.

    Wilders is much closer to this fascist movement than to Ghandi.

    ‘a state which characterizes all the fault lines in Islamic ideology.’

    No not at all. The fault lines are artificial. Pakistan should never ever have been the foot soldiers for the US attempts to destroy the Soviet Union.

    Pakistan’s efforts, both material and in lives could never be repaid. Ever.

    Pakistan needs to weave its own path, without fear or favour. Just as India has done.

    It can start with placing a very high value on the lives of its own citizens.

  84. Jai — on 7th May, 2009 at 1:50 pm  

    But as I understand it, there was already a fascist movement who were anti-Ghandi and directly responsible for stirring up trouble – and decades on they are still there and from time to time even in office. I believe it was their supporters that assasinated Ghandi. Wilders is much closer to this fascist movement than to Ghandi.

    Correct. “Gandhi’s followers”, as Martin put it, had nothing to do with the tensions between various religious communities in the subcontinent at the time, and they certainly didn’t support the formation of a separate nation called “Pakistan” ostensibly as a “homeland” for South Asian Muslims either. Neither did they support any communal mindsets involving hostility towards the region’s Muslim population.

    Incidentally, please note the correct spelling of the gentleman’s name.

    ps I seem to remember Ghandi’s followers were less than enamored with Muslims in 1948.
    Forget the exact number of deaths, but certainly it led to the creation of Pakistan,

    I don’t know what your sources are, Martin, but that’s a considerable distortion of the exact sequence of events which led to the creation of Pakistan and the reasons for its formation. You are also greatly oversimplifying matters.

    I’m not going to go into extensive further detail here as it will take the debate too far off-topic; suffice to say, Martin, it appears that you need to do some more background reading on the history of the subcontinent during the entire colonial period and the events surrounding Partition & Independence as well as the earlier history of the region’s pre-colonial medieval era.

  85. Jai — on 7th May, 2009 at 2:06 pm  

    ‘Geert Wilders is the white Ghandi.’

    No, Geert Wilders is veering dangerously close to adopting the mentality of a modern-day Dutch version of Hitler, only this time with Muslims being the targets rather than Jews.

    If you’re looking for the closest equivalent to Gandhi in the modern era, I suggest Dr Martin Luther King Jr, who was a self-professed great admirer of Gandhi, his ideals and his message.

    Or, even more recently, Nelson Mandela, especially during the earlier years of South Africa’s anti-apartheid struggle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela

    Quote: “Mahatma Gandhi influenced Mandela’s approach, and subsequently the methods of succeeding generations of South African anti-apartheid activists.[21][22] Mandela even took part in the 29 January – 30 January 2007 conference in New Delhi marking the 100th anniversary of Gandhi’s introduction of satyagraha in South Africa.[23]

    Initially committed to nonviolent resistance, Mandela and 150 others were arrested on 5 December 1956 and charged with treason.”

    Readers of Pickled Politics will hopefully be aware that neither of these two individuals have much in common with Geert Wilders, either in terms of their characters or their respective ideals.

  86. sonia — on 7th May, 2009 at 2:15 pm  

    its all the same sort of thing isn’t it always. the usual clash of civilisations thesis, and the proposition that ‘our’ civilisation is better than ‘theirs’ so we should override them. worked for all imperialists and colonizers in the past, why stop now i guess!

    Mr. Wilders shows he has much in common with Islamists/neo-Caliphate -ists. And yes it is quite amusing when someone can see what is wrong with organised religion and Islam but not the same for Christianity and Judaism – its all the same narrative and story and idea of tribe and God anyway – all he is highlighting is a bit of ‘infighting’. People’s front of judea and judean people’s front all over again.

    Mind you – i’m not quite sure why he was banned from coming here. was it because of Fitna?

  87. sonia — on 7th May, 2009 at 2:17 pm  

    anyway, what is religion – though, that is a good question. all religions are ideologies obviously. they’re a subset. there is always the possibility of an ideoology becomng totalitarian..

  88. sonia — on 7th May, 2009 at 2:22 pm  

    what ravi naik said in no. 79. absolutely -

    perhaps some neopaganists could turn up and call geert some kind of weird middle east/rome lover for sticking up for the judeo-christian import> and say that really he ought to be looking to the old norse gods or something.

    all very amusing, his little 10 point plan sounds just like what the Caliphs had in mind, so he’s got more in common with the Prophet M than he might think.

  89. sonia — on 7th May, 2009 at 2:22 pm  

    yes jai, i think the gandhi comparison isn’t really going to fool most people.

  90. qidniz — on 7th May, 2009 at 2:39 pm  

    But let’s not pretend like the Vatican and other religious bodies do not exert pressure to change the law, like criminalising abortion, or banning gay marriage in states like California. Is that subverting, or an exercise in democracy?

    “Pressure” would be subversion, but the problem is giving credence to the religious basis. The advocacy by itself would not be undemocratic.

    [...] therefore such passages would be very convenient to control the faithful.

    I didn’t follow this part. Are you saying Matthew 22:21 was a distortion or interpolation, or that it has been persistently and pervasively misrepresented to the laity?

    If you’re talking about two millenia, then during a good part of that time, the king was the state, and hardly ever was the church the king.

    Not different than Christians using the Bible to change the Law, the constitution or censoring material, because they feel their religious beliefs are being infringed.

    The difference is reconciling Shari’a to democracy — more accurately, to secular or profane legislation — is still to happen. Subversion — or again, more accurately, the imperative to subvert — still has grounding in proof texts.

    My point is that we do not need special laws to tackle radical Muslims, since they are not different from radical Christians, radical Pagans and radical atheists.

    Right conclusion, wrong reason. We don’t need special laws: we need the right ones. The ones that say, in effect: take your religion and shove it, if that’s all you have.

  91. BenSix — on 7th May, 2009 at 2:58 pm  

    “Trouble with the anti Wilders chaps is they don’t seem to have any pride in, or liking for Western culture.

    Just because you despise your family, it doesn’t mean all other members have to.”

    Are you suggesting that everyone in the “Western” world constitutes a family?

    Fuckin’ ‘ell, I’m never getting married, then. Never mind the incest; I’d have millions of in-laws.

    Ben

  92. Shamit — on 7th May, 2009 at 3:03 pm  

    “Trouble with the anti Wilders chaps is they don’t seem to have any pride in, or liking for Western culture.”

    May be they do…those like Wilders do not — have you thought about that.

    And also could you define what is Western culture exactly — I would like to know.

  93. Jai — on 7th May, 2009 at 3:21 pm  

    If you’re talking about two millenia, then during a good part of that time, the king was the state, and hardly ever was the church the king.

    No, but the Church was frequently the power behind the throne, especially in cases where the king actually drew the legitimacy of his rule over his subjects from the support and teachings of the Church (re: “divine right” etc).

    As Ravi, Shamit and also myself said earlier, Islam isn’t unique in having a similar concept, at least in its traditional, “structured” formalised version(s). Most of the major world religions have had periods (sometimes extensive in length) involving some form of monarchic/autocratic rule supported by the highest echelons of the orthodox religious hierarchy concerned (involving the established clergy, “scholars” etc), whose ideas and injunctions would then be implemented on the rest of the population.

    For example, historically Hinduism in India had this as well, at least when the Brahmins/priestly class exercised real formal power in conjunction with the rulers they were associated with; Sikhism nearly fell into the same trap until Guru Gobind Singh abolished the nascent formal priesthood when he saw that they were starting to make the same ego-and-power-driven mistakes as their predecessors in various other organised religions (the Akal Takht have recently attempted to pull the same stunts without having any legitimate authority to do so, of course); and we all know about the Church as Christianity became a formalised religion, especially the history of Catholicism.

    The problem frequently isn’t the religion itself – regardless of which religion is involved. The problem is people “at the top” for whom religion becomes a self-serving exercise in social/political power, especially when it involves clerics & scholars who attempt to turn spirituality into some kind of science and have a very bureaucratic, literalist, legalistic attitude to the matter. And most of all when they’re working in conjunction with (or at least encouraging) individuals/groups who have the will and the capacity to put their ideas into practice and enforce them on a supine, unwilling or just plain ignorant population.

    It’s the story of South Asia for thousands of years and, apparently, also the story of large areas of the rest of the world, including both the Middle East and the West.

    To quote this famous saying attributed to the Roman philosopher Seneca: “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.”

    You can include many contemporary and historical religious clerics and scholars under the category of ‘rulers’, in terms of their agendas and mindsets.

    (Incidentally, more wise words from Seneca here: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Seneca_the_Younger )

  94. munir — on 7th May, 2009 at 3:45 pm  

    Martin
    “Trouble with the anti Wilders chaps is they don’t seem to have any pride in, or liking for Western culture.”

    Bizarre – Wilders represents the absolute worst aspects of western culture.

  95. munir — on 7th May, 2009 at 3:47 pm  

    Ravi Naiks post #79 is brilliant

  96. munir — on 7th May, 2009 at 3:56 pm  

    Jai
    “No, but the Church was frequently the power behind the throne, especially in cases where the king actually drew the legitimacy of his rule over his subjects from the support and teachings of the Church (re: “divine right” etc).”

    True but opposition to opression or abuses by the state also came from a religious angle . This is also the case in Islamic history (and no doubt other religions) virtually the whole of Shia history is like that. Its even true amongst the mainstream Sunnis who were more accomodating to rulers- all 4 of the founders of the 4 Sunni schools of Islamic law stood against opression by the rulers and suffered persecution as a result.

  97. Martin — on 7th May, 2009 at 4:35 pm  

    Shamit,

    If you have to ask what Western Culture is, maybe you’re living in the wrong part of the world.

    If I lived in Pakistan, for instance, I’d make sure I knew about Sunni Islamic culture before contemplating immigration.

    Re Mandela, before his Damascine conversion (are we allowed to use Judeo/Christian terms?) he was quite violent, certainly mixed up with bombings.

    As for Wilders/Hitler. Playing with words. Hitler loved Islam it was his preferred religion for the “inferior races”, His pal the Chief Mufti was more of a Jew hater than Adolph – and that takes some doing.

    Martin

  98. Adnan — on 7th May, 2009 at 5:09 pm  

    Yeah, Hitler loved curries – it was his preferred cooking from the “inferior” races.

  99. Jai — on 7th May, 2009 at 5:23 pm  

    Martin,

    If I lived in Pakistan, for instance, I’d make sure I knew about Sunni Islamic culture before contemplating immigration.

    Firstly, Pakistan itself isn’t a culturally (or indeed religiously) homogenous country. Secondly, it would be more worth your while to make sure you knew about the history and interpretation of the local varieties of Sufism (not just “Sunni Islamic culture”, as you put it), particularly involving the historical figures Bulleh Shah in the Punjab province and Lal Shahbaz Qalandar in Sindh (depending on which region you were migrating to). And it would definitely be worth your while to learn about the late Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan and familiarise yourself with as much of his music as possible.

    Re Mandela, before his Damascine conversion (are we allowed to use Judeo/Christian terms?) he was quite violent, certainly mixed up with bombings.

    Irrelevant. A familarity with Mandela’s life story would make it clear exactly how, when and why he became such an ardent admirer of Gandhi. The latter, again, had zero in common with Wilders.

    As for Wilders/Hitler. Playing with words. Hitler loved Islam it was his preferred religion for the “inferior races”, His pal the Chief Mufti was more of a Jew hater than Adolph – and that takes some doing.

    Or, more accurately, he loved a particular interpretation of Islam. And the Chief Mufti was very, very far away from the Indian subcontinent.

    None of which detracts from the fact that Wilders’ attitude towards Muslims is heading in the same direction as Hitler’s attitude towards Jews.

  100. Ravi Naik — on 7th May, 2009 at 6:04 pm  

    “Pressure” would be subversion, but the problem is giving credence to the religious basis. The advocacy by itself would not be undemocratic.

    I believe Democracy must give leeway to such “pressure”. After all, the abolition of slavery, the civil rights movement and the feminist movement were indeed considered “subversion” to the system. Whether this struggle for equality came from religion or not should not matter.

    I didn’t follow this part. Are you saying Matthew 22:21 was a distortion or interpolation, or that it has been persistently and pervasively misrepresented to the laity? If you’re talking about two millenia, then during a good part of that time, the king was the state, and hardly ever was the church the king.

    The Bible as we know it today is a cherry-picked compilation, translation and interpretation by the Church. Let’s just say that the New Testament while provides an insight of the life of Christ, cannot be considered a historic document.

    The Church had an enormous power over Catholic Kings and their state affairs.

    Right conclusion, wrong reason. We don’t need special laws: we need the right ones. The ones that say, in effect: take your religion and shove it, if that’s all you have.

    I think liberal democracies have served us quite well in tackling adversary forces from the right and left, from religious to atheist, and I see no evidence that we need different laws, the right laws or special laws to tackle Islamists.

    If the last 8 years taught us anything, is that when we forego our principles – like the way we treat our prisoners of war, civil liberties to our citizens, and so on – we are the first to lose.

  101. Jai — on 7th May, 2009 at 6:07 pm  

    True but opposition to opression or abuses by the state also came from a religious angle . This is also the case in Islamic history (and no doubt other religions)

    Correct, and it’s particularly the case in Sikh history too.

    Ultimately it comes down to the level of corruption and collaboration (or apathy) amongst the influential sections of the formal religious clerical establishment in any given religion — ie. whether they have a hand in encouraging, condoning or excusing abuses of power by the ruler(s) [or anyone else claiming to act in the name of the religion concerned], or if they’re theoretically in a position to intervene but insufficiently exercise their authority to stop whatever abuse is occurring.

    In the meantime, there have been numerous “holy men” in major religions who walked their own path and weren’t necessarily subject to the ideas or the authority of the formal clergy, especially when the latter were involved in abuses of power; Islam in the subcontinent had various Sufi saints, faqirs, qalandars, jogis etc, Hinduism has (and still has) various sadhus, “bhagats” and so on. And of course, the origins of Christianity have a perfect example in Jesus himself, who was actually more like the leader/founder of a Sufi order (in the South Asian sense of the term) and often opposed, contradicted and criticised the local religious establishment; ironically, as Christianity became a full-scale organised religion in later centuries, sections of the priesthood were sometimes engaged in exactly the kind of mindset and behaviour that Jesus condemned, especially the upper echelons of Catholicism during Europe’s colonial and medieval periods.

    As for the clergy — again, in any given religion — it’s basically a matter of whether being in a position of power corrupted the corruptible. Some people are obviously going to be more susceptible to its wiles than others. Either way, there is certainly a case for stating that individuals who are purely interested in spiritual enlightenment and do not deliberately seek temporal/political power for selfish/egotistical reasons are often (certainly not always) more genuinely spiritually aware and basically nicer people than those whose motivations aren’t as sincere.

    The bottom line, again, is that Islam isn’t some kind of monolithic, homogenous, inherently hostile construct (especially most of the interpretations that developed in the subcontinent) any more than most of the other major world religions are, and it’s therefore misinformed, misguided, and just plain wrong for anyone to make blanket negative assertions along these lines about the religion itself or its various followers. Not to mention potentially extremely dangerous and destructive.

    ***********************************

    One more thing I wanted to add in response to the following:

    If you’re talking about two millenia, then during a good part of that time, the king was the state, and hardly ever was the church the king.

    One very notable example contradicting this statement is the monarchy in England during the past 500 years, thanks to Henry VIII. And remember that our very own Queen Elizabeth II is formally the Head of the Church of England.

  102. Jai — on 7th May, 2009 at 6:14 pm  

    Either way, there is certainly a case for stating that individuals who are purely interested in spiritual enlightenment and do not deliberately seek temporal/political power for selfish/egotistical reasons

    “….., particularly for selfish/egotistical reasons”, more accurately.

  103. Martin — on 7th May, 2009 at 6:53 pm  

    Jai

    Got 2 cds of Nusrat Fatah Ali Khan – a thrilling voice.
    I also appreciate that Sufism is a peaceful branch of Islam.

    If the problems of Islam & the West involved only Sufism, they’d be soluble. Though it’s taken centuries for Catholics & Prods to stop persecuting each other, & their elder brothers, the Jews.

    Geert Wilders is a predictable product of a massive influx of Muslims who fail to appreciate just whose part of the world Europe is.

    The US makes no special dispensations for Muslims & is seen as tough.
    But that has not spared it 9/11 & previous jihadist plots.

    Us Westerners are not really racist, or people would not be risking their
    lives to get here, mainly from Muslim states. Unless, of course, they’re all jihadists on a mission to destroy.

    Martin

  104. Bert Rustle — on 7th May, 2009 at 7:03 pm  

    qidniz 71 wrote … Auster’s blog entry, and Bert’s excerpt has misled you. In full, Auster wrote:…

    The portion of Auster’s post which I summarised comprised 471 words, which I reduced to 198 words. The excerpt you quote is 127 words and so it is clearly not what Auster wrote in full.

    In your opinion, did I omit so much that I misrepresented the argument?

    Jai 76 wrote … Bert will be surprised to find that Muslims, like most other citizens, act in their (individual) self-interest rather than as some sinister bloc. …

    I do not recollect ever stating this and I am not surprised about it either. Surprised?

  105. Shamit — on 7th May, 2009 at 7:07 pm  

    If you have to ask what Western Culture is, maybe you’re living in the wrong part of the world.

    Martin

    I was born, bred and educated here and in the US — so, I don’t know which part of the world would you want me to live in?

    And I am very happy with my British identity and I think my South Asian background gives me the best of both cultures ie socially. Probably makes me a better citizen too.

    In terms of socio-political culture, I don’t think there is much difference between the two cultures that have formed me.

    I am a progressive and John Rawls’ theory of “veil of ignorance” defines my policy ideas. Demarcation between religion and state and equality of all citizens irrespective of colour, creed, socio-economic status or religion – those are my convictions. Now, I am also not in favour of granting everyone citizenship or right of entry to the UK — but I wont define that policy based on religion or colour or creed.

    I posed the question to you because it seems that you and I may have some differences. I just wanted to explore those.

    ****************************

    Jai — excellent throughout but I especially like 101

  106. Der Bruno Stroszek — on 7th May, 2009 at 7:08 pm  

    I’d give it up if I was you Martin. You’ve really jettisoned your credibility with those blanket assertions about no majority Muslim state being peaceable and there being no trade of value between the West and Muslim nations (as somebdoy said, are you aware of this thing called oil?). You’re clearly arguing from a position of complete ignorance, you refuse to address the shredding of your arguments, and basically I’d scamper off home and read a book before you get spanked even harder.

  107. Bert Rustle — on 7th May, 2009 at 8:00 pm  

    Jai 70 In my opinion, all personal preferences are completely immaterial, rather it is the quality of the argument that counts. For example, either the Earth orbits the Sun or vice versa and the personal political/religious/culinary preferences of those who endeavour to determine which alternative is correct are irrelevant.

    Is it acceptable to demand to know the race or sex of someone? If so why, if not, why not? In what way is this different to demanding to know which political preferences one has?

  108. Martin — on 7th May, 2009 at 8:29 pm  

    Der Bruno Stroszek

    Nice one Der Bruno,

    Never realized that oil was invented by the Saudis.
    Funny then that these people can’t build a citroen 2CV from kit form & have to import people to do everything for them.

    If the British had not handed that ghastly patch of land over to the Saudi warlords who named the country after themselves, we’d have got all the oil we wanted for glass beads & a few white prostitutes,

    Read some better books chummy, not ones written by George Galloway & Co

    Better still, read John Rawls Theory of Justice & the tomes Shamit is into
    he seems a nice well balanced chap.. Bet he doesn’t want Sharia law in the UK.

    Martin

  109. qidniz — on 7th May, 2009 at 8:29 pm  

    Bert Rustle,

    The portion of Auster’s post which I summarised comprised 471 words, which I reduced to 198 words. The excerpt you quote is 127 words and so it is clearly not what Auster wrote in full.

    In your opinion, did I omit so much that I misrepresented the argument?

    You left out a critical sentence: that the existing laws pertain only to the use of force. Your excerpt ran:

    … by enforcing existing federal laws against sedition … This would leave untouched the main thrust of Islam, consisting of the non-violent spread of sharia through demographic, cultural, and political infiltration. If …

    whereas Auster wrote:

    … by enforcing existing federal laws against sedition. This sounds like a promising approach, and I’m not prepared to say that it is not a viable approach. However, the federal law Spencer quotes, Section 2385 (I’m not sure if that’s a section number the U.S. Code), is not helpful to us, because it only outlaws activity aimed at overthrowing the government by force. This would leave untouched the main thrust of Islam, consisting of the non-violent spread of sharia through demographic, cultural, and political infiltration. If …

    By leaving out why Auster thought the laws were not helpful, you cast his argument as that of a paranoiac, baselessly dismissing those laws. Specifically, the “this” in “This would leave…” became enforcement of the laws on sedition, rather than that the laws were restricted to the use of force. Do you see the difference now?

  110. qidniz — on 7th May, 2009 at 8:56 pm  

    If you’re talking about two millenia, then during a good part of that time, the king was the state, and hardly ever was the church the king.

    One very notable example contradicting this statement is the monarchy in England during the past 500 years, thanks to Henry VIII. And remember that our very own Queen Elizabeth II is formally the Head of the Church of England.

    That’s the king being the church. The King of England has never been, nor has ever had to be, an ordained priest.

  111. Trofim — on 7th May, 2009 at 9:58 pm  

    While on the subject, Christopher Caldwell was on Night Waves tonight:

    Christopher Caldwell

    “Is Muslim immigration supplanting or enhancing European culture? Christopher Caldwell, author of a new book Reflections on the Revolution in Europe, explains his idea that immigration was just a short-term solution to the post World War 2 economic problems, but that it has had long-term consequences which now need to be re-evaluated!.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00k4lxv

  112. Yakoub — on 8th May, 2009 at 7:49 am  

    Wilders is genuine gold-plated scum, but I don’t think they should have banned him from coming to the UK. Let’s see who his friends are and let’s hear him talk more fascist bollocks. He is his own #1 enemy by a light year. Censorship only provided him with an opportunity to play hero before the media.

  113. Jai — on 8th May, 2009 at 9:30 am  

    Shamit,

    Jai — excellent throughout but I especially like 101

    Thanks buddy, great points by you too. Keep it up.

    ***********************************

    Martin,

    Us Westerners are not really racist, or people would not be risking their lives to get here, mainly from Muslim states.

    I trust that, as far as you’re concerned, it goes without saying that South Asian Muslims who were born in the UK – or at least have grown up here (and who constitute the majority of the South Asian Muslim population under the age of 40) – are Westerners too.

    Got 2 cds of Nusrat Fatah Ali Khan – a thrilling voice.
    I also appreciate that Sufism is a peaceful branch of Islam.

    In that case, hopefully you should be particularly aware of the dangers of anyone making blanket statements about “Islam” and “Muslims”, especially since Sufism is not exactly a “minority sect” when it comes to Muslims originating from the Indian subcontinent. The behaviour and theological claims by some of the nastier elements in the global Muslim population (we both know who they are) are a whole world away from the example of the great Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan and the message he and his Sufi predecessors in the subcontinent promoted.

    By the way, on some other threads on PP I’ve occasionally posted Youtube links to some of his live performances so hopefully you’ve caught that. His nephew Rahat is also excellent.

    I sometimes think that it would do the Taliban, Al-Muhajiroun and similar troublemakers the world of good to lock themselves in a room with a box set of Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan’s finest work and play it on a continuous loop until the impact of the music started to sink in. On a more serious note, that’s obviously not going to work with the real psychopaths among them, but you get my point anyway.

  114. Jai — on 8th May, 2009 at 9:36 am  

    Qidniz,

    That’s the king being the church. The King of England has never been, nor has ever had to be, an ordained priest.

    Not literally, but to all intents and purposes, his role in the Church has been that of a “priest” at the very highest level, because Henry VIII (and his successors, including the current Queen) effectively replaced the Pope as the supreme spiritual/religious head of English Christians (as well as being their temporal monarch) and subsequently “Anglicans” across the world. These days this is mostly a ceremonial figurehead position, of course, but the basis is still the same; there is a reason why one of the Queen’s formal titles is “Defender of the Faith”.

    By the way, regarding your post #111:

    You left out a critical sentence:

    Bert Rustle repeatedly and consistently omits critical information when selectively quoting from sources in order to further his racist agenda. To say that this is a very dishonest form of behaviour and, simultaneously, that his skewed interpretation and exploitation of various scientific theories & findings and the conclusions he attempts to draw from them constitute very bad science indeed would be a huge understatement.

  115. blah — on 8th May, 2009 at 9:39 am  

    Trofim
    “While on the subject, Christopher Caldwell was on Night Waves tonight:”

    indulging in scare mongering about Muslims and
    stating that it was right for Ferdinand and Isabelle to expel all the Muslims from Spain. Justification of genocide on Radio 3- who’d have thought it!

  116. Jai — on 8th May, 2009 at 9:41 am  

    Bert Rustle,

    Jai 76 wrote … Bert will be surprised to find that Muslims, like most other citizens, act in their (individual) self-interest rather than as some sinister bloc. …

    I do not recollect ever stating this and I am not surprised about it either. Surprised?

    I am not surprised that, due to your ongoing cognitive dissonance, you appear to be unaware of the fact that it was actually Adnan who made that statement, not me. And it was in post #75, not 76.

    Jai 70 In my opinion, all personal preferences are completely immaterial, rather it is the quality of the argument that counts. For example, either the Earth orbits the Sun or vice versa and the personal political/religious/culinary preferences of those who endeavour to determine which alternative is correct are irrelevant.

    If an individual is a member of an organisation that has a political agenda to promote the “fact” that the Sun orbits the Earth, it is certainly pertinent to know that the individual is a member of that organisation, especially in the context of any discussions involving the orbital relationship between the Earth and the Sun.

    Following on from that…..

    Is it acceptable to demand to know the race or sex of someone? If so why, if not, why not? In what way is this different to demanding to know which political preferences one has?

    I’ve already explained the reasons previously and, again as mentioned earlier, so has Ravi (see #51), but since you appear to either be having problems intellectually processing this or you’re being deliberately disingenuous, here is the answer again, in the simplest possible terms :

    In any discussion focusing on racial matters, it is important to be aware of the fact that the other individual is a member of an organisation which has a hostile race-based agenda, especially when other participants in the discourse are targets of this agenda.

    If you still need to understand “why”, despite this being a matter of common sense and, as I said earlier, not exactly rocket science, then you’re either not quite as intelligent as you presume to be, or I’m afraid you’re possibly suffering from Aspergers or some kind of psychiatric disorder resulting in effective autism due to a severely diminished understanding of the dynamics involved in social interaction.

    Figure it out, Einstein ;)

  117. blah — on 8th May, 2009 at 9:46 am  

    Martin
    “Geert Wilders is a predictable product of a massive influx of Muslims who fail to appreciate just whose part of the world Europe is.”

    So what was Hitler the predictable product of ?

    “The US makes no special dispensations for Muslims & is seen as tough.”

    There are millions of Muslims in the US!!!

    “But that has not spared it 9/11 & previous jihadist plots.”

    So all Muslims get blamed for 9/11 – thats fair Marty boy!

    “Us Westerners are not really racist, or people would not be risking their lives to get here, mainly from Muslim states.”

    But that simply isnt the pattern of Muslim migration to Europe. The vast majority of Muslims didnt migrate risking their lives – they came as did Sikhs and Hindus for economic reasons.

    “Unless, of course, they’re all jihadists on a mission to destroy.”

    Get lost you insane BNP w*nker

  118. blah — on 8th May, 2009 at 9:54 am  

    Martin

    “As for Wilders/Hitler. Playing with words. Hitler loved Islam it was his preferred religion for the “inferior races”,

    It never ceases to amaze me how a Christian can extreminate millions of non Christians in a Europe devoid of Muslims (and bear in mind many Muslims in Europe helped the Jews-the Imam of Paris Mosque sheltered Jewish children from the Nazis) but in the mind of people like Martin its Muslims and Islam that are actually to blame.

    Actually Hitler declared Germanys war with Soviet Russia as equivalent to the Christian crusades against Islam.

  119. blah — on 8th May, 2009 at 10:19 am  

    This was the statement sent out by the Paris Mosque

    “Yesterday at dawn, the Jews of Paris were arrested. The old, the women, and the children. In exile like ourselves, workers like ourselves. They are our brothers. Their children are like our own children. The one who encounters one of his children must give that child shelter and protection for as long as misfortune – or sorrow – lasts. Oh, man of my country, your heart is generous.”

    The mosque was able to save 1700 Jews mainly Children
    by providing them with shelter, transit, and Muslim names.

    Why dont Islamophobes like Martin mention that the only Europea country to end the war with more Jews than it began with was Muslim Albania? Or that the first troops in to liberate Paris were Senegalese Muslims? Or that the King of Morrocs refused Christian Vichy orders to deport Morrocos Jews and instead came in public wearing a yellow star?

    Or the millions of Muslims from India, the Soviet Union and elsewhere who gave their lives fighting the Nazis. So people like Martin could spout hatred against Muslims

    This is a nice response to Irshad Manjis similiar accusations by a progressive Muslim Tarek Fateh

    “The reason for my rejection? To assuage the souls of the thousands of Muslims from countries and regions as diverse and Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, India, Pakistan, and yes even Palestine and other Middle Eastern nations.

    They laid down their lives in the Second World War in battles as significant as those of Stalingrad, which broken Hitler�s back, and North Africa, which sent Hitler�s Desert Fox, General Rommel, scurrying back to his den in Berlin.

    Despite the sacrifices of these men, Ms. Manji in her book refers to the �Muslim complicity in the Holocaust.� I froze as I read this serious accusation. Could I have missed something when I sat at the feet of Muslim veterans from Crete, Burma, Egypt, and Italy, and heard their horror stories? In one fragment of a sentence, �Muslim Complicity in the Holocaust,� Ms. Manji places all these warriors on the wrong side of the trenches.

    In writing her diatribe against Muslims, I doubt that Manji had heard of the Palestine Regiment, a unit in which Jew and Muslim fought side-by-side against Hitler�s Afrika Korps in Libya. In the cemeteries of El-Alamein lie the dead Muslims, the Mohammeds, the Alis and the Ismail�s who gave their lives so that Nazism could be defeated. The cemeteries of Stalingrad bear the names of the young Central Asian Muslims who lay buried, unable to refute the falsehoods being spread by fast-food historians. And what about the hundreds of thousands of Indian Muslims who fought shoulder to shoulder with our own Canadians in Italy and France.

    So how did Ms. Manji come up with a charge as far reaching as the one by the recent German parliamentarian who said that �Jews were complicit� in the Bolshevik revolution�s atrocities? She bases it on one Haj Amin, the Mufti of Jerusalem, who, as she writes, �wound up as Hitler�s special guest in Berlin, presiding over the unveiling of the Islamic Central Institute in December 1942.�

    According to Irshad Manji�s rationale, because one Muslim Mufti accepted the hospitality of Hitler, after being expelled from Palestine by the British colonial authorities, all us 1.2 billion Muslims, a quarter of humanity, deserve to be accused of complicity in the Holocaust.

    And what about other prominent Palestinians, such as Hazim Khalidi, a London School of Economics grad who volunteered to serve in the Indian army’s “Palestine Battalion� and later assigned to the �Palestine Regiment� that included Muslims, Jews, and Christians? Perhaps Irshad Manji may like to visit the cemetery in Mississauga where Sgt. Hannah Hazineh lies buried, unable to come to his defence. This decorated Palestinian veteran of the Second World War was wounded in the El-Alamein battle while fighting the Nazis. Ah! But why let facts get in the way of a good story.

    Haj Amin, no doubt, was an influential Muslim cleric in Jerusalem. But so were countless Catholic and Protestant clergy in Europe who supported Hitler, and many looked the other way while their Jewish neighbours were being dragged away. Should we talk of Christian complicity in the Holocaust? Should we, like the German Parliamentarian who talked of a Jewish complicity in the Bolshevik uprising, allow the actions of a few to rub off on an entire people?

    The Holocaust charge is not the only example of Manji�s poor scholarship when it comes to Muslim bashing. In an amazing swipe at her co-religionists, Manji writes, �Muslims of East Africa treated blacks like slaves.� The fact that the vast majority of Muslims in East Africa are themselves black is completely lost on her. She continues, �We Muslims made dignity difficult for people darker than us.� A Somali friend bewildered at her accusation asked, �Who is darker than me? Obviously, Irshad Manji does not consider black Muslims as Muslim enough,� he said, shaking his head in disbelief.

    http://www.muslimwakeup.com/main/archives/2003/11/thanks-but-no-t.php

  120. mysteryman — on 8th May, 2009 at 12:20 pm  

    BenSix — on 6th May, 2009 at 5:38 pm and Ravi Naik on 6th May, 2009 at 5:24 pm both mentioned a list of countries that in their non seeing eyes live at peace with their neighbours and don’t discriminate against non-Muslims or women etc.

    These countries included:

    Malaysia – Erm yeah, isn’t someone waging Jihad against southern Thailand? Several thousand people have been slaughtered by Muslim terrorists over the last few years. The Malaysian chief justice supports the death penalty for those who leave Islam but that’s not discriminatory at all is it? http://bsimmons.wordpress.com/2007/06/05/malaysia-chief-justice-a-muslim-can-renounce-his-faith-but-the-way-one-leaves-a-religion-is-set-by-the-religion-itself-in-this-case-sharia-law/

    Turkey – Erm genocide of the Armenians anyone? Hundreds of years of conquest against the Greeks? Cyprus? The Kurds? Ongoing attacks against Christians? http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2007/04/christians_thro.html

    Lebanon – Yeah at peace with their neighbours? Didn’t they have a war in 2006? Isn’t part of the country overrun by a “state within a state” created by the Islamic terrorist organisation Hizballah?

    Jordan – (Dis)Honour murders of women? Perpetrators let off with heavily reduced sentences (as little as a few months for homicide) http://www.stophonourkillings.com/?name=News&catid=7
    Jordan, where a majority (57%) now says suicide bombings and other violent actions are justifiable in defence of Islam. (taken from http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=248)

    I could go on but I’m getting bored. Try again please as thus far you have only proved Martin — on 6th May, 2009 at 4:56 pm to be correct.

  121. Adnan — on 8th May, 2009 at 1:34 pm  

    mysteryman @122. Please go on you’re very entertaining.

  122. Ravi Naik — on 8th May, 2009 at 1:34 pm  

    I could go on but I’m getting bored. Try again please as thus far you have only proved Martin — on 6th May, 2009 at 4:56 pm to be correct.

    Since you mention the Armenian genocide and “hundreds of conquests against the Greek”, one could very easily
    bring about the mass murders and genocides brought by European nations against other European nations, against minorities, against their people, against women, and against their colonies in other continents. And I am only counting the 20th century. So what’s your point? That Muslims are the only ones capable of warmongering and hate?

    My point is not to excuse the ultra-conservative authoritarian regimes of Saudi Arabia or the Taliban. But I certainly think that Martin is embarrassing ignorant to claim all Muslim regimes are the same – some are more progressive and liberal than others. Certainly Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and even Egypt cannot be compared with Saudi Arabia or the Taliban.

  123. Shamit — on 8th May, 2009 at 2:21 pm  

    Good one Ravi.

    The Holocaust, The Atom Bomb in Nagasaki – Hiroshima, the attrocities committed by the Japanese troops during second world war and before in China and Korea – apartheid in South Africa.

    Or what we the British have done in our ex colonies?

    So Mysteryman with the myopic vision — you still stand by your claim or you are gonna learn to open your eyes dude.

  124. Martin — on 8th May, 2009 at 4:52 pm  

    People who feel that Islamic values are inappropriate for the Western World do not hate Muslims.
    Certainly Westerners resent being colonized, apart from the student union revolutionaries of the SWP.

    I think you’ll find that Muslim states feel that Western values are inappropriate for their part of the world. That does not make them Western Haters.

    Westerners are forced to respect values that they do not share when visiting these countries.. Muslims, who are too numerous in Europe for everybody’s good, must respect our values & attitudes.

    It is people who criticize Islam from within Europe, OUR Europe, who are under 24 hour police guard. And they’re not threatened by the BNP.

    Martin (anti racist,anti fascist, unreformed liberal)

  125. Ravi Naik — on 8th May, 2009 at 4:57 pm  

    People who feel that Islamic values are inappropriate for the Western World do not hate Muslims.

    Name me three Islamic values that you feel are inappropriate for the Western World.

  126. blah — on 8th May, 2009 at 5:14 pm  

    Martin
    “Certainly Westerners resent being colonized, apart from the student union revolutionaries of the SWP.”

    co⋅lo⋅ni⋅al⋅ism   [kuh-loh-nee-uh-liz-uhm]
    1. the control or governing influence of a nation over a dependent country, territory, or people.
    2. the system or policy by which a nation maintains or advocates such control or influence.
    3. the state or condition of being colonial.
    4. an idea, custom, or practice peculiar to a colony.

    Care to explain how youve been colonised? Which Muslim laws you are living under? Or how youve had to change your lifestyle because of Muslims?

    “I think you’ll find that Muslim states feel that Western values are inappropriate for their part of the world. That does not make them Western Haters.”

    That has to do with adopting western laws – but you are not talking about western countries adopting Muslim laws (which I agree they shouldnt and wont)- you are talking about the very existence of Muslims in Europe.
    Its the equivalent of Muslim lands saying there should be no Christians or Westerners living there.

    “Martin (anti racist,anti fascist, unreformed liberal)”

    Supporter of Gert Wilders (AKA Gandhi) who even HP recognise as an enemy of liberalism
    http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/05/07/wilders-enemy-of-liberalism/

  127. blah — on 8th May, 2009 at 5:20 pm  

    mysteryman

    “Jordan, where a majority (57%) now says suicide bombings and other violent actions are justifiable in defence of Islam. (taken from http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=248)”

    A number dwarfed by the number of Americans who support such things – so presumably Americans are extreme fanatics in your eyes MM. And its not the Jordanians who are trying to take over the world and attacking nations 3000 miles away from them.

    “Those who think that Muslim countries and pro-terrorist attitudes go hand-in-hand might be shocked by new polling research: Americans are more approving of terrorist attacks against civilians than any major Muslim country except for Nigeria.

    The survey, conducted in December 2006 by the University of Maryland’s prestigious Program on International Public Attitudes, shows that only 46 percent of Americans think that “bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians” are “never justified,” while 24 percent believe these attacks are “often or sometimes justified.”

    Contrast those numbers with 2006 polling results from the world’s most-populous Muslim countries – Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nigeria. Terror Free Tomorrow, the organization I lead, found that 74 percent of respondents in Indonesia agreed that terrorist attacks are “never justified”; in Pakistan, that figure was 86 percent; in Bangladesh, 81 percent”

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html

  128. qidniz — on 8th May, 2009 at 9:18 pm  

    The survey, conducted in December 2006 by the University of Maryland’s prestigious Program on International Public Attitudes, [...snip!...]

    Wrong name (it’s Program on International Policy Attitudes) and wrong date (January 2007, though this could be a difference between conducting the survey and publishing the report). And that’s only for starters.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html

    The real scoop on this and related factoids.

  129. Ravi Naik — on 8th May, 2009 at 10:19 pm  

    The real scoop on this and related factoids.

    Qidniz, the article you linked is rather deceiving. It is trying to defend why only 46 percent of Americans think that “bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians” are never justified, by claiming that the word “intentionally” was not part of the question. According to the author, if that word was there, there would be a more negative reaction.

    I say deceiving, because the author actually quotes the survey question: “Do you personally feel that such attacks are often justified, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?”

    Except that he didn’t quote what preceded the question:

    Q-I23: Some people think that bombing and other types of attacks intentionally aimed at civilians are sometimes justified while others think that this kind of violence is never justified.
    Do you personally feel that such attacks are often justified, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?

    I believe Blah’s point still stands in #129, despite getting the name of the program wrong by one word, and the date by one month. :)

  130. qidniz — on 8th May, 2009 at 10:38 pm  

    Name me three Islamic values that you feel are inappropriate for the Western World.

    Just the status of women should give you enough to chew on:

    1. Polygamy.
    2. The right of husbands to beat wives (only under certain circumstances, to be sure, but this caveat is no consolation.)
    3. Daughters inherit less than sons.
    4. Female witness counts for less than male.

    Elsewhere, you have things like qisas, i.e. lex talionis, and its naturally one-sided exemptions (e.g. no retaliation on a Muslim is lawful for the killing of a non-Muslim not under dhimma or aman — yes, the Muslim goes scot-free.)

    This could go on and on, not to mention getting bogged down in meta-discussions of what a “value” is.

    The better question is actually the converse: Can you name any uniquely Islamic values that contribute positively to the Western world? I.e. what does Islam have to offer that is not to be found anywhere else?

  131. Martin — on 8th May, 2009 at 11:27 pm  

    Ravi Naik

    Oppression of women in every aspect of life.

    Forced marriages, including of males.

    Oppression of homosexuals.

    Lack of intellectual curiosity

    Belief that religion is more than personal choice & in the murder of apostates.

    Insistance on importing & enforcing Muslim attitudes on colonized Westerners including a bogus belief that criticizing Islam is somehow “racist” even though Muslims oppressing Westerners is not “racist” when it occurs in Muslim countries.

    Belief that the creator of the universe had a special relationship with an Arabian warlord.

    Belief that the Umma includes anywhere that Muslims can plant their flag.

    Hatred of Jews & contempt for Christians.

    Refusal to respect & accept religious & philosophical diversity within lands controlled by Muslims.

    For the rest, read Winston Churchill & the also that remarkable book “The Clash of Civilisations” by Samuel Huntington.

    i’ve just returned from a gig by Zoe Rahman. Someone said to me in amazement “Is she a Muslim ?” They asked more than once. I had to explain that not all Pakistanis are Muslims, or she would not be such a fine musician, playing Western jazz in an all male group.

    Islam rarely fits in with Western values. Also, why are so many heading here if not to colonize us.

    80% of British Muslims live in social housing, paid for by my parents’ & grandparents’ generation.
    In comparison 10% of Sikhs & Hindus do.

    Martin

  132. qidniz — on 9th May, 2009 at 12:03 am  

    I believe Blah’s point still stands in #129, despite getting the name of the program wrong by one word, and the date by one month

    You did read the critique of the methodology, I hope? Perhaps I should have been clearer about the point: that the survey is a case of GIGO. Read into it all you want; I prefer statistically sound studies myself. And those are so rare that I have a personal rule, never to cite polls and surveys of this kind as “evidence” for or against anything.

    (Fair point about QI23, though. But that isn’t the only issue here.)

  133. qidniz — on 9th May, 2009 at 12:19 am  

    the survey is a case of GIGO

    And Ballen’s piece in the CSM is worse: he takes one set of factoids from the PIPA study and contrasts them with a different set of factoids from something his own outfit extruded. Never mind bogus methodologies, were they even the same in their bogosity across these polls/surveys?

    I can understand scraping up reasons to believe horseshit like this, only because it suits one’s politics, but I prefer to see better efforts, myself :)

  134. Bert Rustle — on 9th May, 2009 at 8:05 am  

    Quidniz 111 wrote … Do you see the difference now? …

    No! I do not see that I have misrepresented Auster, though clearly I have only summarised his argument and I may well have over-simplified it. If you could be more explicit it would be helpful.

  135. Bert Rustle — on 9th May, 2009 at 8:10 am  

    Jai 116 wrote … Bert Rustle repeatedly and consistently omits critical information when selectively quoting from sources ….

    Please provide explicit examples of this. Please be precise.

    Jai 116 wrote … skewed interpretation and exploitation of various scientific theories & findings …

    Please provide explicit examples of this. Please be precise.

    Jai 116 wrote … the conclusions he attempts to draw from them …

    Please provide explicit examples of this. Please be precise.

  136. douglas clark — on 9th May, 2009 at 8:27 am  

    I wonder whether Mysteryman would see the Crusades as a good thing or not? You can tell quite a lot about peoples’ attitudes by asking that question.

  137. Bert Rustle — on 9th May, 2009 at 8:47 am  

    Jai 118 wrote … it was actually Adnan who made that statement, not me. …

    I apologise for attributing that particular remark to you.

    Jai 118 wrote … If an individual is a member of an organisation that has a political agenda to promote the “fact” that the Sun orbits the Earth …

    The fact that you write “fact” may highlight our difference. One collects data, quantifies it and draws logical conclusions from it. This only provides facts, not “facts”. Though these facts are subject to refinement with further investigation, they do not become “facts”. For example, the work of Einstein did not invalidate the work of Newton but it does have greater explanatory power.

    I would agree with you that the use of “facts” are indeed injurious to argument and so I endeavour to not employ them.

    Jai 118 wrote … In any discussion focusing on racial matters, it is important to be aware of the fact that the other individual is a member of an organisation which has a hostile race-based agenda, especially when other participants in the discourse are targets of this agenda. …

    Do you demand to know the race of your protagonists, or only their political affiliation? How is one relevant in such discussions but not the other?

    In my opinion, as long as one deals in facts and not “facts” the difficulties you mention cannot arise. Moreover, in all of the academic papers I have quoted here or elsewhere, none of the authors declare their political, racial or sexual preferences.

    In your opinion, do academic papers have to have the political affiliations of the authors listed, as well as their academic ones? Does each such piece of research have to have a Diverse authorship? Do you want Identity Science?

    More generally, what other political affiliations do you wish to know? The National Front Perhaps? Are there any affiliations to political parties outside the British Isles which you wish to know of?

    Facts, not “facts”.

  138. douglas clark — on 9th May, 2009 at 9:08 am  

    Just on the issue of the Earth revolving around the Sun. This is, still, apparently open to interpretation. There was a huge thread on Daily Kos where the arguement was given full exposure.

    http://tinyurl.com/pa7dbu

    Still, there’s knowt as strange as folks, especially those who claim a frame of reference is all that matters.

  139. douglas clark — on 9th May, 2009 at 9:53 am  

    Bert @ 139,

    I think it is legitimate for people to reveal their political allegiences. It might be a bit of a bummer for him, but what I think about Policy Exchange, and in particular about Anthony Browne is probably prejudiced on the basis of what I think I know about him through watching Newsnight. I now think he is a complete nutter. Which might be unfair, but it is what we call a judgement. And, consequently, I think that Policy Exchange is compromised.

    There are thusly, unreliable authorial voices, folk you wouldn’t ‘sup with, with a long spoon’ who may say the most innocuous things, like ‘it’s a nice day’ without checking at least twice. It’s what folk do. If you are unreliable once, well you know the rest of this.

    I am familiar with the way that science works. You put up an idea and the rest of the scientific community does its’ absolute best to knock it down. That is what they call ‘peer review’. So, only ideas that have survived that process (almost Darwinian don’t cha think?) get to be considered mainstream.

    So, it seems to me that a political arguement ought to obey the same rules of clarity.

    If you have been reading this site for a while, you’ll know that I am a member of the SNP, you’ll also know that Rumbold is a UK Libertarian.

    These are not ideas that either of us seem to feel the need to hide in a closet. We might be, jointly or severally wrong, but that is the risk everyone that picks up any identity takes.

    You, on the other hand are not willing to admit or deny your political affiliations. Quite why that would be, unless the revelation of them was likely to expose your arguements as biased, is beyond me…

    [Forgive me Rumbold, for dragging your good name into a fight you might not wish to be involved in, but I couldn't think of another commentator on here that has been quite so 'out' about their political party :-) ]

  140. blah — on 9th May, 2009 at 9:54 am  

    Martin

    “i’ve just returned from a gig by Zoe Rahman. Someone said to me in amazement “Is she a Muslim ?” They asked more than once. I had to explain that not all Pakistanis are Muslims, or she would not be such a fine musician, playing Western jazz in an all male group.”

    So she would not be a fine Jazz musician if she were Muslim? wow you are full of hate. And Zoe Rahman is of Bangaladeshi (and English) background, idiot.

    Yeah cos there are no Muslim jazz musicians , Abdullah Ibrahim, Ahmed Jamal etc

    “Islam rarely fits in with Western values. Also, why are so many heading here if not to colonize us.”

    Same could be said for Hindus, Sikhs, West Indian, Africans and Poles

    “80% of British Muslims live in social housing, paid for by my parents’ & grandparents’ generation.”

    Yeah cos Muslims dont pay any tax (its part of the Eurabia deal) and you have never benefitted in anyway from inventions or products that Muslims brought to Europe from paper, soap, coffee, shampoo, pyjamas, the numerical system, cheques, carpets, private gardens, optics,universities, guitars, innoculation,chess, cameras, the concept of three course meals and numerous other advances in medicine and science

  141. blah — on 9th May, 2009 at 10:06 am  

    Martin

    “80% of British Muslims live in social housing, paid for by my parents’ & grandparents’ generation.
    In comparison 10% of Sikhs & Hindus do.”

    The funny thing is in the US the Muslim population is generally more educated and financially successful than non-Muslim Americans (for example 43% of Muslim women have a degree or higher compared with 29% of US women on average)- yet this doesnt stop them being demonised and hated by the likes of Martin. Thats how insane and irrational his hatred is.

  142. douglas clark — on 9th May, 2009 at 10:15 am  

    I’d have thought that if someone manages to fit into a niché idea like jazz, then they are probably completely integrated into this mad, bad planet.

    Though mentioning pyjamas seemed a bit odd.

    Didn’t Algebra come from some Islamic guy? Wouldn’t that have been a better arguement? Kids think not.

    And, personally speaking, I’ve given up on three course meals. It’s the puddings.

  143. douglas clark — on 9th May, 2009 at 10:30 am  

    blah,

    Err,

    From the back brain recluse, I thought I remembered that it was the Russians that gave us courses. There is too much behind paywalls for me to prove you wrong, however.

    On a Pickled Politics General Alert. Does anyone else know anything about this?

  144. Martin — on 9th May, 2009 at 11:39 am  

    Blah

    Algebra came from a pre Muslim Arab.

    “Arab numerals” are Indian Hindu, pinched by Muslim invaders.

    Boy, you chaps are full of hatred for the West.

    Sorry about getting Zoe’s land of origin wrong, Personally the difference between the 2 parts of what was Pakistan is of little importance.

    Dollar Brand & Jamal are not Asian Muslims, they are converts from Christianity to a very soft American form of Islam & you know it.
    They drink wine, don’t oppress women entertain mixed audiences
    etc etc etc

    Also, they are not under death threats from their erstwhile Christian brethren.

    Find out about Michael Nazir Ali if you want info from someone who really understands the clash of civilizations.

    Relish your own fantastically fluid & essentially non racist Western culture, & don’t pretend what’s happening isn’t.

    You lot made that mistake with the Nazis & the Soviets.

    Think I’ll head for a site less infested with self loathing Trots

    Pip Pip

    Martin

  145. blah — on 9th May, 2009 at 12:12 pm  

    Martin

    “Algebra came from a pre Muslim Arab.”

    No it came from a Muslim Persian writing in Arabic. The Pre-Islamic Arabs contributed virtually nothing to civilization.

    The word “algebra” is named after the Arabic word “al-jabr , الجبر” from the title of the book al-Kitāb al-muḫtaá¹£ar fÄ« ḥisāb al-ÄŸabr wa-l-muqābala , الكتاب المختصر في حساب الجبر والمقابلة, meaning The book of Summary Concerning Calculating by Transposition and Reduction, a book written by the Islamic Persian mathematician, Muhammad ibn MÅ«sā al-KhwārizmÄ« (considered the “father of algebra”), in 820. The word Al-Jabr means “reunion

    ““Arab numerals” are Indian Hindu, pinched by Muslim invaders.”

    Well yes and no since they were adapted. Who do you think brought them to Europe for you to use? It wasnt Indian Hindus.

    And what about all the other things I mentioned?
    Martin you should boycott the use of soap (if you dont already) lest you be a dhimmi

    “Boy, you chaps are full of hatred for the West.”

    LOL -you are projecting

    “Sorry about getting Zoe’s land of origin wrong, Personally the difference between the 2 parts of what was Pakistan is of little importance.”

    Sums you up

    “Dollar Brand & Jamal are not Asian Muslims, they are converts from Christianity to a very soft American form of Islam & you know it.”

    Who said anything about Asians? You were suggesting Jazz musicians cant be Muslim. Or is it only Asian Muslims you hate? Did an Asian Muslim steal your council house?

    “Find out about Michael Nazir Ali if you want info from someone who really understands the clash of civilizations.”

    He understands squat -hes a bigot

    “Relish your own fantastically fluid & essentially non racist Western culture, & don’t pretend what’s happening isn’t”

    There is no discrete seperate culture on earth because every culture has been influenced by others and no person on earth exists without utilising something that came from another culture. People who are born and brought up in the west who have parents from outside the west

    Martin how can you describe yourself as a liberal?

  146. blah — on 9th May, 2009 at 12:14 pm  

    douglas clark I mention all the positive things that Muslims have brought to counter the stream of anti-Muslim hatred on this site and elsewhere. God forbid we should be positive about Muslims!

    You surely cant disaprove of that- only a Muslim hater would and I dont think you are.

  147. blah — on 9th May, 2009 at 12:18 pm  

    douglas clark
    “And, personally speaking, I’ve given up on three course meals. It’s the puddings.

    ….From the back brain recluse, I thought I remembered that it was the Russians that gave us courses. There is too much behind paywalls for me to prove you wrong, however.”

    15 Ali ibn Nafi, known by his nickname of Ziryab (Blackbird) came from Iraq to Cordoba in the 9th century and brought with him the concept of the three-course meal – soup, followed by fish or meat, then fruit and nuts. He also introduced crystal glasses (which had been invented after experiments with rock crystal by Abbas ibn Firnas – see No 4).

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/how-islamic-inventors-changed-the-world-469452.html

    the Arabs had more contact with western Europe (through Spain) than the Russians who tended to be more isolated

  148. blah — on 9th May, 2009 at 12:19 pm  

    Martin

    “Think I’ll head for a site less infested with self loathing Trots”

    fascinating that anyone who sees anything good in other cultures is a “self-loathing Trot”

  149. Jai — on 9th May, 2009 at 2:58 pm  

    Bert Rustle,

    Jai 116 wrote … Bert Rustle repeatedly and consistently omits critical information when selectively quoting from sources ….

    Please provide explicit examples of this. Please be precise.

    Already provided on previous occasions.

    Jai 116 wrote … skewed interpretation and exploitation of various scientific theories & findings …

    Please provide explicit examples of this. Please be precise.

    Already provided on previous occasions.

    Jai 116 wrote … the conclusions he attempts to draw from them …

    Please provide explicit examples of this. Please be precise.

    Already provided on previous occasions.

    Do you demand to know the race of your protagonists, or only their political affiliation?

    Depends on the specific discussion.

    How is one relevant in such discussions but not the other?

    Both are relevant when the protagonist is a member of a political organisation with an explicitly racist agenda and is engaged in a discussion about racial matters.

    Yet again, not rocket science. Either you’re feigning innocence or you’re actually not very bright. (Incidentally, the same applies to your post #136 in response to Qidniz’s remark in #111).

    In my opinion, as long as one deals in facts and not “facts” the difficulties you mention cannot arise. Moreover, in all of the academic papers I have quoted here or elsewhere, none of the authors declare their political, racial or sexual preferences.

    In your opinion, do academic papers have to have the political affiliations of the authors listed, as well as their academic ones? Does each such piece of research have to have a Diverse authorship? Do you want Identity Science?

    More generally, what other political affiliations do you wish to know? The National Front Perhaps? Are there any affiliations to political parties outside the British Isles which you wish to know of?

    The bottom line, Einstein, is that you’ve been busted as a member of the BNP, which therefore discredits you as a participant in any discussions on this website involving race as it exposes your thinking & motivations to be biased and driven by a racist agenda. It doesn’t exactly reflect very well on your character either.

    Facts, not “facts”.

    Indeed. I wonder if you have the intelligence and self-awareness to grasp the irony of making this statement. I doubt it.

  150. douglas clark — on 10th May, 2009 at 6:51 am  

    blah,

    I was only trying, badly as usual, to lighten up the discussion. Frankly these arguements about who invented what don’t really do it for me. I am Scottish, and if you like, I can list Scots who invented everything that ever mattered. It is, of course, a very debateable collection of factoids.

    We claim, for instance, to have invented television, through a guy called John Logie Baird, except that his version of TV bears no relationship to how your TV actually works.

    Most Muslims I have met in real life have been decent enough people, but you could equally apply that to most people I have met. I suppose you could take my philosophy as coming from one single line from one of our poets. He said:

    “We’re all Jock Tamsons bairns”

    See here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jock_Tamson

    The link to Burns doesn’t work, but this one does:

    http://www.robertburns.org/works/496.shtml

    That is, more or less, what I think.

  151. Bert Rustle — on 10th May, 2009 at 7:21 am  

    Douglas clark 141 wrote … I think it is legitimate for people to reveal their political allegiences. It might be a bit of a bummer for him, but what I think about Policy Exchange, and in particular about Anthony Browne is probably prejudiced on the basis of what I think I know about him through watching Newsnight. …

    Indeed. If you write that Brown said X on Newsnight, I would have no reason to doubt that Brown did indeed say X on Newsnight. If I wished to investigate further, I would click on the link your provided and see for myself.

    If you write that Brown said X on Newsnight which means that he believes Z because he is a complete nutter, I pass immediately to the next comment.

    Douglas clark 141 wrote … There are thusly, unreliable authorial voices …

    Indeed, which one judges by the quality of their argument, the whole argument and nothing but the argument.

    Douglas clark 141 wrote … I am familiar with the way that science works. … ‘peer review’. So, only ideas that have survived that process … get to be considered mainstream. …

    Therefore you are aware that authors declare their academic affiliations, not political, sexual, culinary or religious affiliations.

    Douglas clark 141 wrote … So, it seems to me that a political argument ought to obey the same rules of clarity. …

    I do not debate whether X% or 2X% of GDP should be spent on promoting equality of females in the interests of equality, reparations or retribution against males. This is a matter of personal opinion, akin to whether colour X or colour Y goes best with colour Z. Other examples are my god is better than your god, or how many angels can dance on a head of a pin.

    I have endeavoured and no doubt failed on occasion to argue as follows.

    Compare reports of the lack of women in top jobs being due to sexism without mention of the fact males have a much wider range of IQ than females and that the bulk of really clever people are male. However alluding to the fact that the bulk of really stupid people are male is OK. Or compare reports of the lack of women in top jobs being due to sexism with the absence of a similar argument that the male/female incarceration rate is due to sexism.

    As you are familiar with the way that science works, the difference is presumably immediately apparent to you.

    Douglas clark 141 wrote … If you have been reading this site for a while, you’ll know that I am a member of the SNP, you’ll also know that Rumbold is a UK Libertarian. …

    I have been reading this site for a while but I knew neither of your professed political affiliations. Furthermore, I do not know whether Rumbold and douglas clark are one and the same individual, collectives, lovers or incarcerated in Parkhurst for mass murder. All are equally relevant.

    douglas clark 141 wrote … You, on the other hand are not willing to admit or deny your political affiliations. Quite why that would be, unless the revelation of them was likely to expose your arguements as biased, is beyond me…

    See my arguments above.

    In addition, whatever personal information I disclose to you is unverifiable. However, I am willing to reveal that I am Spartacus and I have possessed the leader of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, he just doesn’t know it yet, unlike his wife, who is actually Lord Lucan.

    I thank you for your civility. Unfortunately I have not had time to participate in the subject of this thread after my original comment. However, as Auster has been mentioned quite a few times since, presumably some feel that Auster made a worthwhile addition to this thread.

    If the editor of pickledpolitics informs me that it is not possible to comment anonymously, then I will comment here after that.

    Moreover, I will not return as Dogless Bark, Red Rumbold or Sunny Jim!

  152. Bert Rustle — on 10th May, 2009 at 8:37 am  

    Jai 151 wrote … Already provided on previous occasions. …

    Where exactly? Please provide the precise links. If you do not provide them then I will conclude that they do not exist. If you do provide them and they are as you say they are, then I will do my best to correct them.

    Even if you were making these unsubstantiated assertions about a third party, as you are anonymous I could place no reliance at all on such assertions, rather I could only rely on the actual statements by said third party. Indeed the only worth of unsubstatntiated assertions is to alert one to a topic of potential interest.

  153. Jai — on 10th May, 2009 at 11:38 am  

    Bert Rustle,

    Where exactly? Please provide the precise links.

    Every single incident in relation to the aforementioned examples has been responded to by myself and/or other commenters on multiple threads on Pickled Politics. It speaks volumes about your reading skills — or possibly just your level of honesty — that you claim to be unaware of this. I suggest you browse through PP’s archives where you’ve stated your opinions on racial matters and look at the evidence yourself.

    If, subsequently, you’re still unable to psychologically register the information & responses there (along with their ramifications) or indeed understand exactly why your support of the BNP automatically renders you an invalid advocate of any “scientific” findings regarding race, then I suggest you speak to your GP and request a referral to an appropriate psychiatrist for a formal assessment. Alternatively, I would be happy to pull some strings and discreetly make the necessary arrangements on your behalf; let me know if you’d like me to do this.

    I have endeavoured and no doubt failed on occasion to argue

    Well, I’m glad you’ve finally come to terms with your disability, Bert.

    Moving swiftly on…..

    What it comes down to, Mr George Fitzhugh, is that you’ve been correctly identified as having very nasty reasons indeed for persistently attempting to promote insidious racist propaganda regarding so-called “racial foreigners”, the alleged “intellectual inferiority” of South Asians and people of black/African origin/descent in comparison with white people, and anything else related to race which you have presumed to pontificate about.

    The fact that, despite your ongoing attempts at obfuscation and the formulation of irrelevant non sequitur arguments, a random selection of South Asian commenters on this blog has easily been able to intellectually run rings around you without so much as breaking into a sweat should tell you something about your so-called “superiority”. It’s been like shooting fish in a barrel — and the fish are very small, the barrel is absolutely tiny, and the gun is a very large assault rifle.

    The only constructive way forward is for you to either renounce the BNP and everything they stand for, or engage in a graceful exit from your current trajectory on this website. It’s up to you.

    In the meantime, take this message back to your friend Nick Griffin: Tell that cross-burning little motherfucker that the next time he decides to send one of his Neo-Nazi minions here to do his dirty work, he should select a suitable footsoldier who’s actually competent to do the job properly and isn’t a liability to his deranged cult, rather than a pretentious little redneck who can barely string a coherent argument together and doesn’t even have the scientific aptitude of the average ten-year-old child.

    Now run along, before I say something unkind.

  154. Shamit — on 11th May, 2009 at 10:01 am  

    Following Jai’s articulate destruction of MR. Russell — by the way, where are you Bert?

    Or is it a tail between the legs and running away syndrome affected you to come back with a half decent retort– I know thats too much to ask from ignorant fools who think colour of your skin matters.

    For a second please do not think Jai’s comments mean that we are not up for a debate — we are. But as he says so far its been far too easy to kill your arguments — so bring on some of your bigger guns if you would please.

    And, I bet Sunny would not mind publishing that debate and I am sure a lot of other blogs and other publications (including mine) would love to highlight how some apparent racial foreigners show BNP up for exatly what it is a bunch of ignorant fools who are nothing but a meance to society and who should be locked up in mental institutions.

    But you lot are chicken shit aren’t you?

  155. damon — on 11th May, 2009 at 10:28 am  

    I showed a young woman from Mumbai (who is to lodge at my sister’s house) around the area yesterday, and got her an Oyster card for the trains, tubes and busses, and showed her where she will be going to college in Tooting south London.
    It was her first ever day in England.
    The multi-culturalism of the area really surprised her.
    She had never guessed it was like that to that degree.
    I also had to tell her to stop taking her purse out and opening it in crowded places, showing credit cards and pulling out big notes.
    She’s really nice, and I hope she likes her new home.

    My point is, I abhor the BNP and their like as much as anyone else on here. But there will always be people who don’t like the transformations that are naturally taking place across the world. Nostalgists.
    Hating them is understandable – and for the activist bigots in organised fascist parties, it’s right and propper too.
    But just your moaning every day run of the mill racists, I almost think pity (for them) is a better response.

  156. mysteryman — on 12th May, 2009 at 10:54 am  

    Ravi Naik — on 8th May, 2009 at 1:34 pm , where in my post did I suggest that Muslims were the only ones capable of warmongering? Read it again! You will find that I suggested nothing of the sort. Shamit, what was my “myopic” “claim”? You seem to be supporting Ravi’s false allegation against me. Its funny how the Strawman tactic always comes into play in these debates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man).

    Many of the things the British and other nations did in the past were shameful, some of the things they do now continue to be shameful but that’s isn’t what we’re talking about here is it. It’s such a childlike argument to say “well you did something bad so now I’m going to do something bad.” Try refuting my actual point please.

    The point I was making, which was and is very clear to anyone who reads my post, is that I cannot find one country to which Martins criteria could be applied.

    1. Let’s hear of one state with a muslim majority that lives in peace with its own non muslim citizens & does not discriminate against them.
    Let’s hear of one muslim state that lives at peace with its neighbours.
    Let’s hear of one muslim state where women have identical rights to men

    I might be wrong and that beacon of Muslim tolerance, sexual equality and freedom might be out there but I’m still looking.

    As for blah on 8th May, 2009 at 5:20 pm who said that the figure of 57% of people in Jordan who support suicide bombings and other violent actions are justifiable in defence of Islam was “dwarfed” by the figure of 24% of Americans who think the same, hmm someone needs some serious maths lessons!

    Even if you were to use the figure of “46 percent of Americans think that “bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians” are “never justified,” you will still find that only 53% would support such attacks, last time I checked 53% was still less than 57%! Don’t let basic truths, logic or arithmetic get in the way of your arguments though boys.

    try again please!

  157. dashenka — on 25th June, 2009 at 10:26 am  

    the more I read this site and the “opinions”
    the more I realise the hypocrisy of muslims

    you don’t really see the reason to deport Abu Qatada who called for killing non-muslims – at least – but you are so scared of Wilders who never did this, who just telling the true about Islam

    stop hiding behind this stupid phrase “he sees no difference between Islam and Islamism” – it is ridiculous!

    your opinions here – I mean the muslim’s opinion – clear show that there is no distinction for you

    WHEN ISLAMIST IS ARRESTED AND TRIED YOU START SCREAMING “OH HE IS TRIED FOR BEING MUSLIM!”

    IT MEANS THAT ISLAM AND ISLAMISM IS THE SAME FOR YOU, YOU DON’T WANT TO STAY AWAY FROM ISLAMISTS. AND PRETENDING TO PROTECT MUSLIMS RIGHTS, YOU ACTUALLY PROTECT ISLAMISTS LIKE ABU QATADA AND OTHERS TO ESPRESS THEIR HATRED

    there is no hate in Wilders Speech or movie – he just shows YOUR hate

  158. dashenka — on 25th June, 2009 at 10:37 am  

    to Munir

    “Bizarre – Wilders represents the absolute worst aspects of western culture.”

    escuse me Munir, but aren’t you tired, speaking for europeans? get some rest, darling!)))

    wilders represenst the lost ascept of european culture – self-respect!

    some allusions to Hollocaust are ridiculous, guys!

    german nazi really sent people to gaz cameras. but Wilders is only about to send you to your Motherlands!

    oh, Motherland, what could be better?)))

  159. JJ — on 10th October, 2009 at 12:25 am  

    I totally agree and support Mr. Wilders. Freedom of speech should be allowed up to a point. When people start to challenge democracy and support a religion which is both violent and opposed to democracy (don’t give me all that coblers about islam being peaceful religion, the facts speak louder than words, the seeds have been sewn in more than the cases of terrorism) in a democratic country, a line needs to be set. Otherwise, freedom of speech and democracy could be easily removed by ‘beating the system’ so-to-speak. Now I know that there is no way in hell that Europe would simply go ‘silently into the night’ and get taken over by Islam (contary to recent opinions of scaremongers). It would give one heck of a fight, and is much more wealthier than it’s opponents third world areas (with the exception of oil, which is rapidly running out) thus giving added help and protection to europe. Personally, I am not surprised by Mr Wilders growing support, it was only a matter of time before Europeans started getting fed up and frustrated. Look at the successes of the right-wing recently. Instead of actually working towards a solution in slowing the right wing growth, rapidly decreasing Liberal politics think that by simply calling people racist, the problem will go away (how on earth criticising a religion can be classed as racism is beyond me and a growing number of europeans (I also must point out that the majority of opposition and mockery made at Mr Wilders seems to come from muslims, whilst non muslim opposition appears to be declining)). More and more people are failing to be silenced by accusations of racism which bear no realistic grounds and is causing the word to be used so often, that in many cases it is no longer taken seriously (another example would be people throwing the word ‘love’ around; the meaning has changed from say 50 years ago). Please don’t think I am denying racism – it is out there, and it is a problem within todays society. Also, added support for Mr Wilders comes from the fact that over the past 15 years (since the Islamic terrorist Hijack of a french plane in 1994) a worrying number of atrocities and terrorism has occured in the name of islam. Why, if muslims claim they are so peacefull, has there not been a sizeable muslim outrage or clear opposition to what these so-called ‘minority numbers’ of Islamic extremists are doing? Why? They have all had ample opportunity but you never do anything. Ok, there are small cases of clear outraged muslims which should not go un-noticed, but these are usually very small numbers of people, who are later reported to have suffered abuse and even threats for their opinions at the hands of other muslims. After all, when politicians such as Mr. Wilders dare to speak out against Islam, Muslims are outraged and expect non-muslim society to also be outraged (by saying they will riot, playing and milking the victim card, and denouncing supporters). Unfortunately, European muslims as a community have shown exactly what they think of western values and culture by constantly criticising it (do you think I could go to Saudi Arabia and criticise sharia law and islam…and get away with it?). Hence, why I sadly feel that the age of Liberal and tolerant Europe is rapidly coming to an end after only a short period of time (perhaps because multiculturalism happened too quickly?). This is more than evident by the rise of right wing politics (both extreme and non-extreme) and the growth of anti-islamic sentiment along with rising support for anti-islamic politicains. Added to the present economic downturn, the perfect environment has again been created for nationalism and right wing governments. Just how far Europe will lean right is currently un-predictable, however, time will tell. I sincerely hope history doesn’t repeat itself.

  160. Reza — on 10th October, 2009 at 7:53 am  

    Wilders is a very brave man. The fact that he must live at secret addresses, under 24 hour protection vindicares his concerns about the growth of Islam in the West.

    I agree, to some extent, with everything on his 10-point-plan except for “the right to religious freedom should not apply to Islam.”

    Freedom of thought should apply to everything. But Islam should not be appeased or treated with ‘respect’ just because it is a ‘religion’.

  161. Reza — on 10th October, 2009 at 7:56 am  

    Oh, and apparently there’s a very real chance that Wilders could end up as Prime Minister.

    The Netherlands was once the most tolerant place on earth. But mass immigration has really f*cked-up Dutch society.

  162. sonia — on 10th October, 2009 at 10:16 am  

    is that what “fucked up” dutch society? or actually that they have more in common with these ‘immigrant’ counterparts in terms of being quite conservative in their view of “their” ‘own’ culture. I suppose that’s what happens when so many ‘my culture’ people find themselves in one state.

    they ought to try and become more cosmopolitan.

    “jewish-christian” culture – yeah same thing that underpins Islamic culture..so fat lot of difference.

    yes this man makes the BNP look cosmpolitan.

    he clearly needs to partake of some lovely green stuff at a cafe..where is the love?!

  163. damon — on 10th October, 2009 at 11:03 am  

    I was just looking up a few things about Geert Wilders on wikipedia and see he was born in the small city of Venlo which sits right on the German border.
    I passed through it one evening in the mid 90s and the thing I remember most was that as soon as I pulled over to park, there were guys coming up to my car asking me if I wanted hash. I said no, but noticed there were quite a few of them standing about right in the midle of town (in the dark) calling out and signaling to passing cars. They were all of a north African or Turkish looking origin.
    As small time drug dealers often are, they looked pretty untrustworthy and shifty. I wonder if resentment towards them from local people boosted support for Wilders’ party.

    It’s only a small place and because of its location, sufferd badly during the war.
    According to this wikipedia entry, they delt with the drugs tourist problem (as most of the buyers were Germans), by putting the coffee shops out on the edge of the city closer to the German border. A very Dutch solution.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venlo

  164. qidniz — on 10th October, 2009 at 1:24 pm  

    “jewish-christian” culture – yeah same thing that underpins Islamic culture..so fat lot of difference.

    Rubbish. The essential underpinning of Islamic culture is Bedouin banditry. An enterprising warlord borrowed some notions from the neighboring “jewish-christian” milieu to inspire his followers with delusions of divine destiny, that’s all.

  165. Billy — on 10th October, 2009 at 1:48 pm  

    Re-read the TEN POINTS.

    All are perfectly reasonable except for the disappointingly limp-wristed reference to voluntary repatriations. Boot out all the tiresome preachers and the ten-percent of the U.K. prison population who claim to be Muslims; Libya or Chad would be delighted to welcome them all, I’m sure.

    Look, Sufis and Ismailis and Ahmedis are NO problem and nor are many of the others. Simply a brisk programme of expulsion, that’s all!

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.