In May, I wrote how Al Age reproduced Emma Brocke's article from the Guardian, demonising Ayaan 
Hirsi Ali.
Hirsi Ali can, she has said, make statements that a white person simply could not: on the ''dangers'' posed to the West by not just radical but regular Islam; on the ''backward'' nature of the religion; on how ''terrible'' the Koran is; and, in the most startling argument of her new book, Nomad, how Muslims would do well to learn from Christianity.
The accusation that most irritates her - that the events of her life have left her ''traumatised'' and an easy pawn for right-wing politicians - is, she says, a sexist presumption. And yet the suspicion remains: that those convictions one arrives at and fights hardest for, via fraught personal experience, are emotional, not rational.
Her critique of Islam as a ''moral framework not compatible with the modern Westernised way of living'' is rooted in a critique of her family…
When she writes that ''violence is an integral part'' of Islamic social discipline, or that ''Muhammad's example is terrible, don't follow it'', it is deliberately, almost narcissistically, provocative, the result, one imagines, of a siege mentality and the defensive self-assurance that goes with it. To Hirsi Ali, the act of speaking out...seems to be almost a pathology.......
Hirsi Ali proposes an ''enlightenment project'' in which ''critical thinking'' is introduced to her former faith through various mediums, one of which is the Christian church. ''That's probably going to be the most controversial,'' she says, smiling. I'll say. Even if it didn't ignore the baggage of 1000 years of history - the Crusades, anyone? Colonialism? - what is an atheist doing promoting Christianity? ....
.
THE film Hirsi Ali made with Theo Van Gogh, broadcaster and provocateur, was intended to symbolise what they saw as misogyny within Islam...As Ian Buruma reported in his excellent book Murder In Amsterdam, when a Dutch news program aired Submission to Muslim women in a shelter for victims of domestic violence, they were by and large appalled...her style, and her choice of cohort, offended them. ....
Brocke's disrespectful, sarcastic and condescending tone permeates the interview.
She implies that Hirsi Ali can't think rationally because she has been a victim of abuse, and launches personal attacks instead of rebutting her claims. Yet Hirsi Ali displays no symptoms of trauma, presenting rational arguments against Islam throughout, more weighty because they are formed through knowledge and experience.
Brocke savages Hirsi Ali as being "deliberately, almost narcissistically provocative” whose “act of speaking out” seems “almost a pathology”.
Why do elitists attack Hirsi Ali? Is it because most are dhimmis who genuflect to Islam and are discomfitted when their cosy assumptions about multiculturalism are challenged?
Another diatribe in Al Age anticipates Hirsi Ali’s speaking engagement in Melbourne on 29th July:
Hirsi Ali's convert-like zeal is both disturbing and delusional, writes Hilary McPhee. 
Hirsi Ali has brains and beauty and is a gift to those of us who like our prejudices confirmed. … she reinforces our idea of the Muslim world as monolithic, mediaeval and dangerous. Islam is all bad, religion is the problem, Allah is the villain. The West is better in every respect. These days she proclaims the American way with stars in her eyes.
Hirsi Ali's early life was difficult and spent on the move between Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia and Kenya. Had she grown up elsewhere — in parts of the Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey or Teheran perhaps — she might have been able to give us a more complex and sympathetic picture of the Muslim world, but I suspect not… it was her dysfunctional family that formed her.
Infidel told the story of her family and her flight to Holland to escape an arranged marriage… How she …scripted the film Submission, of Koranic verses projected onto a naked woman's body, a provocation for which the producer, Theo van Gogh, was murdered and she received death threats…In 2006, she accepted a job with the ultra-conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, which had provided much of the rationale for military intervention in Iraq and for rebuilding the image of Israel in the world through a conservative alliance with America.
She travels the US and those parts of the world that welcome her message, lecturing on the evils of Islam and explaining her remedies, scornful of more than 1.5 billion Muslims. After Allah, Muslim women receive most of the blame — childlike, unable to manage money, trapped in their marriages, pouring their frustration into damaging their daughters.
We are never reminded that more than 50 countries from Indonesia to Iran through Africa and the Middle East have Muslim majorities and vastly different cultures and histories.
A perspective on the role played by poverty, illiteracy and rural conservatism is missing.
The books aren't much good. Infidel, ghostwritten in Dutch and published in English translation in 2007, came at the right time and sold hugely. Nomad is an awkward retelling of her story…. Her targets are predictable. Multiculturalism is utopian, producing victims and welfare dependence. Feminists are naive to suggest that many women in the West are also manipulated, complicit, objectified. Germaine Greer cops it for cultural relativism; Tariq Ramadan for being Tariq Ramadan.
Hirsi Ali has joined the ranks of celebrity atheists. Martin Amis and Christopher Hitchens speak of her beauty and tiny wrists…
There is something disturbing and slightly delusional here, the zeal of the convert protecting herself from facing the consequences of her own actions and theories, perhaps. The cult that surrounds Hirsi Ali could engulf her. She's a one-woman band against her own culture, a hero to herself as well to the men who worship her. I can't help but fear for her. (source)
Strange how McPhee claims to have been 'living and working in the Middle East', yet has not noticed the widespread oppression of women there.
And to suggest that Hirsi Ali is somehow responsible for the death threats by being "provocative" reveals McPhee’s disdain for the concept of freedom of expression.
But McPhee has form. In 2009, in Who to blame: John Howard or gypsies?
Andrew Bolt writes:
The Australian discovers that some demonisation is actually applauded, when those demons vote Liberal:
Hilary McPhee warns against demonising after disasters:
“DISASTERS bring out the best and the worst. Apocalyptic, random, part of the terrible lottery of living among the trees in Australia, on known faultlines in Italy, or in a place where there’s no escape (ie Gaza), disasters become folklore, turning us in on ourselves, feeding our need to demonise. Already stories are circulating here about looting stranieri, code for gypsies and refugees from north Africa and Afghanistan.
A little demonising from Hilary McPhee in The Age six days after the 2002 Bali bombings:
THE Prime Minister’s ability to project a total absence of self-doubt is enviable. Is it for real, or is it the art of the good politician? Was there not a moment, on being woken by the phone call at 6.40 on Sunday morning with the first news of the outrage, when he permitted himself the thought that occurred to large numbers of his fellow Australians: that the bombings in Bali might have been in some way connected to words uttered and actions taken by the Australian Government? (source)
Hilary even wrote a defence of Islamic anti-Semitism:
When I first started going in and out of Jordan three years ago, my well-honed multicultural sensibility was shocked by what I could only hear as virulent anti-Semitism. Israeli and Jew and Zionist were terms of abuse used by all but the most cosmopolitan. But as mainstream Arab media and YouTube ran footage night after night of Palestinian olive trees being uprooted by bulldozers protected by young Israeli soldiers, elderly Palestinians being attacked with sticks in their own fields and the proliferation of checkpoints and settlements, what I had first heard as anti-Semitism began to sound more like rage and fear and hopelessness.
Nearly two-thirds of Jordan's population is Palestinian, most displaced from Jerusalem and the West Bank or from southern Israel and herded into Gaza during many years of illegal occupation. Since 2003 they have been joined by more than half a million Iraqis. Jordan throughout its short history has provided a safe haven for dispossessed people, some still hoping to go home. The people trapped in Gaza or those enduring daily deprivation and humiliation in the West Bank are their own people and they agonise with them.
By their own admission, many Israelis do not look on Palestinians as human beings. The latest war on Gaza had more than 90 per cent popular support. Israeli surveys abound that identify increasing fear and loathing of Arabs in Israeli schools and suburbs and illegal settlements. In a society that likes to proclaim itself the only democracy in the Middle East, apartheid is impeccably documented.
Now more than four times longer than the Berlin Wall and twice its height in places, the Wall of Separation, the so-called ‘Separation fence', made of solid concrete and barbed wire and electronically monitored, snakes through nearly half of the West Bank. Despite the United Nations declaring its construction illegal when building began in June 2002, nearly twelve million square metres of agricultural land have been confiscated in its construction and more than a hundred thousand olive trees destroyed.
… We tend to harbour a fairly undifferentiated image of the Arab world: of ideologically inspired terrorism, AK47s, veiled women unable to speak for themselves, damaged children, angry victims of war and displacement, all hell-bent on revenge. And a visceral loathing of Islam, with its own echoes of anti-Semitism, seems at risk of taking root here. My pleasure in the Prime Minister's Apology to Indigenous Australians was spoilt shortly afterwards by his inexplicable omission of the suffering of Palestinians and the failure of the United Nations to enforce its own resolutions when he led the parliamentary celebration of Israel's sixtieth anniversary. Only the courageous and well-informed MP Sussan Ley challenged this, but Australia's one-sided gesture was widely reported throughout the Middle East. (source)
This article illustrates that Goebbel’s principles of propaganda work well.
Propaganda has certainly worked its magic on Hilary, who now sees anti-Semitism as justified. She has imbibed the Islamic propaganda dehumanizing Israel and the Jews to the extent that any action against them is not only justified, but noble. She can even make the outrageous statement “By their own admission, many Israelis do not look on Palestinians as human beings”, as an apparent justification for blaming Israelis for taking defensive action after thousands of Hamas rocket attacks against their population.
Following Goebbels’ Principles of Propaganda, if enough people denounce Hirsi Ali, this will act as effective deterrent against any who try to expose Islam. No one wants to be subject to this level of vitriol, and all but the very courageous will be silenced into Submission – which oddly enough, is the title of Theo Van Gogh’s “provocative” film!
References
1. Goebbels' Principles of Propaganda by Leonard W. Doob, published in Public Opinion and Propaganda; A Book of Readings edited for The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues.
2. The Big Lie (German: Große Lüge) is a propaganda technique. The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, for a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie
Subscribe to this comment's feed
What would Sunni Muslims do if they couldn't go out, hunt down some Shiite Muslims, like they do every day, and then murder them? And what would Shiite Muslims do if they couldn't go out, like they do every day, and hunt down some Sunni Muslims and then murder them? Murder runs through evil Muslim veins. They have to murder. Evil Muslims would go totally insane if they had to obey "Thou shalt not kill." And these same evil Muslims would tell Hirsi Ali that she's out of her mind. They would also condemn her to eternal fires of hell. If wife beater Muhammad said so, then, it must be so.
And what would uncontrolled, depraved Muslim male sex perverts do if all of a sudden they had to comply with "Thou shalt not commit adultery"? Goodness gracious, uncontrolled, depraved Muslim male sex perverts would go out of their minds here, too. Uncontrolled, depraved Muslim lechers could never make it without each owning several playmates that they call wives. It's ironic that uncontrolled, depraved Muslim male lechers are allowed to commit adultery, because polygamy is adultery, but Muslim women aren't allowed to commit adultery. If Muslim women took in several playmates, like the Muslim males, the women would be stoned to death for adultery. No hypocrisy here if you're thinking like a stupid evil Muslim. Also, no double standard.
Would evil Muslims like the following commandment? The True God of the Christians and Jews teaches: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor." Evil Muslims would say, "No dice." They would say: "Allah allows us to lie." So evil Muslims lie. Evil Muslims never comply with ethics. It's too Christian, and therefore verboten to evil Muslims.
Would evil Muslims like this commandment? The True God of the Christians and Jews teaches: "Honor your father and mother." Why would anyone with a human brain think that evil Muslims could ever honor a woman, especially Hirsi Ali, an apostate who abandoned the criminal activity of Islamism? If their stupid false prophet Muhammad didn't honor women, there is no way that evil Muslims could ever honor a woman. Women are beneath evil Muslims. Didn't paedophile Muhammad teach that women were lacking in intelligence? He did. So there you have it. Evil Muslims, especially the most depraved, would never comply totally with "Honor your father and mother."
Would you expect evil Muslims to learn anything from Jesus Christ, the founder of the first Christian Church? Jesus taught: "Feed the hungry." "Clothe the naked." "Cure the sick." "Do good to those who persecute you." "Love your enemies." Har, har, har, evil Muslims would first have to grow a human brain before they would submit to works of mercy. The stupid Qur'an, Satan's Bible, doesn't come close to teaching Christian ethics. Instead, the Muslim god, Satan, nicknamed Allah taught Muslims to go out and kill "all infidels," including Muslim Sunnis, Muslim Shiites, Jews, Christians, and anyone who didn't believe that the stupid child molester, rapist Muhammad was a true prophet.
Dear Hirsi Ali, hang in there dear. Together, we'll win the war against Satan and the children of Satan, the evil, evil Muslims.
P.S. WE MUST DESTROY THE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OF ISLAMISM BEFORE THE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OF ISLAMISM DESTROYS US "INFIDELS," AND THE FEW NICE MUSLIMS WHO HAVE A DEVELOPED HUMAN BRAIN.
I notice she had a tan. Someone should tell her that tans for women are against Islam. So is showing her hair, for that she could have her head chopped off. But her mouth still babbles.
Let's mail her a nice black, shapeless burka. She is so into the masochist lifestyle, she should go for it whole hog. People who put their feet in two different places, have little of intelligence to say.
Must be nice to praise the misery of others, while you are nice and safe in another culture.
She is despictable in her condescending betrayal.
Small consolation, true, given the inordinate power wielded by ‘journalists’, but the knowledge that they truly are the voice of a minority buoys me. I am convinced they are a dwindling minority too, which might provide some clue as to why they are so vitriolic and why their ‘defense’ seems to come from further and further ‘out of left field’?
A clue, but NOT an excuse; they are culpable and, I sincerely believe, have blood on their hands. The blood of the next ‘honor killing’ because a child-girl-woman has ‘offended islam’, the blood of the next rape victim, abused because she is ‘immodest’ or, simply, a kufar. How DO you feel, McPhee, how do you sleep?
Because, Hilary...there will be another honor killing; there will be another rape..... and you sided with the rapists and murderers.
The ‘self-loathing’ Jew become Palestinian mouthpieces, the dhimmi politicians, the islamic ‘cultural apologists’, the Interfaith Christianity betrayers; what is it with these people? Are we SUCH an offense to them? Is our culture so miserable and indefensible? Does it have nothing of worth, that could rouse them to its defense?
We, AIM, began asking “where are the Feminists?” a few years ago, because of the deafening silence in the face of such dire and obvious need. There is no question – by their silence the ‘sisterhood’ betrayed their sisters.
Perhaps the shame got to them, because it has become evident in more recent days that the challenge is being met, and feminism does appear to be starting to engage with islam. Actually, I don’t blame them for their reticence and fear. Based on islam’s track-record, it was a well-founded fear and, given that reality, applaud all the more loudly now when I see feminism attacking this outrageous bastion of ultra-chauvinism. I only add, …… about time!
http://www.newenglishreview.or...ec_id=5495
The link above leads to an excellent article by Mary Jackson, who has produced a system of classifying idiotarian female islamic apologists. She calls them DOZY BINTS!! I wish I was allowed to say that!
The question before us, your task should you choose to accept it, is this – what category of BINT is Hilary McPhee?
I am going for a hybrid –a contrarian falsifier
Here's 'the meat and potatoes' of the article:
However, in the West, in the free world, where the individual is valued and where women are starting to attain something resembling equal rights, we do have a choice, and a duty to exercise our freedom responsibly. For Western women, the only rational response to Islam should be revulsion, with a smattering of contempt and mockery. Fear, lest this ideology come to power, is also rational. But respect, even tolerance, for Islam, is irresponsible and dangerous. Western women who freely embrace Islam, or who speak favourably of it are misguided or wilfully ignorant and occasionally wicked. I call these women dozy bints.
•There are different levels of dozy binthood, and different degrees of culpability. First of all come the stooges. These are the bints more sinned against than sinning.
•The next level of dozy binthood is occupied by the attention seekers. Their form of Islam screams: “Look at me!” They may mean this quite literally.
•Why did Yvonne Ridley, a journalist held captive by the Taliban, later adopt the religion of her captors? Stockholm Syndrome? Because Islam is really beautiful? Or could it be because she wants you to ask? Her career as a journalist was flagging. Without her conversion, she might have faded away.
Ridley is an attention seeker, but also a contrarian. This is my next category of dozy bints.
•Few women have a personhood so culturally variable that they enjoy being abused in real life. But fantasies about strong, brutally masculine heroes are the stock-in-trade of romantic fiction, which brings me to my next group of dozy bints: swooners.
•So far, all our dozy bints, the stooges, the attention-seekers, the contrarians and the swooners, have been foolish, rather than deliberately misleading. Into this last category, the falsifiers, falls Karen Armstrong.
Dozy bints do matter. They make Islam seem like a harmless diversion. Perhaps, for them, it is. Like Marie Antoinette playing shepherdess, they can stop at any time. But for every Western woman who claims that she wears the niqab out of free choice, there are thousands of women in Muslim countries whom this choice insults, and who would throw off their “portable seclusion” in an instant if they could. Islam is not a harmless diversion. It is the most retrograde force on earth and a serious threat to Western civilisation. For women, in particular, opting for Islam is like a turkey voting for Christmas. It is not a game, and in the defence of our civilisation there is no place for the dozy bint.
The article above is a companion piece to this http://www.newenglishreview.or...c_id/66987
What is it about women journalists and Islam?
Is it akin to ‘Stockholm syndrome’ perhaps?
Do they fantasize about riding off on a camel with a rich oil sheik perhaps?
I shudder at people like Lauren Booth in the UK and her grovelling to the ‘poor Palestinians’.
Orla Guerin reporting from Afghanistan is another one.
Emma Brocke is obviously not a student of history. She quotes:
‘Even if it didn't ignore the baggage of 1000 years of history - the Crusades, anyone? Colonialism?’
Emma, the Crusades were a reaction, some 400 years late, to the barbaric Muslim imperialism and violent conquering of what were mostly Christian lands.
Colonialism? Emma, read about how the Muslim invaders treated Persia, Egypt, North Africa, Spain, India etc. And why did you not mention Slavery, Emma?
I am sure you think Slavery was a ‘Christian thing’ too.
Cassandra, the UK Guardian has a special place in my thinking. My first death threats came from Muslim bloggers on the Guardian who obviously didn’t appreciate my observations about Mohammed and Islam. And I can’t even get a comment posted on a Birmingham newspaper!
O, the joy of the Religion of Peace.
Nomad explained a lot of observations I had been making about third world immigration and radical islam anyway. The Dutch got lucky when they educated Aryaan because her exposure to real life, ability to see it clearly and articulate it is very helpful.
Mary Jackson’s article is fantastic, and so probing. What a breath of fresh air.
I too like the expression ‘dozy bint’. Quite suitable.
I also like her suggestion that the attraction of Islam is because it is anti-Western.
That gels with me, because so many writers hate the west, even though it has been superior to Islamic countries over 1400 years.
They loathe the west and choose to ignore the truth about Islam.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...r_embedded
I know it's been said before, here on our site and in other places, but the time really is upon us when we HAVE TO remove these types from any semblance of power or authority.
As for Hilary McPhee –give me a bucket –Clearly she missed the fact that Jordan, also formed from a British mandate, occupies 80% of old Palestine yet they deny citizenship to ‘Palestinians’ and massacred them by the many thousands in the 1970-71 WAR. Did she miss the HONOUR KILLING fully practised and allowed in Jordan and under the Palestinian Authority. When under Israeli control killing females was regarded as murder and punished.
Her distain for a wall that in many places is simply strips of wire, but saves Israeli children from being blown apart in school, shopping centres, bus stops speaks volumes as does her disregard for the promise of genocide to Israelis, the endless bombing into residential areas –(the Israelis leaflet, and even phone to alert Palestinians to leave the areas they will attack but the Palestinians never warn, they just bomb) and the monumental hatred of Jews taught to the tiniest of children who aspire to death as allah’s martyr while killing Jews.
Agree Geoff –aren’t we sick of the ‘what about the crusades’ without any effort to examine the hundreds of years of Islamic violence and destruction preceding the ‘Crusader response’ or the ongoing violence and slavery against others that continues to the present.
Ayan hirsi Ali is great. What excuses will be dragged out to delegitimize other exMuslims who speak out against Islam eg Wafa Sultan, Nonie Dawish ...and those exMuslim men, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sima, Salman Rushdie, Mark Gabriel (ex professor of Islamic history at al-Azhar university), Mumin, abul Kasem, Sujit Das, Sayed Mirza, M.A. Khan ---
Their dysfunctional experiences are due to being brought up as Muslims but they had the mental strength to overcome the brainwashing and threats and reach freedom ! May many more Muslims leave the repression of Islam and may we wake up to the threat Islam poses and to those who collaborate in our destruction by Islam.
Blue heeler –thanks for the articles which fit with something I’m doing...
"Israel was not formed through violence. Do learn some history Deborah.
Look up the Balfour declaration. I think it was 1922.
Gizmo will correct me, if I am wrong.
The Palestine Mandate was a piece of the defeated Turkish Empire, which the British promised as a homeland for the Jewish people.
But in 1922 Churchill gave 80% of the promised land to the Arabs, which was Trans-Jordan, now just Jordan and whose population is mainly Palestinian Arabs. The rest they kicked out during the rising of the Black September movement and who now are in Gaza. They were thrown out for being trouble makers and terrorists!!!
In 1948 the other 20% was divided into two by the UN. Israel was given 60 % of the 20% originally mandated"
You might find this interesting. Posted on 22nd July in the Mid East Terrorism blog, it gives a good summary of events from the Balfour Declaration right up to 1967.
The greatest LIE today is the rewriting of the history of Israel.
http://israelagainstterror.blogspot.com/2010/07/whos-against-two-state-solution.html
God HELP Israel.
So many things just really get to me. People argue that I don’t know what I am talking about, apart from family and friends in Israel, my father grew up there.
My grandparents settled in London in the late 1800s, after escaping the persecution of the Russians.
Very early in 1920, when my father was a couple of months old, they uprooted the family of 10 children and went to Palestine……so I am very aware of what it was like there then, and the glorified version we hear from the Arabs, is very far from the truth. Mark Twain’s descriptions are pretty much spot on.
My father lost a brother, who was 18 years old, in March 1922 ..killed by an Arab bomb.
What's interesting is the fact of a note on the death certificate, which I only recently downloaded from the Jewish Genealogy web site, of Arab riots of 1921, 1929 and 1936-39.??
Now I wonder why ??
Reading around the blog-sphere, I came across an old favorite which I think nails the dilemma of the “mindset” perfectly. The article needs to be read in its entirety but these lines really struck me, not as a description but as offering the germ of a solution, because I do not intend to waste any more time “comprehending” them but intend to devote all my time to destroying them. I suggest we all do so.
Amazingly, earnest and well-intentioned people still engage Muslims in discussion, in good faith, on the subject of their dismaying attachment to a frightening variety of pathological, destructive, and criminal behaviours. The inability of these people to accurately diagnose what Islam is surely stems largely from the entirely insincere commitment of so many Muslims to the same principles we ourselves value. Nothing shows Islam up for the Trojan Horse that it is like a Muslim in a suit expressing his fervent commitment to freedom of speech whilst also appending the caveat that this does not include the freedom to insult or offend, much less the freedom to offend religious feelings. Freedom of religion is also corrupted at the hands of Muslims, from freedom to practice one’s religion in the manner one sees fit into freedom to not ever be exposed to anything of any sort, in any forum, that is critical of one’s religion.
It pains me to consider how many man-hours have been wasted by good people debating these issues with Muslims who have either had nothing but hidden contempt for Western concepts of human rights, or who have internalized them through the cracked and grimy lens of Islam, discovering to their delight that implementing human rights in their most pristine form is synonymous with the implementation of sharia law.
Amazingly, earnest and well-intentioned people still engage Muslims in discussion, in good faith, on the subject of their dismaying attachment to a frightening variety of pathological, destructive, and criminal behaviours. The inability of these people to accurately diagnose what Islam is surely stems largely from the entirely insincere commitment of so many Muslims to the same principles we ourselves value. Nothing shows Islam up for the Trojan Horse that it is like a Muslim in a suit expressing his fervent commitment to freedom of speech whilst also appending the caveat that this does not include the freedom to insult or offend, much less the freedom to offend religious feelings. Freedom of religion is also corrupted at the hands of Muslims, from freedom to practice one’s religion in the manner one sees fit into freedom to not ever be exposed to anything of any sort, in any forum, that is critical of one’s religion.
It pains me to consider how many man-hours have been wasted by good people debating these issues with Muslims who have either had nothing but hidden contempt for Western concepts of human rights, or who have internalized them through the cracked and grimy lens of Islam, discovering to their delight that implementing human rights in their most pristine form is synonymous with the implementation of sharia law.
[url= http://gatesofvienna.blogspot....tribe.html
So, that’s what happened to them; unable to accept the bare-faced aggression of islam, they had to reshape it into something they were comfortable with. No news there. Not an excuse, just an exposure of their sad, cowardly core.
They – the dozy bints and earnest wankers - have failed to discern the reality that threatens us all. They have dressed the enemy in sheep’s clothing and parade him around for us to digest as characterized by their delusion, NOT as he is. In fact, islam must NEVER be paraded as it is. The reality is far too disturbing, thus, verboten!
Meanwhile, back in reality.
The threat is evident, tangible, near, ominous and these facts are so readily apparent to far more of “us” than there is of “them”, but we are voiceless and unrepresented. Thus, these opinions MUST be removed from the field; they cannot be allowed to form any part of coming exchanges with islam and, obviously, that means those who promote such ideas must also be removed from areas to do with formulating national policy on islam because they have not seen islam at all – they have seen a mirage that conforms itself to the bint/wanker desired vision; benign and misunderstood, somewhat lovely and exotic even.
These people are the cause of our problem, their waffling and prevaricating has enabled and emboldened islam, their delusions have within them the death of our society; how could they ever be part of a solution?
The problem is, of course, far more complex than the mere opinion of bints. The bints are only dancing to a tune called from elsewhere. The real job of saving Australia will be in discovering who and where the piper is, and silencing him! But de-binting Australian media is a good place to start.
Geoff, the dozy bint gets an honorable mention, along with all the 'usual suspects', in this latest video from Pat Condell... who also recommends the book "Muslim Mafia", which I am ordering.
I'm not sure I want to take any notice of anything Pat Condell says. He is anti-religion. Yes, he recognises the threat of Islam and is anti-Islam because of its political and oppressive nature, but he appears to hold the same degree of hatred for Christianity and Judaism that he does for Islam. Have a look at his video claiming the Catholic Church to be equivalent to Satan, and according to JIDF he believes that Israel should let Jerusalem go.
http://www.thejidf.org/2010/07...dists.html
I understand what you mean about trying to find some term to describe these hyper politically correct people who are so concerned about looking like and being 'nice people' that they totoally ignore the facts or just don't understand what is going on around them.
The Muslims hotly contested the controversial proposal to sell a former Roman Catholic convent, but they lost. I'll take any victory, large or small, against the Criminal Syndicates of Islamism. We must conquer the Criminal Activity of Islamism.
In fact this is what they are.
Left, right, extreme, far-right and far-left t simply do not describe what this self-labelled-progressiveness-activism is all about - establishment of a new world order or otherwise perpetual totalitarian rules.
Also, I have to say that I agree with Andrew on the so called atheism activists/propagators.
Despite their current anti-Islamic rhetoric (only some of them actually express their disdain for Islam) they are part of the problem and definitely not a solution to it.
Let's not forget that they are the people who gave us the "global warming" and "human reason" religions and who cleansed most of the world scientific institutions from all real scientists accused of being deniers (to what is the official "rationalists" policy at any given moment and in the name of reason of course).
They are the same people who run EU and UN Commissariats and who wave the human rights flag to deny us any reasonable gains and accomplishments in the freedom department that our forefathers fought and died for.
Their tolerance for tolerance is zero and they disregard facts the same way as Islamists do (to prove the superiority of their rational thinking).
Interestingly so called "atheists" turn a lot of anti-Islamic forums into all-religion bashing platforms and thus they are actively preventing any common front/alliance to be formed as non-militant unbelievers, and religious folks alike turn their backs on the whole idea from the sheer frustration and/or confusion.
The funny fact remains that they are a small minority and so what are they strategically want to achieve by insulting everybody (and our intelligence at the same time) is our guess.
All part of "reasonable thinking process" I guess.
I enjoy watching public atheists do their thing, I have to say, much as I enjoy watching contortionists, con-artists and escapologists. How DID they do that!? As a Christian I find it not only essential to be aware of their position but also incumbent on me to be able to, at the very least, meet their position in mid-field. I am not of the pew-warming variety; a late in life ‘revert’ – (LOL) – I am all too aware of how Christianity is perceived and I think that perception is in error. To counter it, you have to be “across” the entire argument. I tell you one thing – I’d enjoy a cold ale with Pat far more than I would with some Christians I know! In fact, even suggesting a cold ale would give them conniptions!
I am anything and everything but atheist.
Pat Condell and his “Jews” videos, is nothing but a political speech. I liked this guy until a week or so ago, until his anti-Israel rhetoric was pointed out to me.
@ 2.20 into the video……
“Israel is more political than speaking about Jews”
“If there was any justice in this place ,Israel would occupy half of Germany”
“Israel is not really about justice, it is really about Jerusalem”
@ 5.06 ….
“Jews would do themselves a huge favour, if they let go of Jerusalem. It doesn’t belong to them and they are only holding on to it because of religion”
@5.40…
“Jerusalem is not a Jewish town, it’s an Arab town and it’s about time that we all started to acknowledge that, and live in reality…..so please Jews, do us all a favour and give it back”
1. claiming she said things a "white" person couldnt get away with without being classed a racist, indicating she is in fact a racist. complete lie, she was reporting on her life under "islam" which is not a race, but a mohummad as god cult and political ideology advocating violence and repression.
2. claiming that she would be much happier as a muslim if she grew up in a different islamic country. complete falsehood, in all the countries this waste of reporting space claims is a good islamic country many people muslim and non-muslimi suffer brutality at the hands of the islamic cult members.
3. having failed dismally at attempting to discredit this poor lady by those means, these disgusting individuals thus stoop to adhoc attacks by saying her phisical abuse diminished her ability to report honestly on islam. Not only is this a great abuse of power (ie:writings form public opinion). This is the same as a lawer for a rapist claiming in court that the victim of rape, bashing, robbery and other violent crimes is unable to give evidence against their accused due to mental diminished ability, this is an insult to anyone who has suffered at the hands of violent persons.
As these reporters have not been able to demonstrate through proper argument and through the koran, hadith, surra that her claims are false, they need to be sued for false representation, defimation of character and giving false information to the public realm. lets fight the islamists and their enablers at their own game, sue sue sue, wear them down finacialy as they try to do to us.
The idea of applying critical theory is nicely ironic, asking them to rethink the justification for the Crusades and colonialism; to review the oppression they suffered under the Ottoman empire; the Algerian slave trade that stole human cargo from the European littoral; how Muslims repress themselves under a superstitious, anthropocentric cult, characterised by apotheosis more than genuine faith in a deity.
That Al Age feels readers should be reminded more than 50 countries have large populations that submit to Islam, is just another attempt at reductionism, to make it seems impossible and unreasonable to apply general characteristics to Muslims. But the poor literacy, poverty, and lack of basic infrastructure that Al Age is ready to acknowledge across these 50 cultures, together with their common propensity to terrorists attacks, affirms that there are common behaviours and characteristics.
Ironically, if Ayaan Hirsi Ali were a white woman, or even a swarthy Muslim, violated by white, Christian, or areligious, men, the same peole that fault her would be hell-bent on having her prosecute such criminals.
Also, I have to say that I agree with Andrew on the so called atheism activists/propagators.
Despite their current anti-Islamic rhetoric (only some of them actually express their disdain for Islam) they are part of the problem and definitely not a solution to it.
Actually, I didn't think anti-Islamic rhetoric was coming from many atheists at all - Pat Condell being one of the rare exceptions. The majority of athiests focus their hatred on Christianity (and in particular the Catholic Church) and Judaism, and seem to always have excuses for Islam - possibly because the majority of atheists are also Marxists (or socialists as I think they prefer to be called) and have a lot in common with Islamic extremists in terms of their being autocratic political ideologies that brook no dissent - the only difference is one group believes in god and one doesn't and if they succeed in subjugating everyone else they will then turn on each other.
By the way for thye record I am an atheist as well - in the sense that I don't believe in God, however am happy for people to practice whatever relgion they please as long as they don't infringe or try to infringe on the rights of other people, nor impose their religious customs on me through stealth.
Surely if Hilary is an academic or a publisher, she would realise that a statement like that is worthy of a primary school kid, not of someone who is supposed to have reached a certain level of academic scholarship.
Ms Hirsi Ali learned her English in Kenya as a child, and she learned it very well and read a lot of good English books, and I think that stood her in good stead when she came to write, herself.
She seems to have had a pretty thorough and rigorous old-fashioned English curriculum in the Kenyan primary and high schools she attended - reading Jane Austen, for example, and a slew of other classic novels, as well as the popular novels she devoured extracurricular. In 'Infidel' she describes discovering the school library and reading Hans Christian Andersen and Grimm's as well as the children's adventure stories of the 1950s and 1960s that stocked the school library - Enid Blyton, Nancy Drew, that kind of thing. What I like about Hirsi Ali, in both her writing and the interviews I've seen, is her precision and clarity. She doesn't waffle, and she doesn't dodge; but she also refuses to step into carefully laid, obvious traps. In the dedication to 'Infidel' she praises the professors at the University of Leiden, who taught her how to use her mind. They did a good job. Certainly the people who taught her psychology gave her the ability to analyse the messes her family and her clan (addled by Islam) got themselves into.
I was fascinated by her account of her meeting with Oriana Fallaci, and their discussion of...babies. And so, inspired by Oriana's 'Letter to a Child Not Born', she ends 'Nomad' with a letter to the daughter she would like to have...the daughter she would raise as a free woman, a woman of the free West. (Supposing she had a son, she would face I think an even greater challenge).
I hope Ayaan has a great time here in Australia, and I daresay that if Hilary McPhee is silly and conceited enough to interview her, then Hilary McPhee will cop (metaphorically speaking) a sound and richly-deserved spanking.
Notice that I always point out the difference between evil Muslims and good Muslims. In reality, the good Muslims aren't authentic Muslims because they are not practicing what the Muslim god, Satan, nicknamed Allah, is telling them to practice. The truly wicked Muslims are authentic Muslims because they are complying with the criminal activity of Islamism that is called for in Satan's Bible, also known as the Qur'an.
Pat Condell is my favourite atheist too . One of the very few that can manage to lay off christianity for 5 minutes . Attacking religion is one thing Pat , attacking the Jews is another .
The term "atheist" implies active denouncement/resistance to religion/god (anti-theism) and in this case you could not be "classified" as an atheist.
The correct term for people like you or me is "people without any religious faith".
Dumbledoresarmy,
I am a great admirer of Ayaan and like you a I love her books, and I think it is the clarity of her thoughts or rather the ability to communicate this clarity in a calm manner and precision, which makes her my number one heroine.
Where's the fun in changing to a God of love?
How will they be able to satisfy their blood lust?
I watched an interview with her this morning. I wonder if any "intelligent" Muslims out there are listening to what she says.
Ban Sharia Law and Sharia Banking.
And Muslim women to remove Burka when driving, or in public buildings, such as schools, supermarket, government, and any other business that demands it. Otherwise they can wear that rag, if they want to.
But should anybody , husband, son, father force her to wear it, there should be a fine and jail term. Muslim woman must be free to decide. Give them our law as protection and like I said outlaw Sharia Law, 100%!
The genetic blood lines are totally different
While I understand the message you wished to communicate in your comment we need to clarify the following:
1. Diaspora comes from the term "dispersion" in other words - forced immigration into diffrent parts of the world - we certainly should not even imply that being forced from one's land is the same as invading somebody's land.
2. Technically speaking the term "Semitic" does not mean belonging to the same "race" but to the same language group. And so Indians or Iranians belong to the same language group called Indoeuropean but it doesn't mean that an Englishman belongs to the same ethnic group as a Lithuanian (although the both are Indoeuropean. And so Arabs and Jews might be "Semitic" but it doesn't mean that ethnically the same people (and they are not).
3. The term "belong" doesn't not technically mean to have any RIGHTS to the land. And so Jerusalem "belonged" to the invading Muslims but Paris also belonged to the Nazis once. In both cases the cities were returned to the RIGHTFUL owners. Culturally and historically Jerusalem has NO LINKS to Islam other than baseless Muslim claims (Muslims also claim Australia as their rightful property).
