Today Heretic TOC welcomes a debut guest blogger, “David”, who is a 50-year-old security officer from Southern England and a spare-time student of current affairs, politics, history, and religion. He deplores the use of paedophilia by the Far Right as a stick to beat Muslims with, attacking the hypocrisy of some key figures. The Far Left does not escape his critical attention either.
ISLAM, RIGHT-LEFT EXTREMIST POLITICS AND PAEDOPHILIA
Islam is one of the world’s major religions with more than one billion faithful followers and growing rapidly across the globe with every year. We are all familiar with the media demonisation of ordinary law-abiding Muslims as a result of the actions of the “Islamist” extremist minority. In recent years Muslims have also come under attack from UK Far-Right groups such as the British National Party, National Front, Britain First, English Defence League, Infidel groups and so on, who criticise Islam as a “paedophile religion” due to the fact that the Prophet Muhammad was married to a child bride, Aisha when she was six years old and he consummated the marriage with her when she was nine years old:
The Far-Right organisations in Britain also point to the much-publicised Rotherham case of alleged ‘child abuse’ involving men of predominantly Pakistani Muslim heritage.
However, the UK Far-Right so-called “Christian” anti-Islamic groups choose not to publicise the following facts:
- It was legal in medieval Christian England and Europe to marry…child brides! “…in 1396, Richard II of England was joined in marriage to young Isabel of France, who had been 7 years old when their engagement was announced the previous year in Paris. Not only was there no uproar; there was considerable happiness expressed over the assumed probability that this marriage would end the Hundred Year’s War then in one of its periodic states of truce between the two kingdoms. Peace was to be ensured by joining together this man and this little girl in marriage.” – John McLaughlin, “Medieval Child Marriage: Abuse of Wardship?” (Paper delivered at Plymouth State College, Plymouth, NH Conference on Medieval Studies, April, 1997)
- The British National Front (NF) organised violent demonstrations against the London meetings of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) during the 1970s and yet…the NF had paedophile members of their own party at the same time! Was this a case of NF hypocrisy, “do as we say not as we do”, or more a case of the extreme right-wing NF being opposed to the progressive left-of-centre causes championed by PIE such as Gay Liberation, and due to PIE’s links with the National Council for Civil Liberties (now known as Liberty) and the Labour Party, perceived as enemies by the Front? Or would the NF claim they had been “infiltrated by paedophiles”? Judge for yourself:
- Quote: “Hughie Porter (NF Leicester Branch activist) was a particularly unsavoury character with several convictions for child molesting, another fact known but tolerated by the local NF leadership.” – Ray Hill and Andrew Bell, The Other Face of Terror: Inside Europe’s Neo-Nazi Network (Grafton Books 1988)
- “… Contrary to popular belief, there are boy-lovers of almost every political persuasion. Two former members of the National Front (British equivalent of the Nazi Party) were recently convicted here of having had sex with a thirteen-year-old boy. One man, Colin London, a former fish shop manager, received a two-year sentence, and the other, Harold Nash, a former company director, one year. SOURCE: Gay News, September, 1979.” – PAN (bi-monthly magazine published by Spartacus, Amsterdam), Vol.1, No. 3 November, 1979. This issue also includes an interesting letter from a correspondent regarding NF radical extremist, Robert Relf’s imprisonment and solitary confinement in the “leper wing” with paedophile prisoners where he relates the shocking ill-treatment meted out to them and he claimed “food sent to the wing was contaminated by other prisoners (real criminals) with urine and spit” and “Hot cocoa is also poured over them.”
- The late Colin Jordan, the founder and leader of the neo-Nazi British Movement (BM) was found to be listed on documents as a “VIP guest” seized by police investigating alleged “paedophile sex parties” at Elm Guest House in London, along with named Members of Parliament from across the political spectrum, Sinn Fein activists and leading members of the Right-wing Conservative Monday Club. Jordan was fined £50 in June 1975 for shoplifting women’s underwear from the Leamington Spa branch of Tesco (despite his virulently anti-Semitic movement being opposed to “Jewish-founded supermarkets and department stores”), and he resigned soon afterwards as BM “fuhrer” to be replaced by his deputy Michael McLaughlin who launched a purge of alleged “perverts”. Roger Gleaves, a paedophile Bishop of the Old Catholic Church, who was recently released from imprisonment for alleged “child rape” offences had founded the Keep Britain Great/Keep Britain White Campaign in 1962, the same year that Jordan formed the neo-Nazi National Socialist Movement (NSM). (Note that Ernst Rohm, the homosexual chief of the Nazi Brownshirts was caught in bed with a 15-year-old boy during the Night of the Long Knives clampdown on Hitler’s revolutionary rivals in 1934).
- In 1950, Alf Flockart, Organising Secretary of Sir Oswald Mosley’s neo-fascist British Union Movement (UM) was sentenced to two years imprisonment for having sex with a youth in a public lavatory in London.
- Martin Webster, who was the homosexual NF National Activities Organiser during the 1970s (when PIE members were attacked by the NF) was rumoured to have written a love letter to a young boy and homophobic NF members left the party in droves – Webster himself was expelled from the Front during the 1980s.
In more recent times, Left-wing anti-fascist websites such as Hope Not Hate have publicised the following cases of alleged Far-Right paedophiles (just as, Right-wing websites such as Labour25 have publicised cases of alleged Far-Left paedophiles – members of the Labour Party, and Marxist figures such as “Comrade Bala” of the Brixton Maoist “sex cult”, “Comrade Delta” aka Martin Smith of the Socialist Workers Party and the late Gerry Healy of the Workers Revolutionary Party, who were put under the media spotlight for alleged sexual abuse of young women and girls):
- Martyn Gilleard was a paid up member of the NF, White Nationalist Party and the British People’s Party who was found to have more than 39,000 images of children on his computer, and during 2011, Michael Cowen, a NF member was caught by police with 17,058 images of children, 215 videos, and he made contact with other paedophiles on social networking sites.
- English Defence League member, Co-Founder and Organiser, Richard Price, was convicted of possessing images of children. The EDL released a statement that he was a “political prisoner”.
- Liam Pinkham, an active member of the North West Infidels (NWI) Islamophobic group admitted to having a relationship with a 15-year-old girl.
- Britain First (BF) and EDL activist, John Broomfield was convicted of possessing images of children.
- During 2012, Ryan Fleming, an activist of the neo-Nazi National Action group was alleged to have been involved in the sexual assault of a teenage boy.
- British National Party (BNP) members and supporters who have convictions for possessing images of children and engaging in sexual activity with children include: Nigel Hesmondhalgh, Ian Hindle, Andrew Wells, Roderick Rowley, Ian Si’Ree, Darren Francis and Gavin Leist.
- The former leader of the EDL, Stephen Lennon (aka Tommy Robinson) wrote on Twitter to a young girl called “Asianish”: “your pretty fit for a muslim” to which she replied: “I’m 15 and you got the cheek to call muslims paedo’s”.
- Right-wing populist United Kingdom Independence Party paedophile members have included UKIP party aide, Aaron Knight, who was jailed in 2016 for alleged sexual activity with a seven-year-old boy, and former Bury UKIP chairman, Peter Entwistle, who was gaoled in 2014 for alleged grooming of children and having 200,000 images of children.
- The late controversial Right-wing Tory MP, Enoch Powell was recently accused by the Church of England (itself having paedophile members of its own clergy) of being involved in lurid allegations of “Satanic child sex abuse” without any real proof.
All this is disturbingly reminiscent of the allegations and trial by media surrounding the late politicians Cyril Smith (Liberal MP), Leon Brittan (Tory MP and Home Secretary), Lord Greville Janner (Labour MP and Peer), Edward Heath (Conservative Prime Minister) and Clement Freud (Liberal MP), who are also no longer alive and so unable to defend themselves in a court of law. One Tory Right-winger and supporter of Powell who was able to successfully challenge the far-fetched and ludicrous accusations of child abuse and murder which were made against him by a suspected serial fantasist called “Nick” is former MP, Harvey Proctor, and Operation Midland was closed down by police as a result.
So dear reader, you may well ask what is the point of this article? As issue No.3 of PAN (an acronym of Paedophile Alert News/Paedophile Action Network) previously quoted made clear, paedophiles and child-lovers can hold a wide range of political views, including those of the anti-fascist Left, Far-Right, UKIP, Liberal, Labour or Conservative, and are also represented in all religions and none. However, the leaderships of the Far-Right movements need to stop hypocritically attacking “Muslim paedophiles” (as the British hard-right groups used to mainly attack “Jewish paedophiles” and still do, with less frequency) when they have paedophile members of their own extreme Right organisations, just as the Far-Left groups need to think twice and consider their own paedophile supporters before demonising all paedophiles and tarring them with the neo-Nazi brush.
In reply to Lukas….I hear Pier Paolo was murdered, do you know the reason?
http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/37893.Pier_Paolo_Pasolini
Libertine,
There is lots of speculation but it was probably a trick gone bad. He was writing a novel at the time taking on the oil business/Big Business/megalomaniac executives in Italy: “Petrolio”. Could have been that. But, most likely a hustler not able to deal with homosexual sex who went nuts.
The Christians and their never ending never letting up efforts to make us good fuck these sensitive young men up. If you would like to see a movie that takes on the ones trying to normalize us I recommend “The Tutor” by Ivan Noel noelfilms.com He hits them and the psychologists who support them square in the balls.
Love,
Lukas
Libertine,
Thought I should give you a little more information. He was killed on a beach at Ostia. There is a memorial to him there that is easy to find by Googling it as well as lots of brutal pictures. It was an awful murder scene. The young man did go crazy.
A couple of years ago my brother was visiting Rome and went down and placed a stone on Pasolini’s Memorial for me. I like that a lot.
Lukas
No more comments on this thread, please. As I said earlier (but you may have missed it, Lukas), comments on this blog are closing.
Post-WW2:
Extreme-Islam aka Taliban/Al Queda/ISIS
versus
Extreme-USA aka Uptite $exual Assholes
More comments on this link:
https://www.quora.com/Did-the-US-really-kill-20M-civilians-since-WW2-through-direct-military-actions-and-US-sponsored-proxy-wars-as-some-studies-claim-Why-doesnt-the-US-media-ever-talk-about-the-2M-civilian-deaths-even-in-recent-wars-like-in-Iraq-and-Afghanistan
Since the Sep 21 start of this excellent guest-blog two weeks ago, now nearing or surpassing the record number of comments for this site?
The biased, or blinkered, all anti-Islam child lover Mr Sisyphus Mann has not once even acknowledged the literally hundreds of thousands, or more, child victims slaughtered or permanently physically and mentally maimed.
Not by inexcusable extreme Islam/ISIS opportunist terrorists, but by highly organized, meticulously planned, ultra high tech US/UK Mass Terror Bombers. Raining industrial death and destruction on entire countries, cities, towns, villages, and homes. Among circa Ten Million people they have mercilessly killed in ‘peacetime’ post-WW2. Far exceeding the, also shameful, unknown several thousand adults and children inexcusably killed by Islam extremists in the same 70 year modern period.
One might well ask child lover Mr S.M. to justify his extreme lack of empathy and glaringly unbalanced omission. Surely noted here by more than one reader?
>Since the Sep 21 start of this excellent guest-blog two weeks ago, now nearing or surpassing the record number of comments for this site?
It has been a lively discussion and I am very pleased to see such an unusually high number of comments – 176 of them as I write.
I would point out, though, that there were 485 comments on the blog Inadmissible Testimony:
https://tomocarroll.wordpress.com/2014/11/21/inadmissible-testimony/
Thank you Mr O’ Carroll, for the enlightening correction about your increasingly popular blog, also on wider issues.
Once more, while the politically naïeve Mr S.M. and others rightly rail against the obvious evil of extreme Islam. The less obvious but equally evil stench of hypocritical extremes come from naïeve Britons’ own revered authorities and outrageously omissive mainstream media. Much as, rightly noted by heretics here, they do with the grotesquely misrepresented issue ‘paedophilia’.
An outrageously omissive mainstream including Mr S.M.’s Left wing media which for decades has deliberately ‘left out’ what is rightly restored for all to see again today, by UK true journalist and heroic historian Mark Curtis.
“ A key feature of ‘Londonistan’ was the operation of a so-called ‘covenant of security’ between radical Islamists in Britain and the security services. Crispin Black, a former Cabinet Office intelligence analyst, described the covenant as ‘the long-standing British habit of providing refuge and welfare to Islamist extremists on the unspoken assumption that if we give them a safe haven here they will not attack us on these shores.’ A Special Branch officer said that ‘there was a deal with these guys. We told them that if you don’t cause us any problems, then we won’t bother you.’ A variety of Islamist figures have spoken about the existence of such an agreement. Abu Hamza, the former imam at the Finsbury Park Mosque, said at his trial at the Old Bailey that he believed a deal operated whereby his activities would be tolerated as long they targeted only foreign soil. He recalled how Scotland Yard’s intelligence wing, the Special Branch, assured him that ‘you don’t have anything to worry about as long as we don’t see blood on the streets’. ”
https://markcurtis.wordpress.com/2016/10/05/londonistan-britains-green-light-to-terrorism/
No complaints about this post, and that is not just down to the complimentary opening sentence. Your point about the media is extremely relevant in this context and the information from Mark Curtis could hardly be more important. So, thanks very much!
Hello my thinly disguised friend, FTC.
I find your request rather odd – couldn’t I equally require you to show more sympathy for the Trojans massacred by the Achaens in the Trojan war before I’m willing to address your arguments?
I don’t need to condemn the actions of whatever person, community or country you randomly nominate before I am allowed to criticise the ideology and tactics of islamism.
They are to be judged on their own beliefs and deeds.
Moreover can I direct you to the wikipedia page titled ‘List of ongoing armed conflicts’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts) – there are (I think) 54 ongoing conflicts currently – of those (I think) 44 are either moslem against moslem, or islamic terrorism, or wars of islamist imperialism such as those waged by ISIL and Boko Haram.
That’s 82% of conflicts today are provoked by islam (yes, ‘provoked’ – go through the list and see if any involve aggression against islamic states by non-islamic states..! – unless you count the world’s actions against ISIS as ‘aggression’…)
Hello my undisguised friend, LSM.
I find your reply oddly evasive. We could all show more empathy toward all victims of all brutality since Caine & Abel. While playing tit-for-tat games of lists through the ages.
Until finally addressing the current ‘on topic’ point of sheer scale (compared to all others including extreme Islam) of modern post-WW2 US/UK ‘peacetime’ brutality hypocritically posed as ‘World Protection’. While deviously colluding with extreme islam and mass killing 10 Million humans including hundreds of thousands of innocent children Worldwide.
And, still with extreme lack of empathy or sympathy shown from some so called ‘Child Lovers’ extremely unwilling to face these hard facts – no argument?
“That’s 82% of conflicts today are provoked by Islam” says LSM.
So the Israeli-Palestinian conflict exists not because Israel occupies Palestinian land, but because Palestinian Islamists have assaulted Israel ?!
And the Xinjiang conflict is caused not by the Beijing government’s discrimination against and colonial oppression of the Uighur people (Muslims speaking a language related to Turkish), but because the Uighur Muslims have attacked the Han majority?!
And in Myanmar/Burma, is it the Muslim Rohingas who have stigmatized, oppressed and excluded the Buddhist majority?!
I wonder if LSM learned about Islam in Londonistan, since his views are a caricature… but of course, the UK is itself a caricature, with its Londonistan, UKIP, EDL, Murdoch press, and judges ordering the destruction of works of art showing nude children (Ovenden collection).
“First of all, you must never speak of anything by its name—in that country. So, if you see a tree on a mountain, it will be better to say ‘Look at the green on the high’; for that’s how they talk—in that country. And whatever you do, you must find a false reason for doing it—in that country. If you rob a man, you must say it is to help and protect him: that’s the ethics—of that country. And everything of value has no value at all—in that country. You must be perfectly commonplace if you want to be a genius—in that country. And everything you like you must pretend not to like; and anything that is there you must pretend is not there—in that country. And you must always say that you are sacrificing yourself in the cause of religion, and morality, and humanity, and liberty, and progress, when you want to cheat your neighbour—in that country.”
“Good heavens!” cried Iliel, “are we going to England?”
— Aleister Crowley, Moonchild
There are similarities between the condition of paedophiles and that of ex-moslem atheists, gay moslems and genuinely moderate moslems (who reject the ideology of islamic imperialism – Islamism).
These are in a similar position vis a vis their community as are paedophiles in relation to our own societies: they experience an intense stigma, hate and disgust (either directly if ‘out or ‘outed’, or indirectly through the ever-present discourse around them). If ‘out’ they may also be ostracised, be victims of violence, or murdered.
Whilst there is nothing we can do as paedophiles to make their lot any easier, as citizens we CAN help them by making it clear that, if their own community rejects them, the community of enlightened secular Westerners will welcome them.
But whenever we make excuses for islamic violence and intolerance, whenever we draw the limits of validity for historical grievances at the crusades, but rule ‘out of play’ those aggressions that provoked the crusades, whenever we accept lower moral and ethical standards because to do otherwise would be to breach the assumption that ‘all cultures are equal’ (this is the ‘racism of low expectations’) – whenever we do these acts of obfuscation and obscuratism, we take side with the islamists, the jihadists, against the gay moslems, against the ex-moslem atheist, against the truly moderate moslem.
Interestingly people like Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Robert Spencer, Sarah Haider, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Richard Dawkins, Maajid Nawaz are criticised as being ‘islamophobic’ when they draw attention to the worst that islam does and provokes – but are not praised as being ‘islamophile’ when they defend gay moslems, defend women’s rights in islamic countries, protest againt FGM and the stoning of raped women, when they defend moderate moslems and ex-moslem atheists.
There are tens (maybe hundreds) of millions of atheist or agnostic moslems, many many more wavering in the face of the sheer stupidity and nastiness of the koran and the deeds of their co-religionists.
These moslems face a similar situation to paedophiles – if every paedophile ‘came out’ the sheer number of us would force changes in the narrative around us, the fact that we aren’t all the monsters painted by the popular narrative would become undeniable: this is an untruth that can only thrive because of our silence, because of our invisibility.
The reason we can’t do this is because we have no community to escape to if our ‘coming out’ proves disastrous. Moslems, certainly those in the West, should feel that they have a community to escape into – but we are letting them down.
When we ape the arguments of the islamists, and apologise and make excuses for the barbarities associated with islam, we are telling them, the oppressed moslems and ex-moslems who wish to escape from their hell, we are telling them that they have nowhere to escape to – that even the liberal West, now so amicable to homosexuality, to secularism, to free thinking, will not offer them an ideological haven, that even amongst secular westerners the norm is to defend their oppressors and their ideology.
That is why oppressed moslems and ex-moslems need to hear us arguing vigorously against islamism, jihadism, ISIS etc rather than, like masochists, defending them and condescendingly apologising for them and justifying them, even as they bomb us and slaughter our children.
US Department of Defense, 1999: “We should expect conflicts in which adversaries, because of cultural affinities different from our own, will resort to forms and levels of violence shocking to our sensibilities.”
Martin Kelly, publisher of a nonviolence website: “We never see the smoke and the fire, we never smell the blood, we never see the terror in the eyes of the children, whose nightmares will now feature screaming missiles from unseen terrorists, known only as ‘Americans’.”
C. Douglas Lummis, political scientist: ” It is a scandal in contemporary international law..that while ‘wanton destruction of towns, cities and villages’ is a war crime of long standing, the bombing of cities from airplanes goes not only unpunished but virtually unaccused. Air bombardment is state terrorism, the terrorism of the rich. It has burned up and blasted apart more innocents in the past six decades than have all the anti-state terrorists who ever lived. Something has benumbed our consciousness against this reality. In the United States we would not consider for the presidency a man who had once thrown a bomb into a crowded restaurant, but we are happy to elect a man who once dropped bombs from airplanes that destroyed not only restaurants but the buildings that contained them and the neighborhoods that surrounded them. I went to Iraq after the Gulf war and saw for myself what the bombs did; ‘wanton destruction is just the term for it.”
Ex-CIA William Blum: ” It’s become a commonplace to accuse the United States of choosing as its bombing targets only people of color, those of the Third World, or Muslims. But it must be remembered that one of the most sustained and ferocious American bombing campaigns was carried out against the people of the former Yugoslavia – white, European, Christians. The United States is an equal-opportunity bomber. The only qualifications for a country to become a target are: It poses a sufficient obstacle to the desires of the American Empire;
It is virtually defenseless against aerial attack.”
Is this really “For The Children” or just “Against The Americans”?
Respectfully responding to child lover Mr O’Carroll and others, perhaps also in glass houses?
Including a vast majority of child loving good Americans kept ignorant of their cowardly governments’ post-WW2 peacetime destruction of millions of people and their children.
Tuesday May 17, 2005, falsely accused of being a paid ally of Saddam Hussein in the 1990s, UK MP George Galloway wins another case. This one against the all powerful bully US Government (plus the Daily Telegraph, Christian Science Monitor, Mail On Sunday, and other liars).
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/01/world/iraq-sanctions-kill-children-un-reports.html
http://www.juancole.com/2013/10/american-population-sanctions.html
From 20m.40s, “Senator, I gave my heart and soul to oppose the policy that you promoted. I gave my political life’s blood to try to stop the mass killing of Iraqis by the sanctions on Iraq, which killed a million Iraqis, most of them children. Most of them died before they even knew that they were Iraqis, but they died for no other reason other than that they were Iraqis with the misfortune to be born at that time…”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4LDQixpCa8
I don’t really disagree with any of this, or its importance, but it is well off topic for this blog. It doesn’t relate directly to the blog topic and is at best only very tangential to other comments made here about Islam etc. I am not going to keep posting random anti-American (or anti-American government) sentiments. Aim for relevance or else take your posts to another blog site.
Thank you for your further candid ‘on topic’ reply Mr O’ Carroll.
Though early on this anti-extremist guest blog, with your support, soon turned into ‘Has Islam killed more Adults & Children than all others in history?’
To which the historic and certainly post-WW2 answer is ‘No!’
That shameful dishonor is proven hugely owned by the USA and close ally UK. With their honorable Mr Galloway, loving father of several children (his fair haired daughter sat behind him in the US Senate) also making an anti-extremist media blunt point in his destruction of pro-Neo Con Sky News, Sun Aug 6 2006.
From 8m.45s, “You don’t give a damn! You don’t even know about the Palestinian families. You don’t even know that they exist. Tell me the name of one member of the seven members of the same family slaughtered on the beach in Gaza by an Israeli warship. You don’t even know their name, but you know the name of every Israeli soldier whose been taken prisoner in this conflict, because you believe, whether you know it or not, that Israeli blood is more valuable than the blood of Lebanese or Palestinians. That’s the truth, and the discerning of your viewers already know it! “
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiUFgWzqupQ
Better. You have made the relevant connection. It always helps to spell out what you mean, tying it back to the debate in hand.
I’m just watching this lecture by Robert Spencer – an authority on islam.
The editing is a little jumpy at one point, but he makes much the same points I was making about the crusades being a last-ditch defense against islamic expansionism – he also touches on a lot else…
https://youtu.be/nC6IzAU5AG8
a chilling quote:
“it’s only a matter of time before sharia law spreads through Europe, but it’s also only a matter of time before Europeans realise what that means…” (@ 36:40)
Here is an alternative view. David Musa Pidcock is an indigenous English revert to Islam, who formed the Islamic Party of Britain in 1989, at London Central Mosque. Although it is true that the IPB are against homosexuality it would be interesting to know their views on the Prophet’s marriage to the child bride, Aisha.
http://www.islamicparty.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIGl4SAzWSU
I have a book ‘Islam – Our Choice’ edited by Ebrahim Ahmed Bawany (Muslim World League (Cairo, Egypt 1961) which is a collection of interviews with British, European and American reverts to Islam, such as Al-Haj Lord Headley al-Farooq (English Peer and Statesman), Muhammad Asad (Austrian born Jew who found Islam and supported the cause of Palestinian Arab national freedom), Sir Abdullah Archibald Hamilton (British Aristocrat and former member of Mosley’s British Union of Fascists and the Conservative Party who embraced Islam), Muhammad John Webster (ex-Trotskyite and ex-Fascist who embraced Islam and became President of the English Muslim Mission) and B. Davis (ex-Communist who became a Muslim). It is a fascinating book which shows how people’s lives are transformed by the faith of Islam.
Interestingly, the Wiki entry on Muhammad (also spelt Muhammed) John Webster claims that ‘although married twice he had a number of gay relationships’ and he wrote a letter to the Jewish Chronicle newspaper apologising for his earlier extreme anti-Semitic views, and then he reverted to Islam giving fiery speeches at London’s free speech Hyde Park Speaker’s Corner and in Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Webster_(orator)
http://www.iupui.edu/~msaiupui/john_webster.htm
I’m interested in your use of the word ‘revert’ where the normal usage would be ‘convert’: don’t you think this usage betrays a profound arrogance on the part of your religion? an assumption that somehow we are all born with your beliefs? Don’t you recognise that it’s this kind of thing that can incite hatred against your religion?
I guess atheists could use ‘revert’ too for the millions who are born to islamic parents, and who then go on to reject it. I think that it could be more convincingly demonstrated that, rather than being born believing in the contents of the koran, babies are born with NO religious beliefs.
But for whatever reason, we don’t use ‘revert’ to describe those who abandon religion – I think it’s because generally we (atheists) at least aspire to thinking about such matters with evidence-based reason and with honest, critical thinking. We prefer not to muddy the brain with dishonest language, predigested thinking and mind games such as your use of the word ‘revert’ exemplifies.
On the subject of Aisha – I’m preparing a blog on the subject of what happened between her and Muhammad – do you know of any site on the internet where all references to Aisha in the holy books of islam etc were gathered together in one document? – either translated into English, Spanish, French or Italian? I’m trying to work out exactly what happened between them directly from the ‘sources’ rather than from biased (either for or against) interpretations.
I have to go out for the day in London soon but will see what I can find as regards Muslim research about Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and Aisha for your article. Could you possibly post a link to your article here when you have finished writing it?
I have just found out that David Musa Pidcock is speaking at a Yorkshire Forum debate today in Bradford with…Tony Braithwaite, an official of the Islamophobic, National Front, so that would be interesting!
Here is an earlier free speech debate between Riaz Khan, a Muslim author and Paul Golding. leader of the Islamophobic, Britain First party. Both of them agree with each other at the end of the ‘debate’ about ‘hanging groomers and paedophiles’…but what does Mr Khan think about his own Prophet and Aisha?!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcA5LE0O3uA
Unlike most in this blog, I’ve always been of the radical right (which now would is called alt-right) and they (the right) have always supported to lower age of criminal responsibility, curiously for these morons a juvenile is responsible for his actions,as long as are not sexual.
Just in case you try to make them understand that then a minor can consent to a relationship, they will respond that being a “paedophile” (any attracted to under 18) it is a disease, besides the fact that it the disease is -really- (emphasis) to being attracted to “minors”, not to biological children, but in the pure legal concept of children, they (the Right) are pathetic louts inc. I now abhor them.
Left-Right Politics are the opium of the people, to confront and subdue the masses, intelligent beings do not need right or left politics.
>”Could you possibly post a link to your article here when you have finished writing it?”
I’ll post a comment addressed to you here when the article goes online. But it’ll be in quite a few months time so there is a risk, what with my sieve-like memory, that I’ll just plain forget. Sorry.
Why not follow my blog or RSS it – that way you’ll be alerted automatically.
Ah thanks, yes I’ve found your blog now so will check it for new content occasionally and keep a look out for your Prophet and Aisha article.
Winston your people frightens me, what do you want me to say? many Muslims would kill me just for the previous rant, if I go cry against something is normal for people to be angry if someone, a dumb dare, god forbid, insult my attraction, my honor and the precious beings that I love, probably not end well for he, but this ‘peace people’ kill you just for the slightest thing, just for not following their sect within Islam, if I attack Christianity that can happen to me?
if you attack Islam and you have in the wrong place (ever more territory) your life is in serious danger, why we will not abhor Islam? I am a very agressive and radical person (at least, ideologicaly) and yet Islam is the thing I feel most intimidated, along with the LGBT mafia, other terrorists using all kinds of tricks and threats to eliminate those who dissent from his twisted narrative, but at least as far I know, LGTB’ers does not kill you with bullets. I think it’s significant.
I have to catch a train soon but I will say this – I support moderate reforming Muslims such as the Association of British Muslims (AOBM) who promote equality for all human beings regardless of sexual orientation, nationality, race, ethnicity, gender, creed etc, and they oppose extremism and terrorism:
http://aobm.org/
Man-o-Man we are going into the dark, into murder and blood. Just catching glimpses of this thread is opening my eyes. Europe and the USA are falling. We deserve it: We are A False People with False Morals as Ivan Noel says in his new movie “The Tutor”. Ivan is fighting the good fight in his own way with his own tools: Music and Film.
Lukas
Honestly, Leonard, if you’re saying you think the Crusades had a historical justification as some type of defense against the spread of Islam, then you not only need to do a much more thorough study of all the horrific things the Crusades did to convert others to Christianity, but you also need to take a trip to the USA and have some serious conversations with just a few of the fundamentalist Christians and conservative Catholics I know. Be sure to ask them questions about what they think U.S. law should be like, and what the rest of the world would be like if they acquired sufficient political power so that the military and economic power of the United States was at their beck and call. While you do that, be sure to keep in mind that attempting to acquire that type of political power is precisely what their long-term goal is.
Then you will see that Islam is far from alone as a “Religion of the Book” that can and will justify any type of horrors inflicted upon others in the name of “battling evil” and “saving our souls” if its followers insist that the law of the land should be based on a literalist interpretation of a holy book that was written thousands of years ago, when the world was a far different place than it is today. That is why liberal practitioners of these religions readily understand that these holy books need to adapt to more enlightened times, and not be interpreted in literal fashion, or twisted in ways that justify the acquisition of power and dominance over others.
The Crusades was all about doing just that for the Roman Catholic Church, and we could easily have a new version of the Crusades if fundamentalist and ultra-conservative Christians in the U.S. got their way, only this time swords and daggers would be replaced with Hellfire missiles, automated drones, and nuclear weapons. And anyone who thinks that governments based on sharia law would be their only target are fools. Trust me, they would be VERY quick to target any number of European nations who are too secular for their tastes, as well as nations like Iceland who are re-adopting Norse Paganism on a wide scale (albeit keeping it out of government).
Hi Dissy, sorry to have been a bit slow getting back to you…
Firstly one should not confuse the justness of a war with the justness of the way that war is conducted. A just war can be conducted badly and an unjust war can scrupulously adhere to the Geneva convention. Few would doubt the justness of the war conducted by the Allies against the Axis powers – but many question the justness of certain Allied actions, such as the Dresden bombings, or the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki…
But even if we evaluate the two sides on the way they conducted the conflict – is there any evidence that the moslem wars of imperialist conquest were/are being conducted with fewer atrocities and war crimes than the crusades?
In the century and a quarter following its invention, Islam expanded from just Mecca and Medina to having conquered, subjugated and religiously cleansed the following Christian countries and regions – the Levant, Mesopotamia, Persia, North Africa, Iberia, Gaul, plus the Transoxania and Caucasus, which had a large minority Christian populations, and Sindh, which didn’t (as far as I can tell).
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Map_of_expansion_of_Caliphate.svg
The actions involved in the current phase of the islamic imperialist war – those of ISIS, the Taliban, Boko-Haram, Hamas – are all of the most extreme grotesque and gleeful savagery, aggression and inhumanity.
One of ISIS’s projects is to build an atomic bomb. If/when they manage to do so (it will only take a few corrupt generals from Pakistan for that to happen) does anyone doubt that they wouldn’t put it on a small boat, sail into New York harbour and set it off? Yet in doing so they would be following quite scrupulously the rules of conquest as set out in the Koran and the Hadith.
….
Religious fundamentalism in the USA today has no bearing on the justness (or otherwise) of the Crusades.
All major forms of islam (the four schools of Sunni, Shia, even the mystic Sufis) mandate the use of war and conquest to spread islam, they make it a holy duty, the killing of all who are not ‘people of the book’ who refuse to convert, the ‘people of the book’ are subjected to a raft of measures (Jiziyya) – of such an intense degradation and humiliation that would make apartheid South Africa seem like the Notting Hill Carnival. (Ahmadiyya, the only exception, still mandates the conquest of the world by islam, but by non-violent means – but they still mandate the application of Jiziyya).
They are attacking us because they sense we are weak, that we have bought their ‘soft jihad’ propaganda that has given us such concepts of ‘islamophobia’ and which tars all critics of islam as ‘racist’, ‘bigoted’ or ‘right-wing’. But islam has had the project of world conquest since its inception. The crusades merely halted that project.
If you are in doubt then read (if you can stomach the accompanying photographs and disturbing descriptions) issue n°15 of the ISIS’s propaganda magazine ‘Dabiq’.
In it there is an article in which a jihadist explains why ISIS is at war with the non-moslem world.
Nowhere is there a mention of Israel, the USA, the invasion of Iraq, or any geopolitical factors mentioned – no, tell a lie, they are mentioned once – and that is only to say that they are NOT a factor in the eternal war that ISIS and the Umma are waging against the infidel – every single justification is absolutely centred on scripture.
The following lecture is worth listening to for the detail it throws of the condtions of life of Jews and Christians under The Golden Age of Islam – in particular Al-Andalus. And what islams have in store for me and you if (or when) they gain power in our respective countries.
https://youtu.be/TMGRGtiO9Ro
I’d also add as an after-thought that we in the West are more aware of the crimes of the crusades because Western countries are permitted a self-critical view on their own history – we can look back at our own history and find fault with our ancestors’ actions, compare them with the evolving standards resulting from the progress of thought, reason and science, and the general retreat of superstition and faith.
This is alien to islamic culture since for them the koran and the actions of Muhammaed are the benchmark for their evaluation of actions and their history. This acts as a very effective bridle to self-criticism and moral progress – in terms of morals and ethics, islam has, since its invention, been running on the spot.
We know of the crimes of the crusades because we have looked at our ancestors actions, found them morally at fault and proclaimed and published our evaluation – islam has looked at its ancestors war crimes, deemed them ‘halal’, celebrated them and is trying to repeat them.
Let’s see how succinct I can make my responses, since lengthy replies from me appear to be frowned on more than most others.
Hi Dissy, sorry to have been a bit slow getting back to you…
If I couldn’t forgive a valued friend and colleague, who could I forgive? 🙂
Firstly one should not confuse the justness of a war with the justness of the way that war is conducted.
True, but the Crusades was never a “just” war. It was based on a simple but potent desire by the Roman Catholic Church of the era to forcefully impose Christianity on other nations, by literal use of the sword. It was a prime example of what happens when any type of religion becomes organized and intertwined with government and law to the point that the two are either inseparable or one and the same.
But even if we evaluate the two sides on the way they conducted the conflict – is there any evidence that the moslem wars of imperialist conquest were/are being conducted with fewer atrocities and war crimes than the crusades?
No one said they were, Lensman. At least, I certainly didn’t. My argument was and is that organized, extremist Islam is no more or no less extreme in its beliefs and actions when adhering to thousand-year-old interpretations of a holy book than organized, extremist Christianity. Currently, the world thankfully lacks a nation based on fundamentalist, extremist Christian law, in contrast to the many nations in the Middle East based on sharia law.
In the U.S., however, it’s quite clear how similar the fundie Christians are to the fundie Islamists, and what would happen if the Republican Christians ever succeeded in gaining control of the U.S. military. The U.S. has a far more powerful military and economic structure than any of the Middle Eastern nations of note, and thus is capable of wreaking far more havoc on the world today in the name of Christianity than any Islamic nation ruled by sharia law is currently capable of doing in the name of Islam.
In the century and a quarter following its invention, Islam expanded from just Mecca and Medina to having conquered, subjugated and religiously cleansed the following Christian countries and regions – the Levant, Mesopotamia, Persia, North Africa, Iberia, Gaul, plus the Transoxania and Caucasus, which had a large minority Christian populations, and Sindh, which didn’t (as far as I can tell).
Christianity didn’t do too bad itself, to say the least, after it went from being a persecuted minority religion in Rome to the state religion of the empire.
One of ISIS’s projects is to build an atomic bomb. If/when they manage to do so (it will only take a few corrupt generals from Pakistan for that to happen) does anyone doubt that they wouldn’t put it on a small boat, sail into New York harbour and set it off? Yet in doing so they would be following quite scrupulously the rules of conquest as set out in the Koran and the Hadith.
The U.S., which is the closest thing we have to a “Christian” nation in the world today (many fundie Christians insist that the U.S. Constitution is based on Christian precepts), has thousands of nuclear weapons, when just one or two would be enough to wreak incredible devastation on the entire planet’s biosphere.
….
Religious fundamentalism in the USA today has no bearing on the justness (or otherwise) of the Crusades.
I disagree. The Crusades indicate two important points: 1) It’s a perfect example of what happens when any organized religion becomes enmeshed in government and the law, as noted above; 2) It provides ample proof that Islam isn’t uniquely aggressive, violent, or intolerant when it comes to organized religions becoming intertwined in the government. The beliefs held by the leaders and followers of the Crusades are very similar to conservative Christians of contemporary America. Thus, I would argue what the Crusades represented has extreme bearing on the fundie Christians of today, because the same thing would happen–albeit on a far more destructive scale–if they ever succeeded in taking control of the U.S. government.
All major forms of islam (the four schools of Sunni, Shia, even the mystic Sufis) mandate the use of war and conquest to spread islam, they make it a holy duty, the killing of all who are not ‘people of the book’ who refuse to convert, the ‘people of the book’ are subjected to a raft of measures (Jiziyya) – of such an intense degradation and humiliation that would make apartheid South Africa seem like the Notting Hill Carnival. (Ahmadiyya, the only exception, still mandates the conquest of the world by islam, but by non-violent means – but they still mandate the application of Jiziyya).
Yet, when most of these schools are stripped of their government-based power, are exposed to more enlightened social advances, and the materially-based source of the conflicts of the past are eliminated, they become far more liberal, tolerant, and indisposed to violence. Consider how much damage the far more powerful Western nations, either based on Christian belief or fully secular material goals, have wrought compared to Islam from the 18th century onwards, when world civilization reached the prototype of what it is today: Western conquest and imperialist rule. It becomes clear that power and economic inequality are the main sources of violence in the world, not any form of religious belief per se… as long as said beliefs are kept as personal matters and kept bereft of political power.
They are attacking us because they sense we are weak, that we have bought their ‘soft jihad’ propaganda that has given us such concepts of ‘islamophobia’ and which tars all critics of islam as ‘racist’, ‘bigoted’ or ‘right-wing’. But islam has had the project of world conquest since its inception. The crusades merely halted that project.
They are attacking us in response to the destructive imperialist ventures the West has wrested upon the Middle East, particularly over the last century, as extremism is always favored by both those who have power, and as a desperate response from those who have the power of others inflicted upon them. The Crusades was not a noble cause based on an altruistic desire to defend the world against a non-benevolent conqueror, and honestly, my friend, if you truly believe that, then you are seriously letting hatred of a specific form of extremism cloud your mind against all others.
If you are in doubt then read (if you can stomach the accompanying photographs and disturbing descriptions) issue n°15 of the ISIS’s propaganda magazine ‘Dabiq’.
If I can stomach the many hateful and violence-laden comments made by the fundie Christians I have known here in America, I could probably make it through the ‘Dabiq’, since the rhetoric is doubtlessly quite comparable.
Nowhere is there a mention of Israel, the USA, the invasion of Iraq, or any geopolitical factors mentioned – no, tell a lie, they are mentioned once – and that is only to say that they are NOT a factor in the eternal war that ISIS and the Umma are waging against the infidel – every single justification is absolutely centred on scripture.
Scripture is the excuse made by extremist beliefs to obscure the real sources of violence: the desire to have power and control of regional or world resources over others. Intolerant religious beliefs serve the same purpose as fascist laws in a penal code, which is why the two so often operate hand-in-hand.
I’d also add as an after-thought that we in the West are more aware of the crimes of the crusades because Western countries are permitted a self-critical view on their own history – we can look back at our own history and find fault with our ancestors’ actions, compare them with the evolving standards resulting from the progress of thought, reason and science, and the general retreat of superstition and faith.
If you believe this, my friend, then again, you seriously need to visit America and have some long conversations with the many pundits of what we call “patriotic correctness” here. These individuals, many of whom are in powerful governmental or media positions, will justify anything the United States has ever done, now or in the past, as being in the name of “freedom”. You should have seen the political climate during the invasion of Iraq… the popular country music group the Dixie Chicks were banned from many radio stations for a song that was critical of the U.S. actions in Iraq. And that’s just one example!
We know of the crimes of the crusades because we have looked at our ancestors actions, found them morally at fault and proclaimed and published our evaluation – islam has looked at its ancestors war crimes, deemed them ‘halal’, celebrated them and is trying to repeat them.
I’m sorry to tell you this, my friend, but it’s only been in very recent years that the Pope apologized for the Crusades. Prior to that, it was only the most liberal Christians who publicly acknowledged the Crusades were wrong. And the United States government and media at large repeatedly displays a “haha,” celebratory attitude towards the many horrific actions the U.S. has taken since its inception to now, with several wars in the Middle East still ongoing, and with the government now blatantly provoking Russia and China.
This Islamic “thing” of yours is, I’m sorry to point out again, shows how your near-singular focus on one particular source of extremist violence, while actually going so far as to apologize or minimize those of others (especially if it happens to be a rival of your preferred target), is causing you to focus hatred upon one group in a very general sense while willfully overlooking the big picture. This is a problem we all need to overcome if we are ever to collectively identify the true crux of these problems ($$$-ism!) rather than one of the many individual symptoms. I think you’re much too smart and critically intuitive to fall into this trap, my friend.
>Let’s see how succinct I can make my responses, since lengthy replies from me appear to be frowned on more than most others.
Ah, perhaps I victimise you because I don’t like your views? 🙂
None of your points are too long individually, Dissy, but if you want more people to read than just LSM and me you would do well to be selective: respond with your ace of trumps, not the whole darned pack.
That said, it seems this debate has pretty much run its useful course now. Everyone knows what everyone else thinks. Time for all parties to move on, I suggest.
Ah, perhaps I victimise you because I don’t like your views???
Really? And I always thought you victimized me because you disliked my religious beliefs, as well as my favorite color and maybe my zodiac sign 🙂
None of your points are too long individually, Dissy, but if you want more people to read than just LSM and me you would do well to be selective: respond with your ace of trumps, not the whole darned pack.
As noted before, it’s a matter of taste. There are some people, myself included, who enjoy lengthy responses that do more or less full justice to a topic. For instance, I enjoy every long diatribe from Lensman, A (where has she been lately?), and other posters who tend to make long posts, because they are always very well done. I try to be succinct as best I can (though not always succeeding) here since I know that is not your preference, and as the sole moderator of the comments section, lengthy responses are understandably difficult for you. As I also noted before, though, when I do make short responses, I will often get complaints from those who likewise prefer longer diatribes that I failed to do the topic full justice, even to the point of being accused of being intellectually evasive (“I see you didn’t bother to mention […], let alone […]”). It’s impossible to please everyone, even when you do make an attempt to appease different tastes.
>when I do make short responses, I will often get complaints
Are you sure they’re not having a laugh, in a sort of ironic tribute to your usual thoroughness? It’s just that I am struggling to understand why I cannot remember (and I don’t think my memory is too bad) even one such complaint from any reader about anyone being too succinct or even, which is not quite the same thing, too brief.
If you think such complainants are making a serious point, though, I’d have thought it must be because they had spotted a particular element of evidence or argument that you had omitted to mention. In which case, wouldn’t it be a good idea to suggest they should post their own comment on the matter? I think it is safe to assume that readers would prefer as wide a range as contributors as possible, each bringing their own different experiences and knowledge to the debate, rather than a slugfest between the combatants with the most stamina. But, if I am wrong about this, other readers are very welcome to chip in and tell me so. All I would ask is that any such comments should be confined to this limited issue.
>when I do make short responses, I will often get complaints
Are you sure they’re not having a laugh, in a sort of ironic tribute to your usual thoroughness?
In all honesty, I like to think I know the difference between an ironic statement like “Wow, why were you so short this time?” and a serious intellectual accusation such as, “I noticed that you didn’t say […]” in a clearly heated fashion.
It’s just that I am struggling to understand why I cannot remember (and I don’t think my memory is too bad) even one such complaint from any reader about anyone being too succinct or even, which is not quite the same thing, too brief.
The above occurred on this blog specifically once during an exchange with Jasmine (where has she been lately?). We were having a heated debate, I tried to be succinct–even noting I could not do full justice to the topic in question with limited space here–but she, who also prefers more thoroughness–felt I was doing the subject an injustice by not covering all possible avenues. I believe the topic was over economics. That said, such things have not happened entirely on this blog; my many years of posting on numerous sites have made it clear that you cannot please everyone with either a short or long length. Maybe you cannot remember because it’s just not a priority to you, which may result in your belief that your particular preference of length is near-universal, with myself (and perhaps Lensman) being the only two people on the planet who feel differently.
If you think such complainants are making a serious point, though, I’d have thought it must be because they had spotted a particular element of evidence or argument that you had omitted to mention.
Yes, which is the point I’m trying to make here. This especially occurs if you broach a secondary topic that you do not have the time and/or space to go into fully.
In which case, wouldn’t it be a good idea to suggest they should post their own comment on the matter?
Which has occurred, but it still can lead to a thorough discussion of the secondary topic, which is why I’m often hesitant to broach them.
I think it is safe to assume that readers would prefer as wide a range as contributors as possible, each bringing their own different experiences and knowledge to the debate, rather than a slugfest between the combatants with the most stamina.
The assumption you seem to make is this: if few to no people contribute to a discussion involving two posters with great discussion stamina, that must mean they were turned off by the length of the exchanges. Yet you have noted yourself that many shorter comments are not responded to by you for reasons that have nothing to do with lack of interest: e.g., you fully agreed with everything said, and didn’t feel you had anything to add; you didn’t disagree enough to want to get into it with a response; your only disagreement was with a secondary topic mentioned that you didn’t want to respond to and thus risk pulling the main topic off-track.
In all honesty, Tom, is it not possible you are far from alone in not responding to discussion threads for reasons that have nothing to do with off-putting length?
I take your point about Jasmine. Now that you remind me I am pretty sure you are absolutely right. As I say, though, other readers are welcome to chip in with their views. If there is a substantial expression of support for your position I might change my own.
As for where Jasmine went and what she is up to now, I do not know. She went silent for ages then made a brief return with a comment here on 14 January this year. It is possible she is now married! She is a grievous loss to us, of course: a truly brilliant mind with a usefully different perspective to the rest of us. I tried emailing her but the account is no longer working. But who knows, like King Arthur or Jesus, she may one day return!
I think it is worth re-posting the personal part of what she said in January, which explains her absence:
Thank you for letting me know about Jasmine, and I really do hope she is doing well! I also hope she sees this and realizes we all miss her. I’m now hoping to see A again soon (didn’t she post a few days ago here?), and I was thrilled to see Cart O’Graph back again today as I was worried about him also ! 🙂
Truthfully, I fear US fundamentalism more than anything else… Oh, wait, I also fear the way in which Australia bows down and invites the worst of America in, and without sufficient lubrication.
As well as I fear Russian Orthodox Christian fundamentalists most. These guys may be not as heavily armed and strongly organised as ISIS followers, yet they live and operate much, much closer to me and my home!
I suspect that you and I agree that fundamentalism generally, is a fearsome thing. As for Russian fundamentalism, I know nothing of it, or I may fear it also.
Please note, comments on this blog are now closed. That’s the idea at least, but I have the impression you and Explorer, and perhaps others, have missed what I said.
Sorry Tom. This is my last one here, Promise.
Sorry, Tom – I have indeed missed your request to stop posting here. Well, now I know – and move away from here!
OK, thanks!
(Further c.200 URR words.)
The YT head-to-head we’d all like to hear & see? “Learned Leonard v London’s Mayor”. (Before entering politics in 2005, born London 8 Oct 1970, Sadiq Aman Khan completed a Law Society degree at the College of Law in Guildford. From 1994-97 he was as a trainee-assistant solicitor and from 1997-2005 a partner in the firm Christian Khan with Louise Christian. During his legal career he was variously successful in actions against the police, employment and discrimination law, judicial reviews, inquests and crime.)
Meanwhile, with no political nor cultural contexts, 270 Million ALLEGEDLY killed by Blind Faith Muslims in 1400 years since their devious prophet Mohammed?
Yet still less than the hundreds of millions killed by Blind Faith Christians in 2000 years since their naeve prophet Christ plus many other non-Muslim ‘killer’ religions and cultures. No note of those stats?
And what of the multi-millions lost in the supposed peaceful ‘Christianizing’ of non-Christians including good Pagan white Europeans? Including multi-millions of non-whites killed and cultures destroyed by white mass killer Christian Europeans supposedly ‘civilizing’ all non-whites on THEIR OWN FIVE CONTINENTS Worldwide. In Africa, Asia, N. America, S. America, Australasia – where (by Muzzphobe logic), millions of whites STILL don’t belong!
Quote SeXy ’70 True Brit SongMan Davies on trans-sex/bi-sex/try-sex LOLA (from ‘Lola v Powerman & the Moneygoround Pt 1), “It’s a mixed up, muddled (not Muzzied) up, shook up world.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LemG0cvc4oU
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists
n 1929, the Second Congress changed the society’s name to The Union of Belligerent (or Militant) Atheists.[11] At this Second Congress of Atheists, Nikolai Bukharin, the editor of Pravda, called for the extermination of religion “at the tip of the bayonet.”[15] There, Yaroslavsky also made the following declaration:
“… It is our duty to destroy every religious world-concept… If the destruction of ten million human beings, as happened in the last war, should be necessary for the triumph of one definite class, then that must be done and it will be done.[16]”
Atheist brainwashing of children:
“The congress called on antireligious education to be instituted from the first-grade up. Two years later, further calls would be made by leading antireligious propagandist N. Amosov to institute antireligious education among pre-school children.”
Atheist totalitarianism and democide, Some examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
“The Agrarian Reform Law of August 1945 nationalized most property of religious institutions, including the estates of mosques, monasteries, orders, and dioceses. Many clergy and believers were tried and some were executed. All foreign Roman Catholic priests, monks, and nuns were expelled in 1946.[43]”
“Clerics were publicly vilified and humiliated, their vestments taken and desecrated. More than 200 clerics of various faiths were imprisoned, others were forced to seek work in either industry or agriculture, and some were executed or starved to death. The cloister of the Franciscan order in Shkodër was set on fire, which resulted in the death of four elderly monks.[43]”
“The Khmer Rouge, under its policy of state atheism,[52] actively persecuted Buddhists during their reign from 1975 to 1979.[53] Buddhist institutions and temples were destroyed and Buddhist monks and teachers were killed in large numbers.[54] A third of the nation’s monasteries were destroyed along with numerous holy texts and items of high artistic quality. 25,000 Buddhist monks were massacred by the regime.[55] The persecution was undertaken because Pol Pot believed Buddhism to be “a decadent affectation”. He sought to eliminate Buddhism’s 1,500-year-old mark on Cambodia.[55]
Religion was also banned, and the repression of adherents of Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism was extensive. And according to Kiernan, the “fiercest extermination campaign was directed against the ethnic Cham Muslim minority”.[56]”
God does not kill. Atheists kill.
Hopefully concisely (c. 135 words) rephrase Learned ‘Serious Muzzphobe’ Leonard’s c. 500-word, er, ‘final word’.
” Early Muslims were the first to translate most of classical antiquity’s scientific works into a foreign language, Arabic. Early Muslim mathematicians devised and developed Algebra. In the 8th Century Al-Khwarazmi used Arabic numerals later adopted by Europe. In the 10th Century Al-Razi described and treated smallpox, and used alcohol as an antiseptic. In the 11th Century Ibn Sina diagnosed and treated meningitis, while Ibn al-Haytham discovered the Camera Obscura, and Al-Biruni described the Ganges valley as a sedimentary basin. 13th Century Muslims built the first scientific observatory as an institution, and Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi accurately explained the cause of a rainbow. In the 14th Century, Ibn al-Nafis described the minor circulation of the blood. In the 15th Century, Al-Kashani invented a computing machine. ”
More pro-Muzz (NOT Muzzphile) ‘seminal’ info a-cummin in URR’s Vas Deferens.
Well, I hope I’m not too late to comment here – I was badly busy lately, and had almost no time for a long and thoughtful response. So, for days, I was only lurking here silently, reading the comments – mostly furious and confrontational ones, unfortunately – until BJ Muirhead posted his lone call for critical and dialogic approach for the topics being discussed. His post was a glimpse of light among the gloomy mist of anger and self-righteousness which becomes all-too-common nowadays when Islam and Islamism are being debated – with another shining glimpse being Tom himself, trying to remain calm among the overheated debate.
What surprises me most in these Islam-related rhetorical battles is forgetfulness of the core Western tradition – tradition of open, critical, comparative, rational thought and dialogue – which is being demonstrated not only by West-criticising defenders of Islam, but by its apparently pro-Western denouncers. But it is this valuable path – path based on an a painful but fruitful intellectual integrity, on an imperative to analyse calmly and criticise sharply not only ideas of opponents, but of oneself and one’s supporters.
Yet it is this critical tradition (let me call it so) that is the bedrock of the West – and “the West” here is not equivalent to ‘Europe”, or even “Europe and America”. European (and, later, Euro-American) culture is not synonymous to the Western one. The former is very diverse and contradictory; it includes religions (not only Christianity, but also Paganism and neo-Paganism), customs, folklore, language, symbolic, “common sense”, etc. – to be short, all contents of any culture, be it European, Asian or African. The latter, unlike the former, is a unique and revolutionary invention of Ancient Greek thinkers; it is the path of constant and unrestrained questioning and improving of all positions and activities – including positions and activities of one’s own. This inquisitive and ameliorative outlook is the foundation of the Western way – the way which, by far, was the most productive, beneficial and liberatory in the whole history of mankind.
It was productive for human knowledge and learning, providing humans with a school of open, progressive and comparative thought, starting with ancient philosophy and steadily developing itself into the modern science.
It was liberatory for human society and politics, inspiring ideals of equality, dignity and liberty – ideals which were fostered by the culture of mutually respective dialogue, with its incentives to treat its participants in an individuals and not as group-members and granting them the same right of participation, balanced by the universal obligation of integrity.
And, as strange as it may sound to some, rational critique was the most beneficial practice for the spirituality, magick and mystique, since inspires questioning of apparently revelatory experiences, as well as narratives which are used to interpret them. Such critique, despite some atheists’ wishes, does not (and cannot) devaluate or destroy spiritual drive of mankind; it helps spiritual seekers to identify and understand subjective and situational side of their own anomalous experience. By demonstrating such inevitable subjectivity and situationality, it leads the general society toward secularisation – that is, the deprivation of religious societal forces of the right and resource of institutionalised coercion. And deinstitutionalisation of religion is the greatest gift for free spirituality, since it makes it unrestrained by clerical dogma and authority.
So, now, after this long defense of the Western tradition, I return to the original question which inspired my post – do Christianity and Islam differ? My answer would be: it depends, crucially, on particular version of Christianity one is talking about – modern secularised Christianity or old institutionalised Christianity.
Old Christianity was not much different from Islam – it was authoritarian, expansive, repressive, aggressive, dogmatic and intolerant. Yet later, thanks to Renaissance, Reformation and Enlightenment – and all insurrectionary anti-feudal and anti-clerical struggle they inspired – it was forcefully secularised and deprived of its state-supported capacity to oppress. Then the more humane and critical Christians – who always existed, but were not previously able to do anything – were able to create the more progressive and spiritual forms of Christianity that we can see today.
Yet old aggressive forms of Christianity were never totally defeated – they still persist as Christian fundamentalism which still haunt the USA and plague Russia. And these funda-Christians are not the types with whom you want to relate in any way. They are cruel, fanatical, tyrannical people who are not as actually destructive as funda-Islamists only because of restraints which secular Western societies are enforcing on them – yet, in their absence, they could easily become as notorious as the worst jihadists.
Even in the presence of such restraints, funda-Christians can be atrocious – for their own children, for example. Being a child liberationist, I read many diverse materials concerning the issues of youth rights – not only the ones which I liked, but also the ones I abhorred. The latter included the narratives of funda-Christian parents (and private school workers) – as well as children who were unlucky enough to be raised by them. This reading was a true immersion into the depths of existential horror – I never imagined parents can be THAT cruel to their own children. It was not only constant beatings – it was ritualised, sadistically inventive floggings which may left any BDSM fan wondering. And physical violence was usually accompanied by a psychological one – inventive humiliation, intentional publicity, forced nudity, degrading ceremonies of “(asking for) forgiveness” etc.
Even darker aspect of horror was provided by these funda-parents’ wilfull blindness. They insisted that regular beatings are needed to keep children “obedient” – while they kids continued to transgress on almost daily basis (and therefore “deserved” further floggings). They insisted that non-whipped kids are always “undisciplined” to the point of being juvenile delinquents – while it was evidentially not the case. And – despite all funda-Christians’ sex-negativity – they staunchly refused to notice openly sexualised and eroticised nature of these ceremonial whippings: both children and parents simultaneously agreed that they were sexually aroused by these sadistic procedures and claimed that “proper spanking is not sexual”.
But the worst of all was some children’s twisted enthusiasm to be beaten again and again: they, parroting their parents’ claims, insisted that it “teach them obedience”, “makes them good citizens” etc. – while, in fact, many of them appeared to be turning into masochists.
And all this nonconsensual intergenerational sadomasochism was combined with constant Bible quotes.
So, I wouldn’t call Christian fundamentalists harmless – as I said, the (predominantly) secular society in which they live are the only reason why they have not installed repressive theocracy – which is the ultimate dream for many of them.
Of course, not all Christians are like them – there are many of the who are progressive, humanistic, critical, pro-spiritual types, with whom one may maintain a pleasant comradeship.
And what for Islam? There are secularised, tolerant Muslims, with whom positive acquaintance is possible. There were famous scholars, poets and mystics among them, such as Avicenna, Omar Khayyam and other luminaries of Islamic Golden Age.
But, unlike the (post-)Christian countries, Islamic ones did not have their secularisation – which was a damnation for Islam. Not being deprived of right and resource to repress, it continued to produce fundamentalists like ISIS-types, rather than thinkers and seekers like Khayyam. And, while secular (post-)Christian countries developed, theocratic Islamic ones degraded. Golden Age died, suppressed by reactionary fanaticism.
One can only hope that one day Islam will be as secularised as Christianity once was. But, as for now, insurrectionary wave of “Arab Spring” has lead not to the renaissance of progressive radicalism, but to the resurgence of reactionary fundamentalism.
>One can only hope that one day Islam will be as secularised as Christianity once was.
I am confident it will be. Thanks for a thoughtful post.
To Lukas for the same issue that LSM describe:
My laughter was neutral, just because I seemed sympathetic that claim, nothing more.
Why not would have to do that, Jesus certainly had no friends or died for his alleged homosexuality, is that there is the slightest no evidence of its existence, unless you have recourse to science fiction books. Books who are based in the creation of a supreme being that not have the slightest evidence of its existence, again, this is not science or evidence.
“And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him.”
That proof is this? is a strip of text in a book 2000 years ago! that is all!
This is the proof that Jesus had a boy friend? that pedophilia and homosexuality is within us? What is the serious theory of that thesis and that movie, a book that is clearly apocryphal? I have to assume that Jesus existed just for a Book created by people who believe in it? you believe in the books of Raël? you believe in the books of Ron Hubbard? at least Hubbard wrote something about science and human sexuality even if it their science – coming from fraudulent things like psychiatry and psychoanalysm – was broken.
Sorry if it sounds harsh, but here people are a bit tired of religion, including myself, here people want science and evidence to start working, not a belief in something.
Elron…I think you miss the point, There may be no evidence beyond a book of Jesus, But what about the attitudes of the people or man that wrote the bible; if there’s a benign story about homosexuality or god forbid (pun intended) paedophilia — That would be a good tool to use against puritans who condemn minority sexualities in the name of that very book.
Libertine,
Heck yea, we do not need an iron clad case. I especially like how Pier Paolo Passoline slipped the “Stripling Who Stayed With Jesus” into his movie “The Gospel According to Saint Matthew”. I think it is available for watching in Putlocker http://putlocker.is/ The Stripling appears as Jesus is being escorted by Roman Soldiers. No dialogue explanation he is simply there and is brushed aside as the soldiers move forward. Jeremy Bentham gives a good explanation of who he is: A boy prostitute who saw value in Jesus. We give the boy value. He stuck with Jesus after everyone else had abandoned him. I think most of us here have known that kind of love from a boy even when threatened by our modern versions of Roman Soldiers and their Psychologists.
I sure hope you get to see Ivan Noel’s new film “The Tutor”. You get to see a modern Stripling with the help of adults who understand how False we are as people and how False our morals are. noelfilms.com
Love,
Lukas
I think in this issue … why not completely reject that book? which is the difference between the Bible and Mein Kampf? in both puts it clear that there are people who is needed to condemn and punish, especially homosexuals.
Some people believe that hitler is a god like jesus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esoteric_Nazism
You care about or you think it is important the opinions of these people? unless you’re a Nazi that it does not matter that their texts are used to that thing.
The Bible is not the reason for their opposition to homosexuality, pedophilia or any subject, in the Bible puts that it legitimate to have relations with girls without age limit, and with that, one of them supports sex with minors? they will continue to hate it until the end of his days, like the Christian homosexualist does not advocate homosexuality because appears in that passage or movie that Lukas said, they support homosexuals because other motives, although the bible itself call to kill homosexuals, these pro-gayness and anti-gayness people are all sexual aberrees, their mind is programmed to be so, do not bother.
also in the unlikely event that they zealots accept gayness is when they will go against the MAPs, so you’re hurting yourself, gays and lesbians are the mortal enemy of MAPs, listen to ConcentrationCamp. They are traitors and will not happen again a second time.
One last thing:
first phase- civil war between adult-attracted hetero and homosexuals
second phase – total union between then, adult-attracted dogma (adultosexualism) and then war of extermination against MAPs
These anti-gayness heroes just are in stuck in the first phase, when they accept homosexuality they will go to annihilate MAPs as has been already embraced the rest of the population.
And here it ends my contribution in this issue and my fight against this stupid English language, thanks for approve my comments.
An interesting, thought-provoking and well-researched blog-post, Tom. I have little sympathy for your views on the age of consent, but I will, for the first time on this website, venture a comment, as my sense is that we do agree on at least one thing, which is that we are both in favour of freedom of speech for all.
It is well known that certain far right figures have been not only homosexual but also in some cases, also, paedophiliac in inclination.
That is not to say that I take seriously the prospect that the former right wing Tory MP Harvey Proctor is a child murderer or even a child abuser. I initially gave Exaro and their witness ‘Nick’ the benefit of the doubt, but it was clear to me that what Mr Proctor said in his press conference last year was essentially true.
Only an idiot, or someone that is entirely non-knowledgeable about Tory politics in the 1980s, could deny that when he said that he had no political sympathies with Ted Heath, and that they were as far apart as its possible to be while being both being nominal MP’s for the same political party, he was speaking the truth. And if ‘Nick’ told lies, or misremembered, or was deluded, about that one matter, then the rest of his and Exaro’s case, falls asunder. That much, in my view, is clear.
All that said, and much as I somewhat agree with your points re Islam and so on, I’m a bit taken aback that you even mention Colin Jordan’s name being allegedly on the ‘EGH lists’ in the context of your post.
My understanding is – and feel free to disagree or correct me if I’m mistaken – that the EGH lists were discredited, given that it was not clear that they were valid contemporaneous evidence?
>An interesting, thought-provoking and well-researched blog-post, Tom.
Hi, tdf, good to see you here.
>…my sense is that we do agree on at least one thing, which is that we are both in favour of freedom of speech for all.
As you have seen with the extremely wide range of comments on this blog, I do air all shades of opinion, but I draw the line at abusive, repetitive or incoherent stuff — albeit some such posts do get past my rather indulgent moderating if the author is struggling to say something intelligible, perhaps writing with English as a second language.
>All that said, and much as I somewhat agree with your points re Islam and so on, I’m a bit taken aback that you even mention Colin Jordan’s name being allegedly on the ‘EGH lists’ in the context of your post.
I would just ask you to bear in mind that this was a guest blog, so I did not write it and cannot take credit for it being “interesting, thought-provoking and well-researched ” although I am glad to hear you say that and I am sure the author will be too. You are right, though, to question the credibility of the Elm Guest House lists. Perhaps I should have pointed this problem out to my guest writer, or edited out the EGH claims.
@Tom
Apologies, yes, I speed-read the post and missed the bit where you pointed out that it is of course a guest-post
No prob!
Good point tdf, the author does write ‘ALLEGED “paedophile sex parties” at Elm Guest House…’ (my emphasis added). It does appear a tad far-fetched on reflection that the BM leader would have attended such events alongside MP’s and Sinn Fein members, while Colin Jordan was anti-IRA. His successor Michael McLaughlin’s parents were staunch Irish Republican Socialists and IRA supporters who were very upset when he joined the Far-Right anti-IRA British Movement, and became it’s new leader from 1975-1983. Michael Walsh McLaughlin’s new autobiography ‘The Rise of the Sunwheel: British White Rights Dissident Tells All’ makes a number of allegations about Colin Jordan’s alleged ‘perversions’, the ‘Tesco Court Case’ and ‘collusion with the British State and Security Services’, but the Elm Guest House affair is not mentioned in his book.
@Winston Smith
I’m not familiar with the book but the fact that EGH isn’t mentioned certainly wouldn’t discredit the other research in it, if anything the opposite. The EGH ‘lists’ seem to have been drawn up in 1990, at which point the guest house had ceased to operate around 8 years earlier. In any case, the police have allegedly discounted the lists as proof of anything at all because the chain of authorship (who wrote them, and for what purpose) is unclear.
I recently received Harvey Proctor’s new book ‘Credible and True: The political and personal memoir of K. Harvey Proctor’ from Amazon. It is a riveting read, he does indeed mention that he and Ted Heath were enemies from opposite wings of the Conservative Party – Mr Proctor was on the Right, a member of the anti-immigration Monday Club, while Mr Heath was on the Liberal wing of the Tory Party who sacked Proctor’s hero Enoch Powell from the government over his ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech on immigration. Proctor says it would be unthinkable that he would rub shoulders with Heath, to abuse and murder children (as claimed by the fantasist known as ‘Nick’), as they couldn’t stand the sight of each other.
Harvey Proctor says he is a homosexual NOT a child murderer, and I believe him.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Credible-True-Political-Personal-Proctor/dp/1785900013/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1475200033&sr=8-1&keywords=credible+and+true+the+political+and+personal+memoir+of+k+harvey+proctor
He said that he was nor a paedophile, But also said I am also not a pederast (which most of there crimes would fall into) Probably most of the tabloid public think a pederast is the same as paedophilia — Lets not let facts get in the way.
reply to Stephen6000’s comment (https://tomocarroll.wordpress.com/2016/09/21/people-who-live-in-glass-houses/comment-page-1/#comment-11329) (posted here to avoid the spaghetti-effect)
>>“‘It seems to be assumed that islam has a (divine?) right to those territories it has conquered. (LSM)’
>I think it is rather that long periods of continuous occupation are considered to create a ‘de facto’ right, provided the population are (no longer) hostile. (One can think this while also questioning the morality of the original acts of conquest.) Otherwise one might be creating a pretext for all sorts of crazy military adventures. (Stephen6000)”
hi Stephen6000,
I of course agree with what you say – but it does slightly misrepresent the tenor of the preceding exchanges on the crusades and islamic expansionism: I mentioned the islamic expansionism that prompted the crusades not in order to revive grievances but simply to put into context and perspective current-day islamist grievances over the crusades.
To describe History accurately and honestly is not to wish to re-enact the conflicts that History describes. I’m in no way saying that the West should look to the golden age of islamic expansionism in order to revive and nurture ancient grievances, as happened in Northern Ireland and former Yugoslavia. I think that this is something that Secular Westerners rarely do regarding Islam – how often do you get one invoking the ‘golden’ age of Islamic expansion as a justification for attacking Islam?
Having said that, let’s examine the other side of the coin:- how often does one hear islamists, and kuffir apologists for islamism, bringing up the crusades in order to nurture and justify their own desire for violence against the West? The question hardly needs answering! Its the islamist (and their kuffir apologists) who still, today, obsessively harp on about the crusades (which ended almost 7 to 8 centuries ago) as a touchstone of grievance every time the present evils of islam are mentioned.
As a final word – we have much to be thankful to the crusaders for – if Christendom had not resisted islamic imperialism and expansionism, Europe, and consequently the Americas, would have fallen under islam.
What would life be like for today’s ‘Western Moslems’?
The first answer that comes to mind is to look to current day islamic countries such as Afghanistan, or Tunisia, or Syria. But it would be incredibly naive to imagine this because just about all progress and civilisation we see in moslem countries has been obtained by islam piggybacking on the work and achievment of the West.
Today’s ‘Islamic West’ would be no different to islamic countries at the time of the crusades.
Islam has made virtually no contribution to Science, Technology, the Humanities – and a minimal contribution to culture (the islamic world, in all its history has translated only slightly more books than Spain does in an average year – and nearly all of the books it DID translate were religious books – http://www.economist.com/node/1213392). It can’t – it is hampered by its own sacred books – if all truth is to be found in the literal reading of the koran then what place for science and the doubt and rigorous self-doubt science and reason require? Look at islamic ‘science’ that, in the face of all the evidence we have today, still asserts that the Earth is flat like a carpet, because it says so in the koran (Qur’an 15:19 And the earth We have spread out like a carpet; set thereon mountains firm and immovable; and produced therein all kinds of things in due balance).
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=islam+earth+is+flat
If we can look at a country like Pakistan today and recognise some semblance of civilisation – it is because of everything it has adopted from the West: technologies, knowledge and attitudes nurtured, developed and promoted by the West.
Everything that moslem countries enjoy that represent ‘progress’ and civilisation come from the West, or from more vital cultures such as those of India and China, such as: all the fruits of science, cars, trains, flight, radio, electricity, astronomy,television, effective medicine, civil society, the rule of law, equality before the law, the separation of church and state, the internet, books, Democracy, philosophy, human rights, effective education that teach other things than the koran; and this is not even touching on the huge and all important realm of culture – the theatre, Shakespeare, the music of Bach and the Beatles, Gothic Architecture, photography, film, Oil painting, sculpture….
If islam had conquered Europe there would have been no Reformation, there would have been no Enlightenment, human progress would have been frozen in time to that of the period of the Crusade – or at least for as long as it took us to throw off the shackles of islam.
We would would be living in the perpetual dark age which islamists today dream of, and to which they are all-too-successfully fighting to return humanity.
“If islam had conquered Europe there would have been no Reformation, there would have been no Enlightenment, human progress would have been frozen in time to that of the period of the Crusade – or at least for as long as it took us to throw off the shackles of islam.”
Counterfactual history is a tricky business. Practically the only thing we can be certain about if Islam had conquered Europe is that we wouldn’t have existed! (This is based on a point made by philosopher Derek Parfit – major differences in world events are bound to affect who meets whom and exactly when they meet, thus affecting which sperm get to fertilise which eggs and thus who exactly gets to be born.) So from a personal point of view, we can be glad that Islam didn’t conquer Europe (and of course so can present-day European moslems, ironically), but of course you weren’t arguing the point in personal terms. As far as general human progress is concerned, if Christianity, with its reliance on a rigid set of dogma gleaned from an (even then) ancient text, could have a Reformation, then why couldn’t Islam also have had one in the counterfactual history you envisage?
“As far as general human progress is concerned, if Christianity, with its reliance on a rigid set of dogma gleaned from an (even then) ancient text, could have a Reformation, then why couldn’t Islam also have had one in the counterfactual history you envisage?”
I hope you are right, stephen6000.
And this is why I think it is a kind of duty to speak plainly and clearly about the flaws and contradictions of islam – sometimes, when a person is confused, troubled, at the same time strutting but full of doubt – the best gift that they can be given is the gift of Truth. I think Islam needs a huge dose of honest criticism to lead it towards a reformation.
I find myself wondering to what extent the current crisis in Islam is because for the first time ordinary moslems have access to critical thinking about religion in general, and their religion in particular – through the internet especially.
The thought has occurred to me that what we are seeing is the death of islam, or of a form of islam. Unlike Christianity it has failed to adapt to the modern world – islamic countries lag behind the average on every measure of prosperity (other than ‘wealth’ in the oil rich countries – but even in Qatar and Saudi Arabia health care and education rank below the world average) – and the ‘quick fix’ for islam to retain credibility is to try to return the world back to the dark ages during which islam was able to thrive.
The rates of apostasy are accelerating – and once a critical proportion has been reached the taboo and the threats around apostasy will no longer be convincingly enforceable – there will be a dam-burst. I think fundamentalist islam senses it can not survive in the face of international communications and the evident triumph of the secular world – and Jihadism is a last desperate attempt at survival.
So, yes, I am quite optimistic in some ways. But for Islam to reform it needs to see itself clearly – it needs that ‘shocking moment of perception’ when a person who was blissfully unaware of their problem all of a sudden sees it clearly – that is why I believe it is the duty of all who want to encourage such a reformation to speak plainly and honestly, to challenge the false narratives (such as those around the expansion of the islamic empire and the crusades, and the Earth being flat like a carpet…) and to give islam the gift of reasoned criticism.
The time is ripe for false accusations of Muslim migrants and they are indeed coming. Here’s one: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2016/02/02/German-teen-admits-she-lied-about-migrant-gang-rape/3921454400337/ and here’s another: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3673753/Girl-claimed-sexually-assaulted-migrant-Austrian-swimming-pool-subsequently-banned-foreigners-admits-up.html
I know some teens girls and I assure you that they do not go very safe in the street, this is full of degenerates, not are nice teenlover people like me, I fear for them many times, I’m not refer here of inmigrants, people of my country too, although it is true that much is hysteria and false claims but today is the age of depravation and rape, that it is disgusting, also I say to you that I live in an area with high immigration and many are pissed up with them, and with reasons, I’m friend with chinese people they are many nice people per example but in the other side of the coin is true especially with muslims.
If Muhammad would have loved that little girl, he had respected until she had had 12 or 13 least and only under girl’s consent, Muhammad abuse and took advantage from her, a girl aged six or nine, the prophet never really love that girl, real muslims treat women as furniture, he was nothing more than a dictator of a psycho cult like Hitler and a warlord like Genghis Khan, and I don’t like their ideology.
the Nazis at least respected nature and animals, many Muslims kill animals in the middle of the street, like the barbarians and illiterates who are, I know that in areas infested by them this happens at a constant basis, they are not normal people, normal people are assholes and animal murderers, yes, but these Mahomentans seem from the Middle Ages a vegetarian like me can never being one of them
also there is no fucking ghost, please people stop stain religion which is the highest human feeling with your shitty theism, I do not even think theism is religion, it is a psychosis and superstition, religion is to love what you really want as I love pubescent girls or a depth belief in philosophical and metaphysical things
I never speak against Islam because I’m afraid of their revenge, but I’m sick of these abusers of men, women and children
Muslim women support to live in a Sharia law and use the Burka? of course, because they have been brainwashed, like people who committed suicide in the People’s Temple compound, is better they can finally see their fucking ghost, God please fuck off
in a Muslim country you could not even see sexy young girls, you would only be free to stick your willie in a 9 years old married pussy
having the first menses does not mean being physically and mentally mature, they are not pubescent
and if in the decadent Western world you cannot see hot nubile nude pixs and love have sex with young girls it is that we have Sheira Law and other cult of psychos called feminists and conservatives the same-age dogma the aberration of humanity
You are still shouting, RE. Make your points more calmly, please.
@ Winston Smith
>>>> “Note that in Islam, Jesus (peace be upon him) is revered as a great prophet of God like Abraham, Noah and Moses (peace be upon them), who are all considered Muslims, and Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the final messenger and prophet of Islam.”
Which is why the followers of Bahá’u’lláh are persecuted, especially in Iran, where Bahá’í children are stoned and often killed on their way to school, and those who go with them to provide protection, where adult Bahá’ís are jailed on fraudulent charges, etc.?
The truth of the matter, from where I stand, and I have to disagree with LSM’s many comments here, is that Muslims are neither better nor worse than the followers of any religion. I have met the occasional Muslim who threatened my life simply because I am an infidel. (One in particular, was a giant arsehole, and would have been such irrespective of his religion.)
I have met, more importantly, many more ordinary Muslim believers and their religious leaders who believed in and promoted religious tolerance and freedom, who attended public and private meetings on how to foster this tolerance. These were at interfaith meetings which I often attended simply because my first wife was a Bahá’í.
“Good Muslims”? Yes, they exist. “Bad Christians”? Yes, they exist (and, particularly in Amerika, where religious fundamentalism is rife, and fundamentalists are prone to all types of violence). And every other version of a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist or a Hindu: yes, they all exist.
I believe that the vast majority of people simply want to get on with a peaceful life, irrespective of their religion; I also believe that the vast majority of people, irrespective of their nationality, simply want to have a peaceful life with their family; have food and shelter and as much money as they can to make it all happen.
I’ve been watching the debate here, and I think these simple facts of humanity have been lost in it; has been lost by a discussion of the extremes, by a discussion of history which, while it may be informative of how we came to our current situation, can never provide a solution or an agreement.
It seems to me, that much of what has been said here, is like saying that all paedophiles rape and beat and kill children. It simply isn’t true. Or, it’s like saying that all men are paedophiles and rapists. It simply isn’t true. Or it’s like saying that a man who says someone is cute, just wants to rape and fuck (irrespective of gender). It simply isn’t true.
Look all, religions are ideologies with a theology, like ideologies are religions without a theology, is a belief in something, a Muslim, a Christian a Buddhist simply believe in an ideology that believes in a way of life it is believed would be best for the world.
A Muslim will not threaten you life just for not be theist, he threaten you for do not believe in the same cosmovision, a cosmovision with a theology that includes believing in a god i.e religious, but is because youre a threat to the world that he wants and he thinks is better.
People do the same and worse by any ideology, here people are killed every day by political ideologies, but I do not see anyone asking for the eradication or overcoming of ideologies.. their religious leaders call for killing infidels? so what? here political leaders and militants call for killing or just beating, insulting, imprison people for being communist, capitalist, Nazi, conservative, democrat, republican etc. every day.
A political ideology is based on science? It is based on that things you want and personally approve and what not, either by scientific reflection like me, or hysteria and prejudice like most of people.
The only thing worth to killing and dying is to defend your sexuality like if would your religion and love have sex with the person (pubescent teens this shit pls go hell with adults! ) you love, eat and have shelter, is the only things that are not an invention of man for weak minds, but it is another history…
For ongoing deny-ers of 21st Century mass killer WASPS.
Born Catholic mid East expert True Brit St Galloway on the TRUE SOURCE of today’s murderous Muzzys, *Taliban, Al Queda, ISIS. (*Quote macho U$ flick ‘Rambo 5’ closing credits “to the FREEDOM FIGHTERS of Afghanistan.”)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t511huruNEk
George Galloway is on great form in URR’s link, speaking to the Oxford Union.
‘Gorgeous’ George Galloway is one of, if not possibly the greatest orator and political thinker of our age in Britain today.. As he says in that video, we should be supporting the Sunni Muslim Syrian Army against ISIS and Al-Qaeda terrorists, not invading and bombing Muslim and Arab countries trying to be the ‘world’s policeman’ which only leads to the deaths of civilians, hatred and the rise of terror groups. The West, Israel and Saudi Arabia want President Bashar al-Assad toppled just like ISIS and Al-Qaeda do ! (I agree Assad is a Dictator like Saddam Hussein was, but both of them protected members of minority religions such as Christians, despite being Muslims themselves).
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/mid-easts-christians-intro/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-isis-islamic-terrorists-are-supported-by-the-us-israel-and-saudi-arabia/5396171
To return to the topic of the post: In France there is no significant attempt to link Islam with paedophilia. In the French media, paedophilia is mainly associated to:
– Teachers: there was a scandal about the director of a primary school who imposed fellatio on little schoolgirls; then the media are always ready to relate cases of teachers arrested for CP; the education Minister has imposed sacking from public education all teachers who have been convicted for a sex offence, even a small one such as watching CP.
– Catholic priests, in particular the hierarchy has been accused of covering “historical” cases; most plaintiffs are men, the events happened for some when they were little boys, for others when they were in their teens; the media have used “paedophilia” also for sexual assault on teen boys, even in some cases where the boy was 15 (age of consent) at the time; the media does not mention many affairs of priest with girls, I heard once about a priest who had made a teen girl pregnant, but they said “sexual abuse” instead of “paedophilia”; so it seems that “paedophilia” means here “pederasty” or man-boy love.
Concerning Islam, the current fear is called “radicalisation”, where now “radical” means exclusively Islamic fundamentalist extremist and jihadist; it is presented as a kind of political disease afflicting young Muslims, in particular converts. The most evident symptom is trying to join armed groups in Syria, which shows that the Syrian tragedy is a major root of the problem. “Radicalisation” is frequent in prison, so most terrorists started as delinquents, and we get the image of jihadists as ordinary criminals who use a religious cover for their violence.
If you showed in France your book “Paedophilia: the radical case”, people might infer from the word “radical” that it as a book about paedophile jihadists.
The prevalent ideology here is secularism, which is sometimes interpreted rigidly as considering that religion is as private as sex, so any exterior sign showing your faith in public will seem as obscene as baring your willie in front of children. Thus we have “secular” cops telling women in the beach what parts of their body or head they must uncover, in the same way as in the past “vice” cops used to tell them what parts of their body they must cover.
A saying by a friend who is French of North African origin: asking Muslims to dissociate themselves from Daesh/ISIS is like asking women called Nadine to dissociate themselves from Nadine Morano. The US equivalent would be: like asking men called Donald to dissociate themselves from Donald Trump.
For apologists of medieval crusades: do you know the crusade against the South of France in the 13th century? It was launched against a Christian land, because its liberal rulers tolerated a dissident Christian creed, the “Cathars”. Crusaders and the Inquisition exterminated all heretics, Northern barons grabbed land from all Southern owners who did not support the crusade, and the whole of Occitania was annexed by the king of France.
In France, the caricatural views presented here by LSM would be classified as those of the Front National, or even worse, as those of the “Identitaires”. Indeed, most French Muslims are ordinary people who consider themselves as ordinary people and consider others as ordinary people.
One site linked to by LSM is called “Muslim statistics” and has a silly article: https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2015/03/19/sweden-77-6-percent-of-all-rapes-in-the-country-committed-by-muslim-males-making-up-2-percent-of-population/ explaining that the tiny Muslim minority in Sweden is responsible for 77% or rapes. “Statistics”! I will not read all those Islamophobic right-wing sites he links to, I reject them even more than the misogynist masculinist sites linked to by some others like Feinmann. Again: about Islam, as about feminism, I read only works showing some scholarship, not mere propaganda.
>“A saying by a friend who is French of North African origin: asking Muslims to dissociate themselves from Daesh/ISIS is like asking women called Nadine to dissociate themselves from Nadine Morano. The US equivalent would be: like asking men called Donald to dissociate themselves from Donald Trump.”
This is an interesting strategy, Christian. I can think of several ways of parsing it – each one revealing a different flaw in this strategy:
0/ neither ‘Donald’ or ‘Nadine’ are ideologies followed by billions of people; neither ‘Donald’ or ‘Nadine’ are ideologies that command its followers to adhere to every verse of its core texts; neither ‘Donald’ or ‘Nadine’ are ideologies that are at war with all other ideologies.
1/ let’s change the name from ‘Donald’ to, say, ‘Adolf’ and see what happens.
If someone has been christened ‘Adolf’ could one make an educated guess as to his parents’ views on Jews, homosexuality, the second word war and the Shoah? Would it valid to expect an increased likelihood that the person called ‘Adolf’ also held views similar to his (or her) parents?
And if your name was Adolf, but you did not hold fascist opinions, wouldn’t you either change your name, or make it clear to every new person you met, to the world, that your views and feelings were not in any way in line with those of Adolf Hitler?
2/ let’s (only slightly) shift our field of view and replace the name ‘donald’ with the ideology he purports to represent – ‘American Republicanism’.
Interestingly enough republicans are doing excactly what your moslem friend, and the great majority of moslems, refuse to do – fighting and argueing for the identity of their ideology – a great many republicans dare repudiate Trump and his stance and ideology. Some have even publicly declared that they will vote for Clinton – including George Bush Senior
[http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Top-Republicans-voting-Hillary-Clinton-Trump-9284182.php#photo-9569033.
That shows some Republicans care enough about their party and about their country to take a stand, even against their own party leader.
In contrast Moslems seem happy to let ISIS, Salfasim and Wahabism and islmism define their identity – the fact that they are not standing up to this speaks volumes.
3/ let’s bring this closer to home. To paedophilia.
When a true monster (e.g. Marc Dutroux) commits acts of abuse against children they are labelled in the media and the public consciousness as ‘paedophiles’.
How does that make people like us feel?
Along with the great sorrow at the fate of his victims, don’t you also feel an anger, an urge to say ‘this is not what paedophilia is!’? don’t you occasionally dream of a parade in every european capital city of thousands of paedophiles and their little friends, happy, hand in hand – showing what true paedophile love was, and declaring that you, as a true paedophile, were utterly sickened by the actions of true abusers and child rapists?
Wouldn’t every nerve and bone in your body strive, wish to establish in the world’s eye, the immense difference between the love you feel and have shared, and the actions of sadistic child murderers?
You, Christian, in your excellent blog do exactly that – you stand up and stand out and work to establish the huge expanse of clear blue sky between the mistaken conception of the paedophile and your, more accurate, conception of the paedophile.
Of course, we understand that neither you nor I can march in the street with our little friends or lovers. We’d be massacred and incarcerated.
Moslems, however, can. Non-moslem populations would indeed welcome such marches.
I suspect that there are two reasons why no such marches take place:
– a significant proportion, a majority even, of moslems (depending on which country and the phrasing of the question) are in sympathy with islamism and jihadism, often secretly.
– those who are against islamism and jihadism, and did attended such marches would be badly seen by, and suffer repercussions from, their community.
4/ The quote “The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing” has been variously attributed, but whoever first said it I think that there is a great deal of truth in it.
Where are the good moslems willing to condemn the executions of apostates? of homosexuals? willing to condemn islamic terrorism? islam’s treatment of women as reproductive machines to be stored in cloth bags? The names that spring to mind are Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Maajid Nawaz, Sarah Haider, Salman Rushdie, Maryam Namazie – and, of these, only Nawaz is an actual believer.
If moslems are not willing to distance themselves from ISIS and the mad mullahs why should I as a non-moslem be obliged to do their job for them?
It is not my job, as an outsider, as someone who has little knowledge of, and zero interest in, islam to sort the sheep from the goats.
Just as it is for paedophiles to make the argument, whenever and wherever we can, that there is clear blue sky between the media ‘monster’ image and the real paedophile – so it is for moslems to establish in the eyes of the world that there is clear blue sky between what most moslems think, feel and desire and what islamists and jihadists think, feel, do and desire.
(the image flashes into my head here of a harried husband desperately trying to ascertain why his sullen wife has stopped speaking to him – only to be met with a wall of silence…the wife has effectively displaced the responsibility for expressing her thoughts and feelings from herself onto her husband)
And unlike paedophiles Moslems aren’t deprived of a voice in modern day Europe – they have sympathetic hotlines to such newspapers as the Guardian, The Independent and the BBC – if moslems wished to make clear their condemnation of islamism they have much-read publications waiting to broadcast their words.
I hope that that if you, Christian, had the ear of the editors of the Guardian, the Independent and the BBC you would do your utmost to make clear to their readers the truth about caring consensual paedophilia.
Why don’t the moslems feel the same pressure or need then?
Your friend, of course, has a right to remain silent – but I also have a right interpret that silence.
If your friend is happy to stand by a let his religion be defined by the extremists could it be that deep down he is on their side?
>“For apologists of medieval crusades: do you know the crusade against the South of France in the 13th century? It was launched against a Christian land, “
This is pure ‘whataboutery’, Christian – I could mention the many internal conflicts in islam, but I’m sure that you would rightly point that out as having no bearing on the issues of islamic expansionism.
>“In France, the caricatural views presented here by LSM would be classified as those of the Front National,”
how are my view ‘caricatural’? Have you not been following the news? The 12 terrorist attacks that have occurred in France in 2016 resulting in 90 dead and 450 injured? The Paris attacks of November 2015 resulting in 130 dead and 352 injured?
You accuse me of caricaturing islam with my (mere) words, but in the view of what France has suffered isn’t it the terrorists and islamists who are caricaturing islam? Isn’t it they who are showing it to be grotesque and monstrous? And aren’t the silent moslems, who have it in their power to correct that caricature, but who choose not to, much more complicit in the caricaturing of islam than me?
>““Statistics”! I will not read all those Islamophobic right-wing sites he links to”
Christian, if visiting ‘right-wing’ sites triggers you (one of those sites is the BBC, BTW)- I can forward you links to non-triggering sites containing the same statistics – if you’d furnish me of a list (no more than two sides of A4 please!) of any other potential things that might trigger you – including any phobias or any other opinions you can not tolerate being expressed I’ll do my best…(I used to know someone with a phobia of buttons… )
Moreover the statistics on these ‘Islamophobic right-wing sites’ were all either commissioned or done by highly reputable polling organisations (the BBC, Civitas, Policy Exchange, Pew Research Centre).
Well, I’ll just say one more thing and then I’m gone: I HOPE TO HELL that Donald J Trump wins the election in November, because if he doesn’t we’ll have the coronation thirty years in the planning of an evil tyrant bitch, introducing a THOUSAND YEARS of Pax Femicunta.
Of course, we understand that neither you nor I can march in the street with our little friends or lovers. We’d be massacred and incarcerated.
And why not? Because we are cowards. The first Christians chose the lions rather than renouncing their faith.
>>“Of course, we understand that neither you nor I can march in the street with our little friends or lovers. We’d be massacred and incarcerated.” (LSM)
>“And why not? Because we are cowards. The first Christians chose the lions rather than renouncing their faith.” (Sugarboy)
True, but they had the promise of a blissful eternal life in paradise to help them across. We don’t. If we just carry on living but with an added burden of persecution, isolation, stigma, hatred and violence.
And what probably clinches it for me is the hurt and distress it would bring to loved ones. Coming out is a young person’s game – you’ve less life, fewer memories, behind you for your loved ones to have to question, re-evaluate and re-interpret.
However that may be, we should take our hat off to Tom, who militantly pinned posters with beautiful boys to the wall of his cell when he was in jail without having any negative experiences due to that… I wonder who those boys were?
>pinned posters with beautiful boys to the wall of his cell
Wow! How did you know that? Thanks, anyway, for the appreciation!
If I remember correctly, you told it yourself in a previous blog some weeks ago. By the way, are we allowed to know who the boys were?
Weeks? Only weeks ago? God, my memory must be going, then, if I can’t remember anything so recent.
>By the way, are we allowed to know who the boys were?
Actually, I have now checked this one out. Googling reveals the subject came up just over a year ago in comments following the blog titled After the Ball and After the Fall:
https://tomocarroll.wordpress.com/2015/09/15/after-the-ball-and-after-the-fall/
As you asked for details of “the boys”, Sugarboy, I might as well remind you of what I actually wrote, which was in a response to “Josh” made on Sep 18, 2015 @ 08:58:35. Josh had written:
> I wouldn’t mind overcrowding if the people I were overcrowded with were preteen girls.
I replied:
Me neither!
When I was inside for “conspiracy to corrupt public morals” back in 1981-2 most of the guys used to put up pictures of half-naked big-busted women on the cell walls. If they can display what they like, I thought, so can I. So I started putting up photos of kids taken from newspapers and magazines. In those days children would be featured in some quite revealing underwear ads.
As may be imagined, not every cellmate appreciated my taste! I was threatened with violence, but felt an equal right to self-expression was worth fighting for — and the pictures stayed up.
The prison officers could of course have taken my pictures down but amazingly they never did. Perhaps they hoped I’d get beaten up trying to defend them!
Consider my hat doffed!!
That’s because they marry adults, if they were like me, they would do anything for a kiss, have sex or not being alone but knowing little girls as they are also not that great for it, not that taste is bad but you can not do anything with children like marry coitus etc. is very boring and irritating being a pedo, the promise of a life full of prepubescent girls is not enough for lesman? look or I can dating a young girl or die, this Lesman not know is eternal pain, with adults who you can make a family and have sex girls is like a passtime or a rare inclination like being a poet, not a vital necessity like happens to me, then MAP wonder why I’m piss off with them
Sugarboy,
I hope you get a chance to view Ivan Noel’s (noelfilms (dot) com) just released film “The Tutor”. He gives us a reason to march. We are up against people who have regressed into full blown paranoids. Ivan has progressed through many films to take a firm stand.
Love,
Lukas
I said “a friend who is French of North African origin”, then LSM inferred: “your moslem friend” then “If your friend is happy to stand by a let his religion be defined by the extremists could it be that deep down he is on their side?”
Ha-ha-ha-ha! My friend is atheist, he eats pork and drinks alcohol; he votes “left wing”. But he resents Islamophobia. Basically, his jest means that in “Islamic State”, “Islamic” is just a name, not a reality.
If you can’t understand how ordinary educated French people will interpret your comments as crude Islamophobia, go to France, talk with educated people (academics, teachers, journalists, or even priests, etc.) and show them your comments.
>“If you can’t understand how ordinary educated French people will interpret your comments as crude Islamophobia, go to France, talk with educated people (academics, teachers, journalists, or even priests, etc.) and show them your comments.”
If ‘ordinary educated French people’ read your opinions on paedophilia my guess is that very few would agree with them.
Does that invalidate your opinions on paedophilia?
Hopefully to concisely (c.250 words) rephrase most worthy, VERY wordy Learned Leonard (with some emphasis – CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.)
” Revised by the so called ‘Prophet’ Mohammed from earlier Judeo-Christian Blind Faith scripts (having much brutality ‘Eye for an eye’ etc) the mid East Blind Faith Islam Quran began in Mecca in the 600s. Then spread by missionaries and traders NOT force in the mid East and north African Mediterranean as far West as the Iberian peninsular Gibraltar Spain/southern Europe. The 1095-99 first Crusade was caused by the EUROPEAN self-serving Blind Faith Christian coward Pope Urban 11 urging armies of EUROPEANS to wage war against Blind Faith Muslims defending THEIR OWN mid EAST HOMELAND. The INVADING EUROPEANS finally captured the combined so called ‘Holy City’ Jerusalem in 1099. The EUROPEAN INVADERS then set up Blind Faith Christian states in the HOMELANDS OF BLIND FAITH MUSLIMS naturally vowing to wage holy war (jihad) to regain control of THEIR REGION. Deteriorating relations between the largely mercenary EUROPEAN WHORE CRUSADERS and their failing mid East Christian allies resulted in the 1204 sack of Constantinople/Istanbul during the 3rd Crusade. By the end of the 1200s the rising Mamluk dynasty in Egypt delivered the final reckoning for the EUROPEAN INVADERS – driven out of Palestine and Syria in 1291. Sadly though, a deadly precedent had been set, with future Blind Faith Muslims naturally distrusting Blind Faith Christians.”
Bonus quote from ex-CIA cynic/comic Will Blum with LOUD-hailer facing the mass killer WASPS bunker the Pentagon, “Come OUT with Ur hands UP!!”
“I reject them even more than the misogynist masculinist sites linked to by some others like Feinmann.”
Ha! And the 67 sites I linked to within my article entitled Kids in the Anglosphere’s Rotten Core which you referred to as brilliant Christian? I guess to have elicited such a comment as the one above, I must have struck a nerve when I referred to you as a feeble brainwashed mangina, cloistered within the bubble of academia. I really do wonder as others do here, what you have to complain about; you, together with the feminists have already inherited the earth. Incidentally, to implicitly refer to me as misogynist as you have done twice now is wrong. I am anti-feminist and libertarian. As such I will do all I can to challenge the ever-increasing number of obscene feminist sex laws that have imprisoned and continue to imprison so many innocent men.
[TOC adds: TIME, GENTLEMEN, PLEASE! I CALLED LAST ORDERS SOME TIME AGO. NO MORE POSTS WILL BE TAKEN ON THIS BLOG UNLESS CHRISTIAN THREATENS TO SUE IF HE CANNOT REPLY.]
(1) I did not say that you are misogynist, but that you link sometimes to misogynist sites, which, beside hating women, are neither interesting nor instructive. (2) I am neither feminist nor anti-feminist, I am for gender equality. And on average, women are more oppressed than men. (3) Anti-sex laws put in jail not only men, but also women, often we see articles about a woman teacher arrested for being involved with an underage male student. The more women will assert their sexuality like men (which is part of gender equality), the more they will fall under anti-sex laws. (4) Those who have inherited the earth are not the “feminists”, but the bourgeoisie and reactionaries of all shade and hue, including Victorian bigots, some of whom pretend to be “feminists” (anyone can pretend to be anything and even persuade others to be that thing, but that is not valid for me, the world is full of fakes). (5) Indeed your article on the war on kids was brilliant, but at the same time you can also write very bad things (same for LSM). (6) MGM, like FGM, is not oppression of one gender by another, but oppression of youth by institutional (adult) power.
Now instead of ranting with your personal rancour and identity politics, try to write something brilliant, we wait for that since the last time.
[TOC ADDS: RIGHT, THAT’S IT. ABSOLUTELY NO MORE POSTS ON THIS THREAD. I AM CHARITABLY GOING TO ASSUME THAT CHRISTIAN MISSED THE TAG I ADDED TO FEINMANN’S LAST POST — IT WAS ADDED AFTER THE POST WAS FIRST PUBLISHED. BUT IN ANY CASE LEGITIMATE POINTS OF RESPONSE ARE MADE HERE.]
Victoria Coren mitchell on Adam Johnson: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/20/adam-johnson-no-grey-area-over-child-abuse
The sexual libertine and occultist Aleister Crowley had some interesting opinions of Islam:
“The tenets of Islam, correctly interpreted, are not far from our Way of Life and Light and Love and Liberty. This applies especially to the secret tenets…Islam is magnificent in practice. Its code is that of a man of courage and honour and self-respect, contrasting admirably with the cringing cowardice of the damnation – dodging Christians with their unmanly and dishonest acceptance of vicarious sacrifice, and their currish conception of themselves as “born in sin”, “miserable sinners” with “no health in us”…”Din” – “severity” or “judgement” – may refer to the Jewish Law, rather than to the Faith (al-din) of Islam. I take Judaism as Qabalistic – but the practice imperfect.”
– ‘The Law is for All’ (2002 edition) page 169
In ‘The Confessions of Aleister Crowley’, AC wrote that Islam unlike Christianity is “positive” and “not based on fear”. He relates that he studied Islam, the mysticism of the fakir, the Darwesh and the Sufi, that J.F.C. Fuller sympathised with the “manliness of Islam” and according to Crowley “Islam is free from the degrading doctrine of atonement and the glorification of the slave virtues. The Moslem’s attitude to Allah only errs in so far as it involves the childish idea of personofying the powers of the universe.” (page 540). Crowley wrote that he quelled a “small riot” in Algeria, drawing sigils in the air with his ring, while reciting a chapter of the Qur’an.
Crowley’s attitude to Islam would seem topical at the moment.
“My spiritual self is at home in China, but my heart and my hand are pledged to the Arab.”
– Crowley
“Where Christian and Moslem missions are in direct rivalry, Islam collects the higher and Christianity the lower sections of the society.”
– Crowley
Article – The Islamic Roots of Thelema:
http://documents.tips/documents/crowley-and-islam.html
‘Aleister Crowley (1875–1947) was an English occultist and writer, but foremost a libertine and a very bizarre man. Beside writing strange books, he created cults of which he was the guru. The British popular press called him “the wickedest man in the world.”
Like many artists of the epoch, he drank absinthe and wrote an elegy of it, Absinthe: The Green Goddess. He also made a weird speech before the Oxford University Poetry Society, The Banned Lecture, mocking the bigotry of the Catholic Church and rehabilitating Gilles de Rais.
In 1898 he wrote a collection of erotic poems, White Stains, subtitled “The Literary Remains of George Archibald Bishop, A Neuropath of the Second Empire.” According to Rictor Norton, it was published in Amsterdam by Leonard Smithers (the London publisher associated with the Decadent movement) in an edition of 100 copies; most of these were destroyed by British Customs in 1924, but a Limited Edition of 1000 copies was published in London by Gerald Duckworth in 1973.
Most poems are in English, with a few ones in French, but with accents missing. They are sexually quite explicit, Crowley seems rather unhindered in expressing his desires. They alternate heterosexuality and homosexuality, with various unconventional sexual practices…
I have selected from this collection a short piece, which seems closest to a declaration of love for a girl, it is the first part of a poem called “Rondels.”
Maid of dark eyes, that glow with shy sweet fire,
Song lingers on thy beauty till it dies
In awe and longing on the smitten lyre:
Maid of dark eyes.
Grant me thy love, earth’s last surpassing prize,
Me, cast upon the faggots of love’s pyre
For love of the white bosom that underlies
The subtle passion of thy snowy attire,
The shadowy secret of thine amorous thighs,
The inmost shrine of my supreme desire,
Maid of dark eyes!
Part 2 of “Rondels” is addressed to a “Boy of red lips.’
Read full article at source:
https://agapeta.wordpress.com/2016/09/09/aleister-crowley-maid-of-dark-eyes/
Winston Smith, under a properly constituted Sharia system, would you be in favour of the death penalty for sodomy, apostasy and adultery if all the Sharia conditions are met?
Yes or no?
No. I think Islamic States need reform, just as Christianity was reformed.
As you support the historical Crusades against Muslims, would you support a Crusade today against Muslims? Yes or No?
I’m not a Christian, so it makes no sense for me to support a ‘crusade’.
I support military action against any incursions islam makes into previously non-islamic territories.
I support military action against militaristic and fundamentalist forms of islam that impose themselves undemocratically over more moderate forms of islam – as has happened with most of the territories ISIS and Boko Haram have tried to occupy.
I also think any form of islam that is not in accord with western values should be curtailed and repressed wherever it tries to impose itself in western countries. Likewise any institutions or organisations that discourage moslems from integrating.
This is not a freedom of speech issue.
Islam is at war with Europe – ISIS and other terrorist organisations have declared war, and perpetrated acts of war there.
During a war certain civil liberties are restricted – the freedom to support or finance the enemy, the freedom to pass information to the enemy, the freedom to wear the enemy uniform (see burkini and other forms of wahhabi/salafist dress), the freedom for the enemy to enter the attacked country. These are freedoms that need to be curtailed till Islamo-fascism is defeated.
Despite this I actually believe in multiculturalism: when I look at the contribution the Chinese, the Irish, the Indians, caribbeans, latinos and non-moslem africans have made to England and its culture it seems positive and enriching.
Unfortunately I don’t feel I can include the moslem community in this. Islam has failed multiculturalism. Early moslem immigrants DID make efforts to become part of British society (my father taught many back in the 70s and had great respect for his students). But nowadays European moslems have no wish to integrate, and are largely islamist (meaning they wish, either peacefully or by violence, to impose islam on their host country).
Why, after the many massacres and murders committed in France in the name of islam, were there not tens of thousands of moslems marching in the streets of every French city condemning what their co-religionists had done in their name?
Why instead has there been a constant parade of women, rich women travelling all the way from Australia and Saudi Arabia, with the sole intention of parading themselves on the beach at Nice in burkinis, the beach next to where 85 innocent people were murdered in an act that was as much a devotional and sacred one as is the taking of the eucharist for Christians?
I think the moslem community’s silence in the face of these atrocities done in their name, and the needling and provocative acts of ‘ordinary’ moslemsn show on what side the sympathies of European moslems lie.
I am of the left – and always have been.
But it seems that the Left has so lost its moral compass that it has rushed to defend an ideology that condones the hatred and murder of non-believers, that advocates the murder of homosexuals and adulterers, that doesn’t even consider women as ‘second class citizens’ but as ‘chattels’.
It’s painful for me to say this, but it seems that it’s only the right that dares speak the truth about ‘the Religion of Peace’.
I remember how much I and my comrades hated Enoch Powell for his ‘rivers of blood’ speech back in 1968. But nowadays that speech I so hated has turned out to be prophetic – and I can’t express how much this revelation saddens and terrifies me.
There must be people of the left, greens, socialists who are willing to call fascism ‘fascism’ when it parades itself so arrogantly, so spectacularly, in such plain view!? – even if some of the people advocating it have brown skin and arrogate to their ideology the right not to be criticised or mocked!?
The Left needs to wake up and smell the coffin.
Rant over.
I agree with much of what you say, Some may say, is it the job of the ordinary working Moslem man in the streets to hold ISIS to account.
Geert Wilders the Dutch politician, Is also in favour of banning the burkini, But then at the same time states he believes in free speech/expression.
Let them wear the burkini if you believe in free expression — We should not start promoting liberal values by banning stuff!
But at the same time, No religion should be free from ridicule, After the Charlie Hebdo shootings, I thought that would be a turning point for free speech, But these pussy-publishers in UK soon backed down.
What I meant to say was: ‘Geert Wilders’ was calling for a ban of the Koran, Not sure about the burkini, My mistake, Guess I had burkinis on the brain, Fuck knows why…There’s fuck all to see!
>”Islam is at war with Europe – ISIS and other terrorist organisations have declared war, and perpetrated acts of war there.”
Islam is not at war with europe, the war is with a self-declared Islamic state and groups, Islam is not a monolithic organization, as is the United States government who is at war now too, not capitalism and Christianity, religious ideologies are not states.
>”During a war certain civil liberties are restricted – the freedom to support or finance the enemy, the freedom to pass information to the enemy, the freedom to wear the enemy uniform (see burkini and other forms of wahhabi/salafist dress), the freedom for the enemy to enter the attacked country. These are freedoms that need to be curtailed till Islamo-fascism is defeated.”
To my knowledge, the Western world (and the eastern dominated by the West see Japan and East Asia) is at war with minor-Attracted people, by that rule should be prohibited to MAP’s buy or linking to the enemy Daily Mail for example, but you do not complain about it.
And the Burkini is not any military uniform, what I needed is that a nanny state tell me I have to go uncovered on the beach or not, but hey, do not forget to pay your tax to your local cult – the state.
>”I am of the left – and always have been.
But it seems that the Left has so lost its moral compass that it has rushed to defend an ideology that condones the hatred and murder of non-believers, that advocates the murder of homosexuals and adulterers, that doesn’t even consider women as ‘second class citizens’ but as ‘chattels’. ”
The right is who lost its moral compass, the left has never had moral compass, no moral at all, an ideology that is based on proto-Marxist pseudoscience to deny the most basic human spirituality, and that legalizes each aberration on earth and destroys what is natural in the land of each, ironically like West capitalism… what a loose women are Lefty and Westy!
You support an ideology system (Democratic Westernism, who sleeps with both capitalism and the left as an unrepentant adulterer) which advocate the systematic murder (or mass incarceration, both considered a type of genocide) of minor-attracted people, that doesn’t even consider minors as second class citizens, but ‘subjects’ of the state, with is a type of slavery, like the Apartheid.
There is no sharia law here, but instead there sheira law, which is a thousand times more murderous and unjust than shaira, who rapes children, teens and adults every day:
http://theantifeminist.com/feminists-enforcing-sheria-law-including-against-teens-and-children/
>”There must be people of the left, greens, socialists who are willing to call fascism ‘fascism’”
Fascism comes from socialism, and there is where will always be, as Mussolini, ‘National Socialism’ tells you something? because that is ‘the left, green, socialist’, the submission of the individual and their own natural morals to the will of society and state, a bit like islam, “submission (to the will of God)
The most important thing here is to be hysterical about what they do 14,000 imbeciles to 50 000km away, while here in the ‘Free World’ a systematic genocide is run supported by billions and slavery is still legal until 18 or 21.
This decadent civilization is rotten like the Late Roman Empire, it is better to they die and forget, and for MAP’s part, sooner the better.
Rant over.
>“Islam is not at war with europe,”
Strictly speaking islam has been in perpetual war against every infidel nation and person, including Europe, ever since Muhammad, or his scribes, wrote certain verses in the koran – check out the history of islam’s expansion from Mecca and Medina in the centuries after the religion’s invention.
I’d have liked to have quoted some of the koran’s ‘109 verses of violence’ but I’m aware that my recent comments have been very long and I don’t want to test Tom’s patience too much. You can find a selection from the ‘109 verses of violence, and a selection of verses from the Hadith and Sira advocating the conquest of infidel here: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx
>“And the Burkini is not any military uniform”
I didn’t write ‘military uniform’, Elron, I wrote ‘enemy uniform’.
Would it have been acceptable to prominently wear a swastika armband in England during the second world war? Whilst rescue services were trying to pull people out of bombed buildings after a German air raid? Wouldn’t doing so prove to be a menace to public order and morale?
>“You support an ideology system (Democratic Westernism, who sleeps with both capitalism and the left as an unrepentant adulterer) which advocate the systematic murder (or mass incarceration, both considered a type of genocide) of minor-attracted people, that doesn’t even consider minors as second class citizens, but ‘subjects’ of the state, with is a type of slavery, like the Apartheid.”
Of course I agree that the lot of paedophiles in the West is not great. But I’d much rather be a paedo in Britain than a homosexual under islamic theocracy, or an adulterer, or an atheist, or a woman, or an adherent to a religion other than islam, or a thief.
Islam’s most despised people are treated much worse than the West’s most despised people – if in doubt go check out what people are being executed for under DAESH, in Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Afghanistan… Then check out how many paedophiles have suffered state execution in the UK, in France, in Germany etc.
In saying this I’m not defending in any way the persecution of paedophiles – I’m just saying that being a paedo in a country like Britain is preferable to the life of even an average ‘normal’ moslem living somewhere like Saudi Arabia, DAESH occupied territories, Afghanistan etc
LSM…..”Islam’s most despised people are treated much worse than the West’s most despised people “….What about places like Morocco, Algeria etc, where homosexuality is illegal, Yet there is a culture of acceptance so long as it is not overt — Look at the paedo-hysteria in the form of sex tourism. and “abuse” of minors, because not only is there homosexuality, But pederasty as rife as the cobbles in the main square, There are many articles referring to this, always from western countries, Mainly France, with some sort of colonel hangover, strutting around like they still own the place.
>I’d have liked to have quoted some of the koran’s ‘109 verses of violence’ but I’m aware that my recent comments have been very long and I don’t want to test Tom’s patience too much.
Thanks, LSM. Having read the whole of The Koran, or Qur’an, I am in no hurry to read any part of it again! 🙂 Personally, then, I am happy you have given just the link. I’m sure interested readers will feel it suffices. That apart, I have been fascinated by the lively discussion on this subject, and have greatly enjoyed your well informed and trenchant contribution.
Note to Tom, LSM, Elron, and others on this topic:
I look at it simply this way: religion isn’t a problem until it enters politics, gains a foothold there, and attempts to base legal writ on holy writ. Living in the U.S., I can assure you gentlemen that if the fundamentalist Christians had their way, we’d have a ruthless theocracy that would attempt to impose literalist Biblical moralism on every part of the world, and faith-based laws would be the norm. We’d have numerous personal restrictions placed upon us, war would be imposed on any nation that failed to follow the literalist Christian code, and all of this would be justified in the name of “fighting evil” and “saving our souls.”
This is why I have personally chosen a system of faith that does not attempt to politicize itself and impose its will on others that way. The main reason we do not see fundamentalist Christian groups imposing its will on others in the U.S. is because they currently lack the political power to do so. But it’s not because of a lack of trying on their part. Nevertheless, as I told LSM on his own blog, Christian fundamentalist groups have bombed abortion clinics and murdered doctors there who were performing such operations legally. When Bush was president, he managed to push some surprisingly oppressive faith-based initiatives into practice, including a ban on stem cell research due to the belief that every individual cell contained “little souls” and that it was therefore a moral affront to God. Hence, a potentially major benefit to medical science was stifled due to religious belief. In the United States! And only within the last decade!
And that is nothing compared to what the fundamentalist Christians–who mostly operate within the Republican Party–would impose upon American citizens first, and the rest of the world in short order, if they ever gained the foothold in government that they would like.
I have personally known many Muslims who were decent people and never tried to impose their religious beliefs on me, and never harmed another human being, or believed other humans should be harmed. They understand that much of the bad stuff written into the Koran was done so many centuries ago, and was no longer applicable to the modern world. However, if you only pay attention to what the bad of any given group do, then it’s easy to jump to the conclusion that the entire group in question is nothing but bad. Sound familiar, my friends?
Well said, Dissident!
Many people are opposed to those things that you name that we have reasons to not allow them and that we must fight them, do not have to do with religion, if it is true that there are religious who oppose such things as eating red meat, drink, porn etc. for religious or moral reasons not for scientific and rational reasons like me ok? your personal freedom ends where the life of another (an unborn child, an animal) and species ( where degenerate everyone others and their offspring), if you want to see porn you do it in your house, and you see it a thousand times in private at your home but not upload it to degenerate others like me, besides the fetus is another person, not it’s your body, is another body, can not be legal to kill a child aged 2 years old or a 3 month old in the womb, it is the same thing as marital rape as do the religious fanatics, same with eat meat, animals have the same right to live than you.
I’m not going to get into the abortion thing in detail, Order, other than to remind you of two things: 1) Whether you consider abortion murder or not, does that give religious vigilantes the right to murder a doctor who is legally performing the surgeries? and 2) An unborn child is not my body, true, but it does have to use another person’s body, a full grown and cognizant woman (or young girl), in order to grow to term, and the right to her own body being used in such a fashion must also be considered. Saying the rights of a developing fetus trumps that of a fully cognizant female whose own body and internal system is required is religious-style moralizing based on emotion, no matter how one may attempt to cloak it in secular language.
‘The Right Wing Left Hand Path
=============================
By
Elizabeth Selwyn
=== From Black Flame Winter XXIV A.S. ===
The connection between Satanism and Fascism in Britain is well-known,
though not well-explained. Nor has it been understood why this
particular malaise has not, in general, crossed the Atlantic. Before
attempting to examine the reasons why British Satanism has for so long
been stained by this association, it may clarify matters to consider
in some detail the major exponents of British Satanism and their
political affiliations, past and present…
The Anglian Satanic Church was run by Father Raoul Belphlegor (yes,
that is how he spelled it), real name Thomas Victor Norris, and Mother
Lilith, real name Magdalene Graham. It claimed vast resources, numbers
and magickal powers which would be bestowed on members in return for
money and/or (in the case of young female members) sex. Norris had
earlier acquired a liking for brothel-keeping, involving his wife and
daughters, aged eleven and thirteen. On his release from a six-year
sentence resulting from this, he restored his fortunes with the aid of
a rather naive eighteen-year-old (she was not concerned with his
occult activities and has since now made a new life for herself, so
her name will not be mentioned).
Norris’ Occult involvement brought him into contact with Magdalene
Graham, who was editing an Occult magazine on broadly LHP lines.
Norris persuaded her to take over production of his magazines, both
Occult and political (fascist), including the occasional news-sheet of
his Odinist Anglo-Saxonic Church (another paper organisation). Despite
holding similar political views, Ms. Graham was, at first, reluctant
to be associated with the disreputable Norris…’
Read full article at source:
http://www.skepticfiles.org/rumor/rwotlhpa.htm
And why you put this here sad text of hackneyed propaganda? Here I only see a probably leftist feminist old hag who dishonestly use sexual apetite for young women and girl to demonizing people she hate and even absurdly linking Satanism and fascism, no, honey, Satanism is another religion and there are satanists in all ideologies and vice versa (see red anarchist black metal vs national socialist black metal), Satanism has an anti-egalitarian ideology, like odinism, that is why certain rightists are inclined to both.
Instead we must show how feminism and leftism have completely dominated atheism politics to the point where non-theists like me who have opinions contrary to globalism, culture of death, sexual libertinism and feminism in general or even just are against demonizing normal underage sex are systematically excluded by the mainstream atheist establishment.
I didn’t say I agreed with the propaganda piece.
In The Name Of Love
Hide from the public eye, choose to appear when it suits you
Claim you’re just, take advantage and betray children
Depredate, when you choose to satisfy, hide in a cave when you’re hunted
Like a beast spawned from hell, utilizing fear
Requested by kids or a coward insane?
Stand up and show me your face!
Paedophilia, in a trance
A monstrous army
Fight without a uniform and hide in the crowd
Call it love, call it just
Authorized by twisted minds
Leave the wounded child as they get harmed, and call it love will
Run when its time to pay, fear consequence of your attraction
Reappear, when you’re almost forgotten
Dream of a children’s world, yet you cause them pain and destruction
Betray a child, a response of your attractions
Captured in all you lies, fear is in your eyes
Creature who’s gone insane, your war is in vain
Trapped in a cage of stone, we’ll destroy your lie
Consequence of your attraction
WHAT? LAME! What are you even trying to say.
That is NOT a poem. It has no discernible METRE, and it isn’t free verse, and it doesn’t even rhyme. It is just awful.
Research into actual writing poems, you fool. FOOL!
http://www.amittai.com/prose/meter.php
This is it: I’ve had it with all of youse.
This video highlights the type of ignorance the blogger was referring to, Personally I wouldn’t give either the time of day, But the convert in the street did refer to historical context when discussing Muhammad and his marriage to the 9yo girl: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZWRLsBy1o0&app=desktop
I just watched that video – The white Muslim convert says in reply to Tommy Robinson attacking the Prophet for marrying and having sex with a 9 year old girl – “But it was normal back in those days”. If it was normal back then, why not now?
‘Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon (born 27 November 1982), known by the pseudonym Tommy Robinson and also going by the names Andrew McMaster and Paul Harris,[4] is the co-founder[5] and former spokesman and leader of the English Defence League (EDL) “street protest” movement. He also founded the European Defence League, and for a short time in 2012 was joint party vice-chairman of the British Freedom Party. He led the EDL from 2009 until 8 October 2013, when he was persuaded to leave the organisation and discuss alternative ways of tackling extremism with the think tank Quilliam. He continued as an activist, and in 2015 became involved with the development of Pegida UK, a British chapter of the German-based Pegida organisation,[6] presenting a stated purpose to counter the “Islamisation of our countries”.[7]
Robinson joined the British National Party in 2004. When questioned about this by the BBC’s Andrew Neil in June 2013, he claimed that he had left after one year, saying, “I didn’t know Nick Griffin was in the National Front, I didn’t know non-whites couldn’t join the organisation. I joined, I saw what it was about, it was not for me”.[2]
Despite being accused of antisemitism, Robinson has declared his support for the Jewish people and Israel, calling himself a Zionist.[14]
In 2011, Robinson denied having links to Anders Breivik (the right-wing Islamophobe who murdered 77 young people in Norway). Breivik was alleged to have several friends among followers of the EDL.[21]
On 6 August 2013, it was reported that Robinson had tweeted a link to an article from a website called The Traitor Within. When he received replies pointing out its anti-Semitic content—the article included the claim that the ministers involved in the Labour Party’s immigration policy “are all Jewish”—Robinson initially replied “u have lost me? The link I posted was not about Jews? It was about labour purposely flooding our country with immigrants”.[25] He then, according to The Daily Telegraph, said “that he had ‘never seen the website before’, that it popped up his timeline and that he didn’t read the anti-Semitic bit before pressing tweet”.[26]
Criminal record during leadership
On 24 August 2010, Robinson was involved in a fight between supporters of Luton Town and Newport County in Luton, on the evening that the two clubs played at Kenilworth Road. Robinson reportedly led the group of Luton fans, and played an integral part in starting a 100-man brawl, during which he chanted “EDL till I die”. Eleven months later, in July 2011, he was convicted of having used “threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour” on the night of the incident. He was given a 12-month community rehabilitation order and a three-year ban from attending football matches. He was also sentenced to 150 hours’ unpaid work, and ordered to pay £650 in costs.[27]
Robinson was arrested after an EDL demonstration in Tower Hamlets on 3 September 2011 for breach of bail conditions, as he had been banned from attending that demonstration. After his arrest, Robinson began a hunger strike in custody in Bedford Prison, saying that he was a “political prisoner of the state”,[28] and refused to eat what he believed was halal meat.[29] A local paper reported that Bedford Prison sources had said that the hunger strike lasted only 24 hours.[30] A handful of EDL supporters protested outside the prison in support of Robinson during his incarceration; the support peaked at a turnout of 100 protesters on 10 September.[31][32][33] Robinson was released from prison on 12 September.[34]
On 29 September 2011, he was convicted of common assault after headbutting a fellow EDL member at a rally in Blackburn in April that year.[35] He was given a 12-week jail term, suspended for 12 months.[36] Robinson said that the assault had happened because of a confrontation with a neo-Nazi who had joined the EDL’s rank and file.[37][38][39] Interviewed on BBC Three Counties Radio on 9 October 2013, the day after he had resigned from the EDL, Robinson said: “One of the things people condemn me for is having a criminal record; what they don’t wish to say is that part of that criminal record is for confronting neo-Nazis in Blackburn at one of my demonstrations, where I was taken before the courts and charged for assault…during the last four years we’ve had in-house battles, physical battles to keep these elements out. Now I’ve got to the point—listeners can look on Youtube for ‘RVF EDL’, they’ll see there’s these Nazis and they’re talking to me telling me they’re going to kill me—and there are fifty of them with balaclavas on.”[39]
On 8 November 2011, Robinson held a protest on the rooftop of the FIFA headquarters in Zürich against FIFA’s ruling that the England national football team could not wear a Remembrance poppy symbol on their shirts. For this he was fined £3,000 and jailed for three days.[40]
In October 2012, Robinson was arrested and held on the charge of having entered the U.S. illegally. Robinson pleaded guilty at Southwark Crown Court to using someone else’s passport—”possession of a false identity document with improper intention”—to travel to the United States in September 2012, and was sentenced in January to 10 months imprisonment.[41][42] He was sentenced under the name of Stephen Lennon, but the judge added that he suspected it was not his true name, in the sense that it was not the name on his own passport (not the borrowed one), Paul Harris. Robinson was released on electronic tag on 22 February 2013.[43] On being released, Robinson told the BBC that he was dismayed to discover that the EDL’s ranks had been swollen with racist and neo-Nazi supporters: “I’ve battled for four years to keep certain elements out of this movement, to keep it down the path that we want to take it down. And I’ve seen that they’ve been welcomed back, they’re the Nazis and the fascists—they were welcomed back.”[44]
Read full Wikipedia article at source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson_(activist)
Where external material is concerned, please stick to your own brief summary brief points plus links, Winston, rather than dropping long quotes into your comment.
Ok Tom, will do.
>“I just watched that video – The white Muslim convert says in reply to Tommy Robinson attacking the Prophet for marrying and having sex with a 9 year old girl – “But it was normal back in those days”. If it was normal back then, why not now? “
That way of arguing works both way: e.g. if paedophobia is normal now why should it not have been normal back then?
But the real answer to your question is that muhammad and his culture were simply wrong. Just as in science and technology – so with morals – the broad sweep of history has been one of progress, of deeper knowledge, more rigorous thinking – the fact is that Muhammad had the morals of a dark age warlord, and warlords are not known for their integrity, or their moral excellence or sophistication.
If you doubt this try putting together three facts about sharia marriage, or the form of marriage Muhammad had with Aisha:
1/ a father can give away a child in marriage without that child’s consent, the father’s consent is what matters.
2/ a husband cannot have intercourse with a child bride until her first menses (however thighing is permissible, whereas options that focus the child’s pleasure – such as cunnilingus – are haram)
3/ marital rape is not recognised as a crime under islam
Boil these down and you get that there is no reason why muhammed (or any other moslem who marries a child) couldn’t or didn’t rape their child bride(s), provided she’d had her first period.
Marriage of a child is wrong, even if the child consents, as it enters her into a binding contract that is a life-long and life-changing commitment – no child should be allowed to enter into such contracts.
Child sexuality should be like play – fun, evanescent, changeable, free, irresponsible, experimental… not an imprisonment with endless rape and reproduction and stolid and stultifying domesticity and loss of education.
Every sexual act is a contract in a way, the trauma is real, not like in the book The Trauma Myth, but about that every experience we feel we can store it our brains (and everything that caused us pain, pleasure, from sounds per example at that time ) and many of us we (maybe) that carry on the back in all our life that mental images of unwanted experiences
Who guarantees to me that a person who has had sexual experiences when is a child after become pubescent adult he reject that experience and retain it with disgust?
no matter that society accepts and tolerates child sexuality, that does not guarantee that a person when become pubescent adult can finally abhors it, like pornography is accepted and I abhor it and I publicly say the pain and harm that is causing me even if a damn antifeminist mens porn rights tell me the contrary
..and you say children have sexuality ok but it mainly is physical, however, you not have really considered the mind side and their consecuences much less at long term!!
yes, some like that experience, but others hate it, why play roulette with one you love? I could not
Order…If an act between two people who, as you stated, love each other, and the oral or coitus is pleasurable and enjoyable at the time, But then reinterpreted as ‘abuse’, that is the sociogenic state we’re in. Some of us on here are trying to address this stigma and return things to the past; its fair to say retrospective guilt a modern development, Now hyped up even more since ‘Savile’ here in the west (still no hard facts on him) He probably did bang loads of teens back then, But who didn’t?
Sex has been invested with magical powers!
thats mainly because bang a teen is not the same as bang a child, is not that about teens, is that a person touch you when you were a child and you let yourself do, because you do not know well what happens and then you have this experience you did not want in your mind and the worst is that you can not get help because abuse industry destroys you more than cure you
per explample is not like ‘as teen had a relationship with a man I loved and both enjoyed consensual sex and I now believe it is an abuse because society says is abuse’ NO!! is ‘I was touched as a child and I did not want to be touched until I was conscious of that to make decisions and I hate that experience who creates in me disgust of sex’
Order….I was referring to mutually enjoyed experiences, and why exclude sensual intimacy? or coitus if of age. As for Sir Jimmy Savile, Most of the allegations against him were from people who — at the time — were pubescent (the sort you like) and me to be fair (girls from 12 – 16 are the best for me!
Though I do find many younger attractive, same for boys, though some 16yo can be to developed.
BTW Tom, Have you been watching ‘National Treasure’ on ITV saw 2nd episode last night, very entertaining, Personally I ask the question “whats wrong with banging your 15yo babysitter? At the end there is always the usual “have you been affected by any of the issues raised, call this number”
>BTW Tom, Have you been watching ‘National Treasure’ on ITV
Yes, Channel 4 on Tuesdays, 9pm. Gripping drama, certainly; but I reserve judgement depending on how it develops.
Salem21,
Thought I would take this spot to pass along this: Ivan Noel of noelfilms (dot) com has just released a new film. He takes on our enemies, the enemies of man full bore. The name of the movie is ‘The Tutor’. He basically says our enemies have ‘regressed’ into full blown paranoia, i.e., they are nuts and must be stopped full stop.
Hope you have had a chance to follow Ivan’s film career. He has slowly edged up to this film ‘The Tutor’.
Love,
Lukas
Cheers Lukas, I will check it out when I get time
I only know about boy-love. It seems to me all boy-lovers whether they are Right Wing or Left Wing think they are making the world better for the boys they love.
If they really love boys should not belong to ideologies and movements that despise boylove and consider people under age “minors” (minors = inferiors) and not full citizens like adults, without the right to agency, much less sexual agency, ditto for girllovers.
It would be interesting if child-lovers in Far-Right and Far-Left anti-organisations left to form their own pro-groups – although I would envisage the authorities repressing such groups, unless they were organised like secret societies. There was a openly homosexual boy-lovers group in America called the National Socialist League (no relation to the the British NSL led by William Joyce who gained notoriety during WW2 as ‘Lord Haw Haw’).
‘The National Socialist League, was a Neo-Nazi political party in the United States that existed from 1974 until the mid-1980s. It was founded by Russell Veh in Los Angeles in 1974. Veh financed the party using the profits from his printing business. He also financed the party with a film distribution unit that specialized in Nazi propaganda films, including Triumph of the Will. The National Socialist League had chapters in various parts of California.[1]’
HISTORY
‘The party was founded in 1974 by Russell Veh and several other Neo-Nazis. The National Socialist League was unique in restricting its members to homosexual Nazis. The group distributed membership applications declaring NSL’s “determination to seek sexual, social and political freedom” for Aryans.[2]’
Read full article at source:
http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/national_socialist_league_(united_states)
Its true that in the early days of the Nazi party, There was a large homosexual membership, Including the leader of the SA ‘Ernst Rohm’ an overt homosexual, and very close to Hitler. Only later when it suited Hitler did he remove him on night of long knives. Was he not in bed a an adolescent?
Not sure where the quote is, But I read somewhere that when the Nazi party was forming in the 1920’s Hitler quoted “who better to go into a socialist gathering, and start smashing chairs over their heads then homosexuals”
There was plenty of pederasty going on during the Hitler youth camps — Must’ve been a paradise for pederasts, and I would not blame them.
Think they wanted to emulate the great spartans. How about bringing back Nazism, and as a result, revive the much lost pederasty.
From the Wikipedia entry on Ernst Rohm:
‘Ernst Julius Günther Röhm (German pronunciation: [‘??nst ‘?ø?m]; 28 November 1887 – 1 July 1934) was a German military officer and founding member of the Nazi Party. As one of the first members of its predecessor, the German Workers’ Party, he was a close friend and early ally of Adolf Hitler and a co-founder of the Sturmabteilung (SA, “Storm Battalion”), the Nazi Party’s militia, and later was its commander…
John Toland noted that Hitler had long been privately aware that Röhm and his SA associates were homosexuals; in their defence Hitler had stated that “the SA are a band of warriors and not a moral institution”.[13]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_R%C3%B6hm
As I am a perv fetishist of fascism I just lock fachistic things and I read somewhere that Mussolini married Rachele Guidi when she was 16 and 26, as looking on wikipedia, Err….good try but will not be, Rachele was born in 1890 and met Musso in 1910 and they married him in 1915, so she was 20-25, so the guy who said that false claim should have an IQ low to 20.
This guy it was just another adult-aberrated who was using the apocryphal story to put Mussolini as a womanizer and gross hustler, and the fool was amazed why anyone would go out with someone who is 10 years younger or dating a 16, the kind of idiot would say that Hitler was a pedophile because he met Eva Braun with 17 years or so.
Let’s see Sheirapedia:
“Petacci had a long-standing relationship with Mussolini while he was married to Rachele Mussolini. Mussolini was twenty-eight years Petacci’s senior.”
Wow paedo.
“Braun met Hitler in Munich when she was 17 years old, while she was working as an assistant and model for his personal photographer, and began seeing him often about two years later”
Wow child grooming.
“Hitler had a few brief relationships when young. He was deeply attached to his half-niece Geli Raubal, 19 years his junior.”
Wow Josef Fritz.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefanie_Rabatsch
“According to him, Hitler’s passion for Stefanie began in spring 1905, when he was 16 and attending school in Linz, and lasted until 1909, when he was 20.”
She is only 16, she just a child you perv.
* Achtung ! a nude painting of she made by Wolfy is now child porn, be careful!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_of_Adolf_Hitler
“Kershaw speculates that Hitler preferred younger women who were easy to dominate and mold. He notes that at least three of Hitler’s close female associates (Eva Braun, Geli Raubal, and Maria Reiter) were far younger than himself: Braun was 23 years younger, Raubal was 19 years younger, and Reiter was 21 years his junior.”
Evil Man Grooming And Dominate Naive Young Girls Feminist Meme (Zyklon-B Parody)
See also pederastic Adolf:
“Hermann Rauschning claimed to have seen in Hitler’s First World War military record an item concerning a court martial that found Hitler guilty of pederastic practices with an officer. Rauschning also claimed that in Munich Hitler was found guilty of a violation of Paragraph 175, which dealt with pederasty. No evidence of either of these two charges has been found”
List of Victims groomed and molested by Vile Nazi Paedophile Adolf ‘Jimmy Savile’ Hitler:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_of_Adolf_Hitler#Possible_relationships
>Vile Nazi Paedophile Adolf ‘Jimmy Savile’ Hitler
LOL!
Yes, we need a religion of boy worship, essentially, to counter the hatred and fear toward them.
Good idea there ‘ConcentrationCamp’
Colin Jordan was a schoolteacher of young boys who was sacked for his extreme neo-Nazi beliefs. While not agreeing with his views I do believe in free speech, even for those whose views I don’t share. Jordan took part in debates in Universities and was interviewed several times on Television:
http://www.macearchive.org/Archive/title/midlands-news-05071962-colin-jordan-interview/MediaEntry/4.html
http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/colin-jordan-and-britains-neo-nazi-movement-9781472509314/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ljI2PMUfwY
Concerning Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, his case has a similarity to that of Saint Augustine, a Father of the Catholic Church. I quote Vern L. Bullough, in his paper “Age of Consent: A Historical Overview”, in Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, Vol. 16, No. 2/3, 2004, pp. 25-42.
Augustine, though born of a Christian mother, converted as a young man to Manichaeism, a religion which emphasized abstinence from sex for its adepts, the highest level of believers. Augustine, a believer, strove mightily to obtain the status of an adept but found sexual abstinence difficult. Though he reported that he prayed daily for his god to help him achieve abstinence, he himself states that he always ended his prayer saying “Give me chastity, but not yet.” Finally giving up on his attempts to achieve abstinence, he decided to marry and have a legitimate family. Once he made this decision, he kicked out his mistress and his son by her and became betrothed to a pre-pubertal girl, i.e., under 12. Unable to remain abstinent, and unwilling to have sex with his betrothed since she had not yet had her first period, he visited a prostitute to satisfy his sexual needs. This turn of events led him to have a crisis which led him to convert to Christianity and swear off sex for the rest of his life (Augustine, 1955). There is nothing to indicate that betrothal or even marriage to a pre-pubertal girl was unusual although sexual relations in most cases depended on the appearance of the menses. There was usually an age disparity between the female and the male who was usually much older, although this was not always the case.
[…]
Whether it was the Roman tradition or traditional Arabic customary law which influenced the prophet Muhammed (570-632 M.E.) to follow the same path as Augustine is unclear, but he too became betrothed to a prepubescent girl. In Muhammed’s case it came after the death of his first wife, Khadijah, which seemed to have left him inconsolable. His friends, worried about his condition, advised him to marry again, believing that this might help him to more easily overcome his grief. Although reluctant to agree, the prophet eventually was persuaded to marry Ayssha, a young girl who was then believed to be seven years of age (some say nine). It was reported that just watching her play with her dolls proved uplifting to him. Most Islamic authorities hold that the marriage was not consummated until Ayesha began to menstruate, the traditionally acceptable time for actual intercourse, around twelve years old (Bullough, 1976), but there is no definite evidence either way.
It is worthy of comment that Augustine, the most influential of the Christian fathers, and Muhammed, the founder of Islam, saw nothing wrong in being betrothed to a pre-pubertal girl. Neither for that matter did others, although they might abstain from sex until the girl had her first menses.
Francis Joseph “Frank” Collin (born November 3, 1944, Chicago, Illinois) was an American political activist and Midwest coordinator with the National Socialist White People’s Party. After being ousted for being part Jewish (which he denied), Collin founded the National Socialist Party of America.[1] In the late 1970s, its plan to march in the predominantly Jewish suburb of Skokie, Illinois was challenged, but the ACLU defended its freedom of speech and assembly in a case that reached the United States Supreme Court. The court in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1979), a major First Amendment decision, ruled that the party had a right to march and to display a swastika, despite local opposition. After Collin was convicted and sentenced in 1979 for child molestation, he lost his position in the party.[2][3]
After being released early on parole from prison, Collin created a new career as a writer, publishing numerous books under the pen name Frank Joseph. He wrote New Age and “hyperdiffusionist” works supporting the hypothesis that Old World peoples had migrated to North America in ancient times and created its complex indigenous societies. This thesis is rejected by mainstream scholars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Collin
I see the right-wing Liberty GB party is contesting the Batley & Spen parliamentary by-election in Yorkshire on October 20th (called after the murder of Labour MP Jo Cox by Thomas Mair who screamed in court ‘Death to Traitors – Freedom for Britain! He was also a subscriber to the far-right ‘South African Patriot in Exile’ magazine edited by Alan Harvey, an ex-NF member who is now chairman of the right-wing Conservative, Swinton Circle) on an openly Islamophobic ‘Stop the Muslim Grooming Gangs’ ticket. How soon before Liberty GB are revealed to have a paedophile member(s)? Also, who cares whether Muslim women choose to wear a burkini on the beach, or the niqab or burka, as long as they are not forced to wear such? Live and Let Live I say!
In Iran and many other muslim countries they won’t allow women to dress how they choose. Of course I never hear liberals complain about this. It’s only “bad” when western European countries demand that people adapt to and respect their culture, especially foreigners. Imagine if you went to Iran and dressed in a short skirt and revealing top. What would happen is you’d get stopped by one of their morality police that they have walking around and then you’d be arrested and kicked out of the country for good. And no one would defend your right to dress how you choose, you’d hear crickets from the left. I mean do you really want to go to a beach in Europe and see a bunch of girls dressed in ridiculous summer garments that are meant to hide their beauty because some anti-girl religion tells them it’s wrong? I don’t want to see that. Boy lovers might not care but us girl lovers sure as hell do.
Note that I wrote: ‘…as long as they are not forced to wear such? Live and Let Live I say!’
Muslim women should also be allowed to wear the hijab IF they CHOOSE to do so PROVIDING THEY ARE NOT FORCED TO WEAR SUCH:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/aug/22/complaints-channel-4-news-hijab-the-sun-kelvin-mackenzie-fatima-manji
American Dad…Morality Police:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrCeCS_kNLI
I’ve just watched the full episodes Parts 1 & 2 of ‘American Dad: Stan of Arabia’ purchased to download from Amazon. While there were a number of anti-Muslim, anti-Arab stereotypes (although it is true that Christian, Hindu and other religions are not permitted to have Churches and Temples and ‘sodomy’ is punishable by the death penalty, thieves have their hands chopped off etc in Saudi Arabia and other Islamic States) I can see the appeal of Islam’s multiple wives for men to Stan. I notice that the episode did not mention that the death penalty is law in some American States too though! (King Solomon of Israel in the Old Testament had many wives too and the Mormon Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints used to believe in multiple wives for men. There is also stoning to death of ‘blasphemers’, ‘sodomites’, ‘adulterers’ and prostitutes in the Bible of Jews and Christians. Jesus is reputed to have prevented the execution of a woman in the New Testament by telling the Jews: ‘He who is without sin cast the first stone’. He is also said to have stated ‘Judge not lest ye be judged’ which is a convincing argument in the debate over the death penalty and indeed paedophilia).
>“I notice that the episode did not mention that the death penalty is law in some American States too”
Some American states have the death penalty for being homosexual !? for changing one’s faith or becoming atheist !? for adultery !? for being raped !?
(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3447570/Four-women-raped-ISIS-fighters-stoned-death-Mosul-punishment-committing-adultery.html)
>“King Solomon of Israel in the Old Testament had many wives too and the Mormon Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints used to believe in multiple wives for men”
Oh, that makes it ok then…
>“There is also stoning to death of ‘blasphemers’, ‘sodomites’, ‘adulterers’ and prostitutes in the Bible of Jews and Christians.”
How long ago was that?
Do you really think it’s valid to justify islam’s present evils by pointing out what Jews and Christians did over 2000 years ago?
>“Jesus is reputed to have prevented the execution of a woman in the New Testament by telling the Jews: ‘He who is without sin cast the first stone’”
If only Jesus were around today to forestall those righteous moslems who today so eagerly stone to death women and children for the crime of being raped.
‘Some American states have the death penalty for being homosexual !? for changing one’s faith or becoming atheist !? for adultery !? for being raped !?’
There are still extremist Christian and Jewish groups and individuals who want homosexuals, adulterers, blasphemers etc to be executed according to Bible Law.
‘If only Jesus were around today to forestall those righteous moslems who today so eagerly stone to death women and children for the crime of being raped.’
‘But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.’ – Jesus Christ speaking according to the Christian New Testament – Matthew 18:6 Is Jesus here advocating the death penalty for offences against children?
>“There are still extremist Christian and Jewish groups and individuals who want homosexuals, adulterers, blasphemers etc to be executed according to Bible Law.”
These are vanishingly rare and are considered by the huge majority of westerners as crackpots and aberrant – they are the equivalent of flat-earthers and have no influence on public policy.
More importantly I can hardly imagine that any contemporary secularist would advocate the murder of apostates, homosexuals, adulterers etc.
However a large proportion of moslems do advocate the murder of homosexuals, adulterers, apostates – and all sharia-based systems and theocracies do.
Die Presse (2013): 1 in 5 Muslims in Austria believe that anyone wanting to leave Islam should be killed.
78% of Pakistanis support killing apostates
Policy Exchange: One third of British Muslims believe anyone who leaves Islam should be killed
BBC (2007): 36% of younger Muslims in the UK believe a Muslim should be killed for converting to another religion (19% of those over 55 agree).
Winston Smith, you expend unseemly amounts of energy in defending, excusing and directing attention away from the barbarities of your religion.
If you were truly a reforming moslem you would use that energy to speak out as vocally as possible against the barbarities that tarnish and disfigure your religion.
If Jesus said: ‘Judge not lest ye be judged’ then that would mean NOT JUDGING MUSLIMS…
>“If Jesus said: ‘Judge not lest ye be judged’ then that would mean NOT JUDGING MUSLIMS…”
What is the islamic judgement on the infidel then? Or does islam refrain from judging and condemning them? (<—Sarcastic question)
So should we not pass judgement on a man or an ideology that tortures and kills someone for being homosexual? or a woman for committing adultery? or someone who is an apostate?
Moslems, like everyone else, need to be judged on their deeds – we are all accountable to each other.
So long as moslems (and kufir apologists for islamism and jihadism) expended all their energy in defending, excusing and directing attention away from the barbarities of their religion, rather than criticising and condmening them then islam will remain, by a long streak, the most hated of all religions.
‘If only Jesus were around today to forestall those righteous moslems’
Muslims believe that Jesus is one of the great prophets of Al-Islam ( meaning ‘The Surrender to God’).
>“‘If only Jesus were around today to forestall those righteous moslems’
Muslims believe that Jesus is one of the great prophets of Al-Islam ( meaning ‘The Surrender to God’).”
Winston Smith, your silences, your obfuscation and your attempts at misdirection are more revealing of your true beliefs than are your words.
If moslems (and kufir apologists for islamism and jihadism) expended as much effort criticising the barbarities of islam as they do in defending them, excusing them and directing attention away from them, then islam might not be, by a long streak, the most hated of all religions.
Heck Jesus had an underage boy prostitute boyfriend. He was the only one to stick with Jesus after even Peter denied him. Mark 14 v 51 & 52. No less than Jeremy Bentham the father of London College and Pier Paolo Passolini in his film “The Gospel According To St. Matthew” have pointed this out. What is all the noise about in this post? I remember in my other comment I got attacked for being in denial or some such nonsense. Let’s study history and forget all the theories that purport to be science that are not science. Pedophilia is in our very core. We spent our first 300,000 years in the Paleo hunting and gathering men and boys. What in the world do you think was going on? Pedophilia is fully incorporated into our genetic makeup. Puritans are trying to eliminate what cannot be eliminated. Our job should be trying to learn how to live in the modern world with who we are.
This is the most funny argument to advocate pedophilia I see in my life, I’ve been laughing at this for like 5 minutes!! Jesus the pimp.. Jesus Christ..
Elron,
Look in your bible to Mark Chapter 14 v 51 & 52. Then find an essay by Bentham titled: “Homosexuality of Jesus explored by 18th-century philosopher Jeremy Bentham” where, “…Bentham goes on to analyze the account in Mark’s gospel of “the stripling in the loose attire” (now usually known as “the naked young man”) at the arrest of Jesus — a passage that continues to fuel 21st-century speculations in the LGBT community. He urges readers to consider the most “probable interpretation” for the nakedness. (In a different manuscript he made it clear that the youth was probably a male prostitute loyal to Jesus.) Bentham even hints that Jesus was killed for homosexuality, asking readers to consider what interaction with a naked man could be “so awful” that it leads to cruel execution.” And, then get a copy of Pasolini’s film “”The Gospel According to St. Matthew”.
I do not know if your laughter is in support or in opposition. But, these are serious people exploring a serious theory. Our opponents have regressed into a paranoia of the first order as can be seen in this thread and must be stopped full stop. They are not only our enemies they are enemies of man.
Love,
Lukas
Winston Smith is out of action, the winner is leonard sisyphus mann!
Sorry ‘1984’ Winston, a flawless execution (pun intended) from Leonard ‘Nimoy’ part, although it is warns that leonard has earned a yellow card for unlawful use of Daily Mail pedohysterical articles.
Look, Here in Western countries and Eastern consumed by globalism, same-age-same-sex dogma they do not leave us nor walk with a under age teenage girl, or have a drink or have sex with them as even animals and flowers have since nature call for it, and I do not see any leftists and liberals advocates of so-called “freedoms” (or perversions) complaining about it. Because a stupid anti-teen religion tells them it’s wrong. Child lovers might not care but us teen lovers sure as hell do.
There will be 10 candidates for the Batley and Spen by-election including the Far-Right BNP, NF, Liberty GB, a right-wing Islamophobic, English Democrats Party candidate, and to oppose them a Muslim Independent, Waqas Ali Khan -who is a member of…UKIP (UKIP allow Muslims to join unlike the BNP/NF/LGB/EDP, although there are Islamophobes who are members of UKIP).
http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/batley-spen-election-ten-candidates-11947693
http://mend.org.uk/more-anti-muslim-hate-spouted-by-ukip-candidates/
SeXentric’s BRIEF 4-points (plus lynx fer Cool Cats), hopefully cuntributes to, or finally seals, the tiresome issue/non issue of Muzzys v The Rest = No Cuntest.
1) The Judeo-Christian ANCIENT Holy God IMPREGNATED Holy Mary, TWELVE, wed to Holy OLD Joe c.70. Parents to pro social sweet Jeez weeping at what so called ‘Christians’ have done and STILL do his name!
2) In 4 centuries ongoing, post-Reformation anti social WASPS-WhiteAngloSaxonProtestants have mass killed millions more Worldwide including millions of innocent kids – than all other religions and cultures combined!
3) Starting in the 1600s (self-justified by their early LYING media), with HALF A MILLION pro social Catholics including innocent kids, killed by anti social WASPS in Ireland – where they STILL don’t belong!
4) And, since winning World War 2 for supposed ‘Free Democracy’, anti social WASPS have mass killed c.10 MILLION Worldwide, including innocent children! (Hapless amateurs Muzzys et al don’t even cum close.)
https://markcurtis.wordpress.com/books/
https://williamblum.org/books
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyoMEBqR_u4
hi SeXentric,
Why is it that the first reflex of moslems and apologists of islamic terrorism, when confronted about islam’s love affair with violence; degredation and cruelty, is to talk about christianity?
Why does one religion think it can excuse its own current evils by pointing out the past (and often ‘very long past’) evils of another religion? This is playground bickering – ‘Gary kicked Lucy, so I should be allowed to kick Lucy too!!’
I’m no christian – though I’ll admit that as far as religions go christianity is simply a better religion that islam.
Indeed islam, as Michel Houellbeq pointed out is “La religion la plus con, c’est quand même l’islam” (Islam is the most stupid religion) – and we can see that clearly in the actions of its most devoted adherents and the tacit support of the umma for those actions.
So let’s not judge religions by comparing them to other religions – let’s judge them by comparing them by the best that humanity has achieved – by the charter of human rights, by the achievements of science, the humanities and by the best cultural creations of the human mind, by the achievements of secular civil society…
Anyway – despite not wanting to engage in the ‘christian vs islam’ question…
1) “The Judeo-Christian ANCIENT Holy God IMPREGNATED Holy Mary”
Let’s not overlook the fact that the ‘Judeo-Christian ANCIENT Holy God’ didn’t exist when Mary got pregnant – some non-imaginary male must have been responsible.
However mohammed DID exist when he was given/sold Aisha (by her father) and exercised his ‘droits de mari’ upon her.
The difference between the two is the difference between imaginary child abuse and real child abuse.
2/ “WhiteAngloSaxonProtestants have mass killed millions more Worldwide including millions of innocent kids”
Have you got statistics to back this up?
And were all those killings done in the name of christ? Did the killers shout ‘In the name of Jesus’ as they killed – as moslems today yelp ‘ala akhbar’ when they decapitate children and throw homosexuals off tall buildings and fly planes into crowded buildings?
It strikes me that christianity passed its bloodthirsty phase quite a few centuries ago. Moreover some of its more bloodthirsty wars were justified (the crusades for example).
270,000,000 is the rough estimate of deaths of non-moslems by moslems for religious reasons since the invention of islam. This excludes wars waged for geo-political reasons. It also doesn’t include intra-moslem killing, such as shias killed by sunnis, sunnis by shias and religiously motivated executions of ‘criminals’ from within the faith (https://www.politicalislam.com/tears-of-jihad/)
3/ “Starting in the 1600s (self-justified by their early LYING media), with HALF A MILLION pro social Catholics including innocent kids, killed by anti social WASPS in Ireland – where they STILL don’t belong!”
Yes, but that was a/ not today – the problem we face is contemporary islam. b/ those deaths did not occur for religious reasons – they were a result of political bungling and agricultural monoculture.
It’s an islamist trick to automatically conflate ‘deaths caused by christians’ with ‘deaths cause in the name of christianity’ – this means that whenever a moslem is accidentally killed in, say, a motorway pile up in a christian country that death is attributed to ‘persecution of moslems by christians’.
That organisations such as C.A.G.E. systematically bump up the stats in this way (classifying any crime committed against a moslem as evidence of ‘islamophobia’) shows how cynical and underhand the islamist strategy is.
4/ where do these statistics come from, SeXy 😉 ?
What was the justification – in terms of values that we would now all accept – for the Crusades?
>“What was the justification – in terms of values that we would now all accept – for the Crusades?”
There’s an assumption in the zeitgeist that the Crusades were unjustified.
But for this to be valid one would have to make the following two assumptions:
1/ that all and any territories conquered and occupied by islam are held legitimately
2/ kuffir powers do not have a legitimate right to defend its territories or to recapture and restore territories taken from them.
Well, I’m no historian, and I know that each crusade was different, and that the detail gets horrifically complicated – but this is how I see the ‘big picture’:
Under Justinian and the Byzantine Empire Christianity had spread throughout most of europe to the north, northern africa to the south, iberia to the east, and india to the west, and the Levant. (light-blue areas on map
At the time of islam’s probable origins in Mecca and Medina (start of the 7th century) Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, North Africa, Spain, France, Italy, and the islands of Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica were all Christian territories. There were also large christian populations outside the former Roman Empire’s boundaries, notably in Arabia and Persia.
By A.D. 732 Christians had lost Egypt, Palestine, Syria, North Africa, Spain, most of Asia Minor, and southern France. Italy and her islands were under threat (these islands would come under Muslim rule in the next century) to moslem invaders. The Christian communities of Arabia were entirely destroyed in or shortly after 633, when Jews and Christians alike were expelled from the peninsula. Those in Persia were under severe pressure. Two-thirds of the formerly Roman Christian world was now ruled by Moslems.
Every one of the regions listed above was taken, within the space of a hundred years, from Christian control by violence, in the course of military campaigns deliberately designed to expand Moslem territory at the expense of islam’s neighbors. Nor did this conclude islam’s program of conquest. The attacks continued, punctuated from time to time by Christian attempts to push back (Charlemagne blocked the Muslim advance in far western Europe in about A.D. 800, but islamic forces simply shifted their focus and began to island-hop across from North Africa toward Italy and the French coast, attacking the Italian mainland by 837).
In the hundred years between 850 and 950, in what we today call Italy, Benedictine monks were driven out of ancient monasteries, the Papal States were overrun, and Muslim pirate bases were established along the coast of northern Italy and southern France, from which attacks on the deep inland were launched. Desperate to protect victimized Christians, popes became involved in the tenth and early eleventh centuries in directing the defense of the territory around them.
So far from being unprovoked, then, the crusades actually represent the first great western Christian counterattack against the Muslim attacks and incursions which had taken place continually from the inception of Islam until the eleventh century, and which continued on thereafter, mostly unabated, and have recommenced in the present day.
Three of Christianity’s five primary episcopal sees (Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria) had been captured in the seventh century; both of the others (Rome and Constantinople) had been attacked in the centuries before the crusades. The latter would be captured by islam in 1453, leaving only one of the five (Rome) in Christian hands by 1500. Rome was again threatened in the sixteenth century.
Islam had proved itself as a deadly and persistent threat, and one which had to be answered by forceful defense if Christendom were to even survive. The crusades were simply one tool in the defensive options exercised by Christians (the taking of Rome is still a rallying cry amongst islamists and jihadists – since to them it represents the complete fall of Christendom – and, by extension, the West – to islam – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3387835/Australian-jihadi-extremist-returns-social-media-preaching-photo-holding-Islamic-flag-outside-Vatican-promote-view-Christians-don-t-deserve-churches.html).
To put the question in perspective, one need only consider how many times Christian forces have attacked either Mecca or Medina. The answer, of course, is never.
Add to this the issue of pilgrimages. At the period in question, for both moslems and christians, pilgrimage was an essential duty of their faiths. Pilgrimages to the Holy Land were the most sacred. When islam conquered the Holy Land not only did they ‘cleanse’ it of christians, destroy churches and sites of pilgrimage, they, of course, murdered, imprisoned or forced the conversion of christian pilgrims entering their newly conquered territories.
Imagine the equivalent today: A non-moslem country conquers Saudi-Arabia. They kill moslems who refuse to apostasise, destroy moslem shrines and libraries, and decide that there will be no more pilgrimmages to Mecca. Would this make it justified for muslims to try to renconquer Mecca?
But today it is, for some reason, assumed that ‘the crusades were wrong’ whereas islam’s expansion through war is assumed to always be legitimate – that somehow they had/have a right to occupy and islamify the countries and populations they’d conquered.
I think it’s much more normal to maintain that both the crusades AND islamic expansion through war are wrong. Do you find many supporters of broadly liberal values who support islamic expansion through war?
>“I think it’s much more normal to maintain that both the crusades AND islamic expansion through war are wrong.”
Ahh… but I gave up worrying about what is ‘normal’ a long, long time ago…
Fundamentally, I think it always legitimate ‘to defend’, but much less legitimate ‘to attack’ – the crusades were clearly defensive, whilst islam’s project was and is expansionist. The crusades were justified – to have not had the crusades would have been to surrender the world to islam.
>“Do you find many supporters of broadly liberal values who support islamic expansion through war?”
I don’t know – this issue seems to be so rarely discussed, mentioned or questioned. It seems to be assumed that islam has a (divine?) right to those territories it has conquered.
But the real issue isn’t what people of broadly liberal values think about islamic expansion, but what moslems think about it. And the statistics are rather chilling:
– BBC Radio (2015): 45% of British Muslims agree that clerics preaching violence against the West represent “mainstream Islam”.
– al-Jazeera Poll (2015): 81% of respondents support the Islamic State (ISIS).
– al-Jazeera Website Survey (2015): 81% of respondents approve of “regional conquests: by ISIS.
– ICM (Mirror) Poll 2015: 1.5 Million British Muslims support the Islamic State, about half the total population.
(for more results of surveys check out http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/opinion-polls.aspx)
‘It seems to be assumed that islam has a (divine?) right to those territories it has conquered.’
I think it is rather that long periods of continuous occupation are considered to create a ‘de facto’ right, provided the population are (no longer) hostile. (One can think this while also questioning the morality of the original acts of conquest.) Otherwise one might be creating a pretext for all sorts of crazy military adventures.
Thanx to TOC for posting craZy kat SeXentric.
Meanwhile, SeXy Leonard STILL in denial? Not good for the soul sisters & bruvs.
1) If learned Leonard checks current learneds’ links, UK Mark Curtis/US Will Blum, he might get a hint of mass killer WASPS current crimes against ALL of humanity. Always for material profit always crudely masked as ‘peace making’ or ‘public protection’. (Our own heartfelt topic KidSex TRUE facts, trashed and distorted as supposed ‘Child Protection’ by THE SAME mass killer WASPS’ with their profiteering ‘Mass Deception’.)
2) Surely this is about sheer numbers, because all religions are devious or dumb enough to think they are doing so called ‘God’s work’ – whoever she is? The vital difference, as ever, is mass killer WASPS are STINKING HYPOCRITES, far more deviously (via there vile media, as ever) disguising there mass killings, for material profit, as ‘bringing Free Democracy to the World – WTF?! While murderous mediEVIL Muzzys, for blind faith only, OPENLY yell ‘Allah Akbah Ba Black Sheep’ – or WTF?! (Born Catholic, True Brit St Galloway, still telling truths in Anglo lands of lies, nailed it for all humanity, on mass killer WASP George Dubya, “He’s no kind of Christian that I know of. He doesn’t believe in the Prophet peace be upon him, only in the profit and how to get a piece of it!”
2) So, Leonards’ c.270-Million mass killed by OPENLY murderous blind-faith Muzzy’s ad-hoc opportunist (not planned, they couldn’t plan a proper piss up…) in Asia & Europe since the 1400s MAY or may NOT be accurate. Compared to unknown vast genocidal numbers destroyed by mass killer Wasps PLANNED FOR PROFIT WORLDWIDE on FIVE CONTINENTS where they don’t belong, unstopped in 4 CENTURIES ongoing since the 1600s. Paraphrase mass killer WASP murderous media Mad Dog Murdoch pre-Iraq recent war (my brackets), “There’s going to be ‘collateral damage’ (civilians & KIDS KILLED) so best we do it sooner than later!”
3) Ex-CIA cynic-comic Will Blum’s book TITLES ALONE tell it true, “Freeing The World To Death!”, “America’s Deadliest Export – Democracy!” Plus mighty Brit Mark Curtis, “Britain’s COLLUSION With Radical Islam”, “Unpeople”, et al. Misquote brass-neck Brit War leader Winnie, post-Pearl Harbor, (‘Some chicken – some neck!’) “Some Democracy – MUCH Hypocrisy!”
4) And always check Fearless Peerless Pilger, Swingin ’60s ongoing unchecked – Mainstream, Books, Blogs, Vids.
http://johnpilger.com/
http://johnpilger.com/books
http://johnpilger.com/articles
Many thanks again to TOC for permitting this c.400 words. TWICE the number of his earlier allowed limit – MUCH breached by all and sundry since then.
>Many thanks again to TOC for permitting this c.400 words.
As you well know, I find your style unreadable, especially at length, and I think others readers will too. Your previous post made a relevant point quite briefly so I decided to run it. That does not mean you have carte blanche to give me and other readers a headache with long repetitious rants, or even short repetitious ones.
Perhaps Joseph impregnated Mary? I’ve seen articles written by Christians which state she was 14 when she became pregnant with baby Jesus:
‘Her age:
It is very clear that Mary was betrothed to Joseph and marriage was imminent. The usual age for marriage under Jewish law is 13 for boys, 12 for girls. Considering the circumstances described in the Gospel and giving enough weight to Jewish practices 2000 years back Mary was 13 when angel Gabriel appeared before her. Please also note that Mary was not subjected to a physical relation with God. According to our best knowledge she was 14 at the time of giving birth to Jesus.’
https://www.quora.com/How-old-was-Mary-mother-of-Jesus-when-she-gave-birth-to-Jesus
We should not forget the mass killings carried out by misguided Christian Crusaders against Muslims, Jews and Pagans, and the sectarian terrorism and killings carried out by the Protestant UDA/UVF/UFF and Catholic IRA/INLA/CRF in Northern Ireland during the ‘troubles’.
You attack the hypocrisy of the Antis with more Anti’s things? But that guy of quora was right about because girls of 13 and 14 must have physical relations with men, not with imaginary ghosts. But having sex with an adult is a practice dated 5,000 years ago from cavermans and nobody complains that it is out-dated, that hypocrisy…
> “We should not forget the mass killings carried out by misguided Christian Crusaders against Muslims, Jews and Pagans, and the sectarian terrorism and killings carried out by the Protestant UDA/UVF/UFF and Catholic IRA/INLA/CRF in Northern Ireland during the ‘troubles’.”
frankly my dear i don’t give a damn the religious will apologize for mass murders when misguided atheists promoters of cultural Marxism and the culture of death, do the same.
I agree with you in fact that Atheist Marxism/Communism has been responsible for TENS OF MILLIONS OF DEATHS WORLDWIDE. George Orwell was an English Patriotic Democratic Socialist who saw the crimes of the Communists in the Spanish Civil War, where he had initially volunteered to fight alongside them against Franco’s Catholic Fascists. He later wrote the anti-Communist novels ‘Animal Farm’ and ‘1984’ (featuring the dissident freedom fighter ‘Winston Smith’ who resists the tyranny of the Communist ‘Anti-Sex League’), and he also authored the non-fiction book ‘The Lion and the Unicorn’ his Manifesto for Patriotic Democratic English Socialism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TxFaZ0K754
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes
Good readings, but I was referring to cultural Marxism, which is the modernist, feminist and globalist ideology that is destroying civilizations and their differences here now, not the Communist Marxism, is different.
The Soviet murders, the Chinese communist murders and the Kmer Rouge were NOT genocides, but DEMOCIDES.
TODAY in the West there is a DEMOCIDE of homosexuals. Yes, HOMOSEXUALS. Gayness is an anti-homosexual perversion, where true homosexuality is between a man and a boy. The natural homosexual ( and heterosexual ) drives of boys is being MURDERED!
This is the DEMOCIDE and ISLAM’s crimes by comparison are a complete JOKE!
The West CLOAKED in PSYCHIATRY AND PSYCHOLOGY and various other false disciplines is persecuting homosexuals FAR MORE than the ISlamic world EVER HAS OR WILL DO.
AND WHEN will a sicko like Stephen Fry speak out against it?
No need to shout CC. We can hear you without being subjected to CAPITAL punishment.
As for democide, I’m not sure how many here will be familiar with RJ Rummel’s important term, which is discussed at length in Steven Pinker’s The Better Angels of our Nature (which I recommend). There is a full explanation in Wikipedia too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide
Marxism is promotion of the cult of death. Rightly said.
Red Ken Livingstone, the former Hard Left Labour Mayor of London has some distinctly illiberal views on paedophilia:
“John Woodcock, the MP whose local party Mr O’Carroll joined, had said he was “dismayed” at the man joining.
The episode comes the same day as former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone said he would be willing to consider the chemical castration of paedophiles.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tom-o-carroll-labour-suspends-convicted-paedophile-and-pro-child-sex-campaigner-who-joined-party-a6877006.html
You make a good point Mr Smith…Look at this article alluding to Adam Johnson by Victoria Coren Mitchell, This is not the Daily-hail, its from the fucking guardian!
“We should not forget the mass killings carried out by misguided Christian Crusaders against Muslims, Jews and Pagans, ”
The crusades were entirely justified. By the time of the first crusade islam had conquered (by war) three quarters of christian territory and were threatening christianity’s last (of 5) episcopal sees (Rome). If christendom had not launched the crusades all of Europe would have fallen to islam.
I give a more detailed explication of this in my respone to stephen6000 elsewhere in this comment section – https://tomocarroll.wordpress.com/2016/09/21/people-who-live-in-glass-houses/comment-page-1/#comment-11319
“sectarian terrorism and killings carried out by the Protestant UDA/UVF/UFF and Catholic IRA/INLA/CRF in Northern Ireland during the ‘troubles’.”
Compared to what shias and sunnis are doing to each other – this, statistically, hardly registers. Moreover, the troubles were territorial rather than doctrinal – unlike the disagreements between the aforementioned moslem cults.
I have watched the video about Cromwell’s invasion of Ireland, including Part 2. I recommend it, it shows how Cromwell’s combination of English imperialism, Puritan lack of compromise and religious intolerance led to a wholesale slaughter of one fifth to one fourth of Ireland’s population, destroyed its nationhood, and pitted Catholics against Protestants for several centuries.
On LSM’s blog Consenting Human, I have already said that Philip Jenkins compared violence in the Koran and in the Jewish Bible (the Ancient Testament), and concluded that the Ancient Testament is qualitatively worse, see: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788&ps=cprs
Thus if bad religion was due to bad sacred texts, European Jews should have been the most barbaric people, which was not the case. This shows that in religion, it is not so much what is written in sacred books that counts, but rather how believers interpret these books.
There is also a text (in French) explaining that homophobia began in Western Europe at the times of the Crusades, as Turks and Persians were to a large extent involved in man-man or man-boy love: http://www.krisis.org/2014/homophobie-musulmane-occident-clair-2/
But LSM (who reads French) said he had no time for it (however he has time for Houlebecq).
Leonard, I’d love to see you debating all this with a left-wing moslem like Mehdi Hassan!
My own view is that the sooner Islam is watered down in the way that Christianity has been in most of the West, so that adherents don’t feel obliged to defend every moral barbarity in their key text, the better. Actually, I guess even now, there are many moslems who don’t take much notice of the nastiest aspects of the Koran, but we also need moslem LEADERS to become as tepid as the Church of England!
‘The Association of British Muslims affirms the equal worth of all human beings, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, creed, sexual orientation or ability.’
http://aobm.org/about/
“The Association of British Muslims affirms the equal worth of all human beings, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, creed, sexual orientation or ability.”
Seriously, how can they be trusted to be telling the truth?
How can I, as a kuffir, know that they are not exercising taqiyya, kitman, tawriya or muruna when they address such a statement to a kuffir audience?
Islam, in encouraging lying and dishonesty, terribly undermines the credibility of all its adherents.
And as me, as a non-pedophile, know that pedophiles are not doing taqiyya (his way) too?
“I would never molest a child”
According to you and others, sex with a child is not molestation in itself.
>”And as me, as a non-pedophile, know that pedophiles are not doing taqiyya (his way) too?
“I would never molest a child”
According to you and others, sex with a child is not molestation in itself.”
I think the point you make has some truth to it, Elron, but doesn’t bear close inspection.
1/ the problem with ‘molest’ is the word actually covers two different concepts i/ ‘molest’ – as in to sexually mistreat, ii/ ‘molest’ – as in to have any sexual or sensual interaction with a child (including consensual caring ones) – as it stands there is there is no word in the English language for the second concept – so if someone asks a paedophile ‘would you ever molest a child?’ if they would never sexually mistreat a child but would engage in consensual caring intimacy with a child there is no way they can express that fact in a six-word sentence – in fact to express that fact would require a little lecture.
Here it is the language that is at fault, that does not allow one to easily distinguish between two possibilities.
2/ most pro-choice paedophiles asked the question “would you ever molest a child?” – would love to explain and make clear the distinction I point out above.
We don’t want to conceal that paedophilia is about about caring, consensual intimacy – we are fighting and struggling and endeavouring to communicate this and make it clear – we are trying our best to make the language more true and honest.
3/ many, probably most, paedophiles (not just VirPeds) if they said “I would never molest a child” would mean it in both senses of the word – they would not sexually mistreat a child, nor would they engage in consensual caring intimacy.
4/ it’s one thing for an individual to lie, fallible and afraid as we all are – but wholly another thing for a politcal ideology and a religion (which purports to advocate perfect morals) and has 1,6 billion followers to instruct its followers to lie.
5/ it’s one thing to lie to save your own life, or the lives of others, or your security and well-being, or to avoid injustice – it’s another to lie about the contents and propositions of an ideology in the promotion of that ideology. Unfortunately this is how many moslems treat their interactions with Kufir.
Here is an example caught on video:
David Starkey Schools Muslim about why Islam is Primitive and Backwards
note that Medhi Hassan’s immediate instinct, when confronted about him calling Kufir ‘cattle’ was to simply deny he had said it. To lie. (the footage of him making the ‘cattle’ remark can be found here: href=”https://archive.org/details/MehdiHasan_201601)
If a religion has a tolerant approach to lying and deceit it ends up infecting the whole of that religion’s discourse – hence the abysmal standards of rigour, bias, reason and logic of islamic scholars, preachers and minds formed by islam. Here are some examples:
—There was dumb, then dumber, and then dumbest
—2+2=6 Islamic Logic
—Muslim scientist says world is flat because the koran says so.
—Islamic TV Channel Montage – FUNNIEST Video you will ever see in your life !
When you become accustomed to lying to others you end up lying to yourself. When a religon arrogates to itself the right, the duty, to be deceitful about its own precepts and teachings – it has already lost the game, it has proven itself morally bankrupt and has no credibility amongst people who value truth, honesty and rigour.
Taqiyya is only permitted TO PREVENT PERSECUTION OF MUSLIMS:
Famous case of Taqiyyah (Taqiyya, Takiya)
A common example of takiya (taqiyyah, taqiya) involves a Muslim (Ammar B. Yasir, a companion of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him) being forced to worship idols and insult the Prophet of Islam. [1] [3]
The level of force the polytheists applied on Ammar bin Yasir can be imagined by Amr bin Maymoon’s statement, “The polytheists tortured Ammar with fire”. [3]
“Abu Ubaydah bin Muhammad bin Ammar bin Yasir said: The polytheists seized Ammar and they did not let him off until he was forced to insult the Messenger of Allah and say good things about their deities” [3]
Ammar bin Yasir told Prophet Muhammad (p) of what he was forced to say.
“The Prophet (p) said: “Say it again if they ask (i.e. force) you to do so”.” [3]
So, in order to avoid such torture the Prophet allowed Ammar bin Yasir to use “taqiyya”
http://islamicresponse.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/what-is-taqiyya.html
Imagine this scenario:
Two men and two women are going to be executed in Communist North Korea for ‘religious subversion of the State’. One man and one woman are Muslim converts and the other man and woman are Christian converts. At the eleventh hour the accused are offered a jail sentence instead of the death penalty if they renounce their religious beliefs. The Muslim man and woman use Taqiyya (i.e. pretend to renounce Islam while still being secret Muslims) but the Christian man and woman refuse to renounce Christ and are killed by firing squad. I know what I would do in such a situation. How about you?
Note that in Islam, Jesus (peace be upon him) is revered as a great prophet of God like Abraham, Noah and Moses (peace be upon them), who are all considered Muslims, and Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the final messenger and prophet of Islam.
hi stephen6000
>“Leonard, I’d love to see you debating all this with a left-wing moslem like Mehdi Hassan!”
Is this Medhi ‘Cattle’ Hassan?
I’ve got real doubts as to whether he really could be described as ‘left-wing’ – though admittedly my familiarity with him only covers his pronouncements on islam and the kuffir.
It seems that Medhi is most notable for a video in which he calls non-moslems and atheists ‘cattle’ (and, germanely, homosexuals ‘paedophiles’).
He and his colleagues are clearly embarrassed by this video – since every time it appears on youtube it is taken down under the ‘violation of copyright’ banner – apparently under pressure from something called the ‘Islamic Unity Society’.
here is one example of this: “Mehdi Hasan – Non Mus…” This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Islamic Unity Society.
and here is the actual video in question – uncensored: Mehdi Hasan says Non-Muslims and Atheists live like Cattle, and Homosexuals are like paedophiles
There’s also an interesting article in the Spectator that reveals how reactionary his views are according to western civilised standards:
Who is the greater hypocrite: Mehdi Hasan or the British left?
Apparently Hassan tried to get a job as a writer for the Daily Mail and in his application letter he wrote:
“passion, rigour, boldness and, of course, news values. I believe the Mail has a vitally important role to play in the national debate, and I admire your relentless focus on the need for integrity and morality in public life, and your outspoken defence of faith, and Christian culture, in the face of attacks from militant atheists and secularists…[I am] attracted by the Mail’s social conservatism on issues like marriage, the family, abortion and teenage pregnancies”.
>“My own view is that the sooner Islam is watered down in the way that Christianity has been in most of the West […] the better.”
I whole-heartedly agree, stephen6000.
If I consider Medhi ‘cattle’ Hassan as a ‘trojan horse’ left-winger, I admire and respect Maajid Nawaz very much – an islamist turned true moderate muslim.
I suspect that, like me, you are a Harris-Head – what I have heard and read of Nawaz’s collaboration with Sam Harris has been inspiring – their book ‘Islam and the Future of Tolerance: A Dialogue‘ is high on my reading list.
‘I suspect that, like me, you are a Harris-Head – what I have heard and read of Nawaz’s collaboration with Sam Harris has been inspiring – their book ‘Islam and the Future of Tolerance: A Dialogue‘ is high on my reading list.’
I have written this about Harris:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/rrpsssfig5flvdc/Harris.pdf?dl=0
Although critical of him on purely philosophical matters, I do like his overall science-based approach. And I’m glad to hear about his collaboration with Nawaz,
Here we see that pathetic social conservatives and religionists are in cahoots with feminists in preventing natural teen pregnancy and marriage, sex etc to obliterate men’s and women sexuality. if this does not show it, I do not know what could.
“We are all familiar with the media demonisation of ordinary law-abiding Muslims”
To be honest – I can’t say I am familiar with it.
maybe the media shouldn’t report terrorist incidents when they are carried out by moslems? If there’s any demonisation happening it’s moslems themselves who are demonising their religion. (Wikipedia – List of Islamist terrorist attacks)
The media I tend to read, the Guardian, the Independent, the BBC news web site – seem to bend over backwards to portray islam as favourably as possible – even publishing articles mocking the French for being victims of jihadism in Nice. ( Five reasons to wear a burkini – and not just to annoy the French Remona Aly)
“who criticise Islam as a “paedophile religion” due to the fact that the Prophet muhammad was married to a child bride”
The definition of a prophet is “one who speaks for another, especially, one who speaks for a god an interprets his will to man”
In order to establish this as a fact you would 1/ have to give conclusive evidence that god (or gods) exists, 2/ that this god just happens to be the one mohammed purported to be in communication with (rather than say Jaweh, Apollo, Thor, Ganesh or any one of the other millions of gods that have probably been believed in over human history) – the likelihood of either of these being true is vanishing remote – and combined it becomes as good as impossible that the god of the koran exists – therefore, there being no god, mohammed could not have been a prophet.
“the much-publicised Rotherham case of alleged ‘child abuse’ involving men of predominantly Pakistani Muslim heritage.”
Again – were the media wrong to report this case? Should it have been suppressed?
The ring leaders were exclusively moslem not ‘predominantly Pakistani” – your attempt to obfuscate, dilute and conceal this fact betrays to what extent you are writing with an agenda.
(there are four forms of lying in islam permissible when a moslem is having dealings with ‘Kuffir’: ‘taqiyya’ ‘kitman’ ‘tawriya’ and ‘muruna’:
– ‘Takiyya’ is defined as dissimulation about ones Muslim identity.
– ‘Tawriya’ is defined as concealing, and it could be called “creative lying”. It is OK to break the intent of the oath, as long as you don’t break the letter of the oath.
– ‘Kitman’ is characterized by someone telling only part of the truth.
– ‘Muruna’ means using “flexibility” to blend in with the enemy or the surroundings.
– from Knowing Four Arabic Words May Save Our Civilization from Islamic Takeover)
“It was legal in medieval Christian England and Europe to marry…child brides!”
And the West soon after moved on from these 14th Century practices.
However child marriage still occurs in islamic countries and is still advocated by islamic scholars, for the very credible (if you are a moslem) grounds that every deed mohamed did should be emulated by his followers and that allah decrees muhammed’s life as an absolute model to follow (see Surah Al-Ahzab, Verse 21 – http://www.iqrasense.com/quranic-tafsir/prophet-muhammad-was-sent-as-an-example.html/ See also The Sacredness of Mohammad’s Example , apparently the koran demands 91 times that Muslims imitate Mohammed in every way).
If you have to go back to medieval Europe to find equivalent practices to excuse those of contemporary islamic then that speaks volumes about contemporary islam – it suggests that morally and ethically islam is no more advanced than Christianism was eight centuries ago (before the Reformation and Enlightenment!!!)
And, yes, I am against child marriage – children should not be traded like cattle by their parents to a man the child may not even have previously met (that is how child marriage happens – not a paedo and a little girl meeting, followed by a courtship, followed by them shyly, nervously breaking the news of their engagement to her parents…), little girls shouldn’t at the age of 6 be committed to a life of domesticity, drudgery, probably rape, child-bearing, deprived of education.
Islamic child marriage goes against all my ideals for intergenerational love and romance – children should engage in sensuality and intimacy playfully, without commitments, without long term effects, without having to enter into arrangements that will bind them for the rest of their lives.
Also see: Islamic Pedophilia Explained By Muslim Imam
Child bride, 13, dies of internal injuries four days after arranged marriage in Yemen
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/jun/09/bangladesh-urged-combat-epidemic-child-marriage
Yemen child marriage: minister calls for ban after death of eight-year-old girl
0:02 / 4:52 Islam, Child Marriage, and the Washington Post (David Wood)
“The British National Front (NF)…”
Don’t conflate European Fascism with a fear of islam and islamism – there are an ever growing number of those on the left (amongst whom I count myself) who no longer are willing to give islam a free pass it demands (usually with violence – see Charlie Hebdo and Salman Rushdie affair), simply because it’s a religion and arrogates to itself the privilege of not being criticised. Religions are ideology, and therefore must be criticised, analysed, mocked and, if necessary, feared.
Amongst the commandements in the koran and the hadith are:
– that it is the duty of every moslem to spread their faith, if necessary by violence and war. Indeed spreading islam by war is the best way of reaching paradise.
– that all infidels should be converted, killed or (if jewish or christian) pay jiziyah (a tax levied on ‘infidels’)
– homosexuals should be executed by being thrown off cliffs (or the modern equivalent – ‘tall buildings’)
– the acceptability of the taking and keeping of slaves as part of the spoils of war
– the acceptability of the rape of female slaves (https://youtu.be/Tia7HoOqlH8)
– the use of physical violence against women (you can beat your wife with a stick provided it is not more than two thumb-widths thick)
– the status of women either as second class citizens (a woman’s testimony is worth half of that of a male) or as chattels
– the burning of books, libraries (as happened in Mali), the destruction of art (see ISIS and Palmyra, the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan by the ‘Taliban’), the forbidding of music and the destruction of musical instruments, the destruction of pre- and non-islamic historical artefacts…
– the slaughter of animals by the cruellest possible methods (i.e. those that maintain the consciousness of the animal being killed for as long as possible)
– the slaughter of humans by the cruellest possible methods (see ISIS, also see victims of rape buried up to their waists and slowly stoned to death by the ‘righteous’)
If these values and acts were being promoted by, say, white men with skinheads – would anyone hesitate to describe them as the worst forms of fascism?
It’s also salutary to investigate the close links that Fascism and Islam have always maintained:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamofascism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_between_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Arab_world
Each one of your points is valid. Well written, Leonard Sisyphus Mann.
I agree largely with what you say. Leftist tend to equate any criticism of Islam with racism which is dishonest and only an attempt to smear those they disagree with without actually engaging in their arguments. And while I agree with you that no news should be suppressed; I, and I’m sure you do too, know very well how the media likes to exaggerate sex crimes. Lies get pushed as facts with impunity. So there is good reason why someone should hold a lot skepticism about how the Rotherham rape cases were reported. For instance it was reported that 14,000 white British girls were molested between 1997 and 2013. Only problem is there is absolutely no way to verify this. Who are these 14,000 girls and why should I believe it? While I’m sure something happened, I have very strong doubts that the media reports have been accurate.
I read that the figure was 1,400 girls, not 14,000, although the latter figure may well have been reported by the gutter press who tend to multiply any figure by a factor of ten to increase sales.
The numerous shortfalls of the Rotherham report were discussed recently here: https://tomocarroll.wordpress.com/2016/08/10/the-chair-is-dead-long-live-the-chair/#comments.
Marriage between adults should be opposed too, they are not in a mutual and natural love like a 25yo man and a 13yo teen -useful note: teen marriage =/= child marriage- we need to protect victims of almost inevitable rape, domestic abuse, child murder, seduction and deceit of others aberrated adults.
A quick example about epidemic of adult-adult aberrations:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1802863/domestic-violence-against-men-soars-to-record-levels-as-number-of-cases-treble-in-past-decade/
‘…whoever kills a human being for other than murder or spreading mischief in the land (terrorism), it would be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoever saves the life of one, it would be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.” The Qur’an (Surah 5:32)
‘Do not kill the monks in monasteries. Do not kill the people who are sitting in places of worship.’ Narrated in the Musnad of Imam Ibn Hanbal
‘Do not kill any old person, any child or any woman.’ Narrated in the Collection of Traditions of Abu Dawud
As you can clearly see from the above Islamic texts ISIS and similar Islamist terrorist groups are NOT true Muslims…
Hundreds of thousands of Muslims fought for British Democracy in two world wars, there were only 60,000 Muslims who fought on the Nazi side in WWII.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/02/muslim-soldiers-first-world-war
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hundreds-muslims-marching-against-terrorism-6977099
http://www.m-a-t.org/
Strange how today’s Neo-Nazi Far-Right Islamophobes are ignorant about the minority of Muslims who supported Hitler.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2NnB8z627M
>“Strange how today’s Neo-Nazi Far-Right Islamophobes are ignorant…”
You may as well go the whole hog and accuse me of being a ‘Baby Rapist’ because I don’t condemn consensual child-adult intimacy…
I was wondering how long it would take before you pressed the panic button, broke out the nuclear option of the outmanoeuvered islamist, and started with the ‘sliming’ (randomly throwing insulting and unjustified epithets at your interlocutor in order to appear to score a cheap victory, and/or to discredit them in the eyes of onlookers)…
You forgot to fling ‘racist’ at me. Oh, and ‘zionist’ – or can you not use that one in conjunction with ‘neo-Nazi’? I guess there has to be some logic even to throwing random insults, ehh??
Of course ‘Islamophobe’ is a curious word – let me repost the link to the long long long list of recent islamic terrorist outrages.
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/terror-2016.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks
If horses or goldfish had been responsible for as many deaths and injuries would it be unreasonable – ‘irrational’ (as the suffix – phobe implies) to fear them?
Could the fear of being locked in a cage with a pack hungry and violent hyenas really be classified as a ‘phobia’ – or just a rational response to a real and present threat?
If you were one of those persons who has been injured by moslems in the pursuit of their religious duties (please pick me up on this, Winston Smith, just so that we can look and see what the koran says there on the matter…), or had just been present whilst they performed their bloody sacrament, or one of the relatives of the slaughtered – wouldn’t you feel that a phobia of islamists and jihadists was somehow not entirely irrational?
Debate and discussion should not be about winning. Neither of us ‘knows’ that the position we defend is right – the debate and discussion should be about learning, about testing ideas and propositions, about trying to approach the truth.
Despite our strong disagreement till now the discussion had avoided the personal and had been about evidence, facts and reason – you have just tried to drag it into the gutter of exchanging insults because you feel maybe that you have a better chance of ‘winning’ that way.
Let’s not take the easy way out of trying to dishonestly discredit our opponents.
I’ll watch the video you link to later and respond to the points it makes later.
Hi, I am just a common Muslim man… and I need to ask why you hate me and my religion so much, that we Muslims, have done against you? you are a very intolerant man.
>“Hi, I am just a common Muslim man… and I need to ask why you hate me and my religion so much, that we Muslims, have done against you? you are a very intolerant man.”
I don’t know you, Brian. So how can I even dislike you, let alone hate you?
But yes, I guess I really don’t like islam that much. But to put that in context – there are other ideologies I don’t much like such as fascism and rampant capitalism.
But could I ask you – what has islam done recently to earn a dirty infidel kuffir’s liking or respect?
If there any good in its core text to like, it is swamped by the endless injunctions, injunctions moslems are intructed to take seriously, to wage jihad, slaughter non-believers and apostates, hate jews, take slaves, beat wives, repress freedom of thought and of expression, throw gays off cliffs, practice torture, stone adulterers, treat women as chattels, lie, steal, be deceitful, refuse to assimilate or fraternise with kuffirs, practices and attitudes which discourage critical thinking to the point that moslem ‘scientists’ assert the Earth is flat – like a carpet (and everyone of these points is commanded in the koran or the hadiths – quotes available if you don’t believe me)
Again, what has islam done to earn respect? Do I need to list all the instances of terrorism?
And finally, why do ‘common muslims’ refuse to acknowledge the horror and nastiness of their religion as it manifests itself currently? Why are they not out on the streets protesting against the horrors and barbarities that their own relgion perpetrates?
Tens of thousands of moslems turned out to protest at the publishing of the Satanic Verses – why do so few moslems raise a squeak at the horrors perpetrated by ISIS and islamic terrorism?
I will admire and respect with all my heart any moslem that urges reformation, that condemns the above intolerable attitudes and practices. But they are few and far between, and usually terrified of their own community. Those moslems who remain silent are either afraid or they are in sympathy with the most barbaric conception of islam. If it is true that they are afraid to speak out – then what does that say about the moslem community?
You should spend less time attacking those who point out the flaws in your religion and more time considering those flaws, being honest about them and addressing them.
The trouble is that islam, because it is a religion, and a particularly intolerant one at that, thinks it is above criticism – so every criticism feels to moslems like some act of desecration, blasphemy and sacrilege to you. And now we/you live in an age where, because of the internet, and advances in other forms of communication, you can not escape the criticism that rational people will aim at irrational religions – and I understand that this is disturbing for you.
Think of it this way – sometimes the best and most necessary gift you can give to someone you care about is the gift of ‘Honest Criticism’ – this is what you mistake for ‘intolerance’.
What good has the Left, in particular the fraction obsessed with homosexuals and women, done for pedophiles lately?
Rather than lending your support to arbitrary restrictions on pedophiles and children, while condemning the possibility of such restrictions on women and homosexuals, I’d ask to you for the empirical evidence you base this decision on. Do you have empirical evidence homosexuals, when subjected to arbitrary restrictions, suffer more than pedophiles?
>”What good has the Left, in particular the fraction obsessed with homosexuals and women, done for pedophiles lately?”
As far as I can tell the left has done nothing good for paedophiles lately.
Could I ask you the same question of the right?
Another question that is interesting to ask is what good has Islam done for the rights of little girls recently?
It strikes me that, for all its faults, the West treats boys and girls with parity – and that being born a girl into an islamic theocracy is not exactly ‘to win first prize in the the lottery of Life’.
It can be pointed out that some islamic societies have better girl’s rights than others, but I would argue that such adoption of progressive rights occurs in proportion to the willingness of that society to adopt secular values and to ignore or soften the strictures of its religion.
I’m more interested in the restrictions little girls are subjected to under islamic marriage and Zina in general – if the liberation of paedophiles can only be achieved at the price of the subjugation of little girls then, yes, I will argue against such a ‘liberation’ as vigorously as any VirPed or non-paedophile paedophobe would.
Ultimately, as paedophiles, we need to be clear whether our real concern is with our own rights and entitlements or with the rights and entitlements of children.
To see islam as a way forwards for paedophiles is to throw children’s rights, especially those of little girls, under the bus (and not just the enhanced children’s rights as suggested by such authors such as Richard Farson in ‘Birthrights’ but the actual ones they have already achieved in the West – see the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child).
Islam offers paedophiles a ‘quick fix’. If you take that quick fix it shows that you were never really interested in the welfare of children, or their rights – that you are willing to subjugate little girls and impose on them an impoverished life just so long as you can get your ‘rocks off’.
Child-adult love and intimacy can take place either through enhancing the lives, the liberties and rights or children, or by reducing the status of little girls to that of chattels and reproductive-units-in-waiting.
Take your pick.
You mean even to the madness of gender ideology, which surely you are an adherent, right? … or lefty?
You mean that UN which considers those under 18 as ‘children’, whose main duty is basically to be subject of parents and the state? Good link to the radical feminism criminal organization named UNICEF, whose best contribution to the world and to children is make profit at the expense of destroying the lives of millions of pubescent girls and men and their sexuality, every day, but I do not see any group dedicated to providing knowledge to every atrocity committed by your murderous civilization who declared a war against humanity.
Little girls … little girls … maybe you care about teenage girls? a hell in they live in this great load of trash you call ‘Western civilization’?
The price we pay is that 13yo nubiles can not be complete people and have a full life like teleiophilic men as you (Which can ‘rock off’ in every adult women they want), at the expense of a pseudo-religious devotion for girls aged five or six who cannot understand even the slightest human dialogue, checked and tried by me.
I think most of the time you believe that there is only pedophile and teleiophile, woman and little girl, you’re very binary, a somewhat Manichean thinking.
Your attraction to immature girls seems more like a hobby that you have developed, which is useless in order for any civilization to go ahead, nor a person who hates the slightest contact with an adult, can be adherent to your type of attraction. If you want to have it as the obsessive fixation of a lugubrious poet, have it and keep it to yourself, and youre free to bothering the world with things that will not happen, but do not try to defend one aberrant system that does not let me (and the beings that I love) to being a FULL PERSON like you.
And Islam treatment of children is most equal to adults than in the West, is just as bad as adults, the West treats children like pets and adults as masters of their lives, if they can even kill their human (old hag fem says: they are not ‘uman!) child in her adult womb! an aberrant, medieval and barbaric out dated 2000years old practice that you never complaints, the ‘uman rightz hypocrites.
Funny rant over. Not personal abuse intended, Not challenge against Hillary Clinton and associates, All rigths to Alt-right and their associated memes and trademarks.
Nothing wrong with ‘little girls’ we surely treat kids better then in Islamic countries, especially females!
In the old days, In the west, they were seen more as small adults — There was a homosexual philosopher whose name I can’t recall, He quoted “youth need to be included”….In the old days we used to shove them up chimneys, Though I don’t agree with that, Now they’re protected from ‘inappropriate words’, ‘Images’, to the extent of being redundant. Now even Collage and university attendants need to be protected from getting ‘triggered’ and hurtful speech.
In the old days, I’m sure a friendly pederast was a welcome prospect; Nothing right or wrong about it, its all about survival, as in what can he do for me, sure that’s how many street kids survived, Sure there were some nasty ones to be avoided though.
Libertine,
In Pier Paolo Pasolini’s Novel “The Street Kids” the boys in 1944 were 13+/-. One of them showed up in the group with some money and was asked about it. He said, ‘I ran into a really nice man in the park and let him feel me up.’ Pasolini said none of the other boys made any comment on what their pal had just said they just accepted it. I didn’t exactly quote this section just right but that is what happened.
Pasolini implied that the boys knew it was more than a feel-up. Makes me smile when I think about the future we can get to if we are smart enough.
Love,
Lukas
You completely misunderstood my post, as I know you are not a Nazi as you have said you are on the Left of politics. I was talking generally about today’s Neo-Nazi Far-Right Islamophobes who are ignorant of 20th century history, but it is clear that only a minority of Muslims supported the Nazis – most Muslims fought for Democracy on the British and Allied side during World War Two.
My apologies Winston Smith. It seems I got the wrong end of the stick.
No problem leonard