Harry’s Place

The tactic of many Islamists is to say one thing in Arabic and another in the local language, hoping that there are none among the kufr who are literate in Arabic.

How refreshing to see the BMI/Muslim Brotherhood caught out yet again.

Here is a screenshot, just in case the description turns out to have been an unfortunate typographical error, and is corrected.

Hahahaha

strange but Islamophobia Watch don’t even mention the “libel”?

Good work David.

Political Islam is a tautology, by the way.

In a previous post, you noted, with some surprise, that it was right of centre blogs that were prominent in supporting HP against Sawalha. May I suggest that the political right, being free of utopian dreams, are also free of the delusion that Islam is the answer to anything, and a dodgy partner in tipping the balance in marginal constituencies.

This is quite clearly an incompetent and malevolent translation.

Or a typographic error.

Whatever.

This is an absolutely disgraceful and evil site and should be taken down now.

Vile, I meant vile!

Okay, enough about this. How did Bonekickers go?

I was going to say DaveM is an Israeli website but Flanker has already courageously exposed him as a neocon on the Syria post.

If Mr Sawalha would like to disassociate himself fully from Hamas, and reject that band of murderers, he is of course free to do so.

WARE: In London, Sawalha is alleged to have directed funds, both for Hamas’ armed wing, and for spreading its missionary dawah. Then, in January 1993, an operation Sawalha was involved in went badly wrong. Hamas would be forced to reorganise its funding arrangements. Reconstruction WARE: A senior Hamas man from America flew into London for instructions from Sawalha. Sawalha’s visitor was en route to the Palestinian territories. The two men travelled to Sawalha’s home. His visitor’s name was Mohammed Salah. Salah’s mission was to distribute funds. Sawalha told him who to meet in the Palestinian territories. PAZ: Mohammed Sawalha told Mohammed Salah to look as a respectable businessman, where to hide the suitcase, to take not to fancy hotel, etc, etc, and to be very cautious. WARE: With Sawalha’s agreement Salah began distributing about a quarter of a million dollars to local Hamas operatives. Some was ear marked for military activities. Some for missionary dawah. More money was in the pipe line from his bank in Chicago.

(BBC)

Tumbleweed on Thames, anyone?

‘May I suggest that the political right, being free of utopian dreams’ - hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, classic Alcuin, amazing stuff

Um. Speaking as someone who regards themself as a left-winger (still), the political right to me is free of utopian dreams. That is part and parcel of conservative politics.
Excellent job HP, in exposing this bigot and the Muslim Brotherhood in our midsts!

Alec

Its baleful, absolutely baleful.

Richard, The extremities of political ideology are places of utopia, be they of the left or right. The NF or the BNP are utopians of the highest order, as are Islamists. Even in Strassian thought or in the libertarian millieu, there is a golden age just waiting beyond the application of their presciption. Paleo-Conservatives think that 1954 (1825 in Peter Hitchens opinion) is utopia, a place sans discord or deviancy, a place of civilisation and ‘peace’ - Burke longed for a Lockean place of high church manners and civility to be ‘restored’ from the outrages of the Paris mob and the radicals of London.

Utopia is merely the perfect application of ideology onto reality, the ultimate aim of political radicals and extremists. Thats is why utopia - lit. no place is so accurate. The birth of the new Volk, the return of the Caliphate, the end of history, the Golden age, the return to the ideals of a past age or the promise of a new are battle against reality and humanity. The degree to which each school might seek to pursue its telos ranges widely, but utopias exists in every strand of political thought, just as elysiums accompany the religions.

The conservatism as common sense is merely part of their own ideological conception. If you didn’t critically assess such self conceptions, then fascists could be viewed as peaceful warriors pushed reluctantly to arms and Socialists would be awash with sex and good clothes. Both are self-conceited fallacies. The most successful ideologues in the west in the last 30 years have mainly been to the political right with their own ideal and conceivable society as a goal, just as the Keynsian/Socialist project of social engineering was in the 30 years before. They differ in their means and aims but not in their project to build a ‘better’ world, the interpretation of ‘better’ being their own conception of heaven on earth. Indeed extremities place a bipolar struggle deep into the route map towards this end. Manichean division and the promise of a reborn or renewed society are their positive and negative inducements.

Alcuin has a big spiel about making the right as being judged by a seperate series of consideration with regards to political theory and science. The right (which to him means good guys, his definition is not very clear) is merely the real voice of humanity, plagued by demogoges and malcontents pointing towards false gods. Thus fascism is entirely a beast of the left, because one hack journo simplified a complex relationship to score partisan points against the Dems in the States (step forward Jonah Goldberg). Thus Islam is nowt but a theocratic brand of socialism. Thus the right is released from the need to critically think about itself as it is the font of humanity, beyond a veneer of tactical moderation.

Personally, I think the problem is with the name ‘Mohammed’, all too many of those we find in our news for less than wholesome reasons, seem to be afflicted with this epithet.

I move that a bill be introduced to parliament, banning this worrisome name and forcing those with it to change it by deed poll to ‘Kevin’.

Dear Mr Republican,

There is more to politics than the Left-Right paradigm, as I am sure you are aware. As I have said before, I do not consider the BNP, the Nazis, the Soviets, etc. to be right wing, on the grounds of their agenda, which is/was mainly in favour of the “working classes”. Their racial/parochial/supremacist ideas are something else. Nazism, Communism - why is one Left and one Right? Both were intolerant.

One dimension in this space is that of Freedom/Totalitarian. “Modern Conservatism” is pretty much the same as Classical Liberalism, and is perhaps best represented by Switzerland, which you may have noticed, is pretty successful. Thatcher was a Classical Liberal, though is mostly remembered for the [necessary] radical surgery involved in sorting out the British economy. As one moves away from the Swiss model, you get to the anglo-saxon free market model (when Labour is not trying its expensive, bureaucratic social engineering schemes), the standard European welfarist model, the South American basket cases, African dictatorships, Muslim oligarchies and finally axis-of-evil states like Iran and North Korea.

I guess another dimension would be compassion. My view on this is that it is not the business of the state, primarily as the state does compassion very badly. I expect you might agree, but still consider it worthwhile. To that I say that it works for a while, but eventually collapses in its own contradictions. Consider, for example, what state compassion has done for Glasgow East - essentially it has trapped a whole community in hopeless enslavement to State handouts for over two generations.

The Right I aspire to does not involve “good guys” - it involves government getting out of the way, such that as little administration by any sort of guys is needed. As J.S.Mill said, the business of government is Justice and Security, and very little else. It involves backing off and trusting people to organise their own charity, education and healthcare. It doesn’t always work, but it works more often and more consistently than Socialism. But Socialists can never bring themselves to trust the people.

Keep smiling.

A.

Here is a screenshot, just in case the description turns out to have been an unfortunate typographical error, and is corrected.

The Wayback Machine (archive.org) and Google’s cache can also be useful third-party sources.

Personally, I think the problem is with the name ‘Mohammed’, all too many of those we find in our news for less than wholesome reasons, seem to be afflicted with this epithet.

Have you seen Big Brother this series? Mohammed drinks, smokes and cross-dresses, but does still ask for halal meat. He’s also accused of burping and farting all the time. None of this makes him the kind of guy you’d like to take hom to mother, but it’s a step up from suicide-murder.

Have you seen Big Brother this series? Mohammed drinks, smokes and cross-dresses, but does still ask for halal meat. He’s also accused of burping and farting all the time.

To some people this makes him not a muslim. Did anyone see Sharia TV the other day (it’s available on 4oD)? Very interesting discussion among New York based muslims and muslim scholars on modern interpretations of Islam. Turns out even the experts can’t agree with each other.

SOC, the Monday Channel4 program on the Qur’an was excellent, in my view. Try to catch it on the C4 site if you can.

Damn, it’s so tempting having online TV and time to watch it! This series of programs on Islam is a very good argument against both anti-muslims and muslim fundamentalists who argue that there is only one interpretation of Islam and that all muslims at heart are and should act the same.

Downloading now… I’m so weak.

“Mohammed drinks, smokes and cross-dresses, but does still ask for halal meat.”

Does Dana International eat kosher?

david, what is happening with the libel case -has it all gone quiet?

Alcuin has a big spiel about making the right as being judged by a seperate series of consideration with regards to political theory and science. The right (which to him means good guys, his definition is not very clear) is merely the real voice of humanity, plagued by demogoges and malcontents pointing towards false gods. Thus fascism is entirely a beast of the left,

National socialism anyone?

How about Stalinism?

Or that french twit Robespierre?

Secular leftists, no m atter their incarnation, are responsible for millions of deaths in only the last century.

Alcuin is quite correct.

and precisely what is wrong with the Muslim Brotherhood (other than the fact it is banned by the american puppet in charge of Eygpt?)

Nothing wrong with the unenlightened religions having nutjob organisation after all the zionists have plenty - some of them even blew up British troops and then got lionised for their actions. Last time I looked the muslim brotherhood had killed a lot less british folks than some.

Alcuin - ‘ I do not consider the BNP, the Nazis, the Soviets, etc. to be right wing, on the grounds of their agenda, which is/was mainly in favour of the “working classes”. ‘ Actually fascist ideology is about transcending class. The early alliance from which the PNF grew was a mixture of people horrified by the ‘decadence’ of Ialian Liberalism and the faction of class struggle. In the veterans from the front, they saw a community united by nationalism. Mussolini, Papini, Drexler, Hitler, Codreanu, Szalazi and Pavelic saw class struggle as a materialist and illusionary goal. They sought to define a community not on class or political power (as with Socialists and Anarchists) but on a division between identities of a preceived ’spiritual’ level.

Consider the thinkers behind the fascist paradigm. Maurras hated liberalism as reborn Jacobinism, unholy and materialistic. Sorel, transformed his Blanqui-esque Marxism into a moral rather then a material struggle, aghast at the Socialists’ support of the third republic during the Dreyfus affair. Papini in ‘We love War’ was enamoured with the uniting notion of blood shedding for a national ’spiritual’ goal, surmounting class struggle and liberal ‘decadence’. Mota and Goebbels saw themselves as torn between a gemeinschaft of meaning, tradition and duty and a new world of correption and decay brought on by the ideologies of the left.

The standard line in fascist historical narrative is similar to that of the hard right. That 1789 was a plot by Jews and freemasons to destroy an organic society by faction, that in 1871 and 1917, the ‘eternal’ jew was to again seek to destroy a gemeinschaft it couldn’t control. The Liberal revolutions of 1848 were derided by fascists in the same manner, even in the case of Hungary and Romania where they were the formative political experiences of their nationalist tradition.

As for the state, if you look at pre-1917 socialism, it has very little to say about the state. The biggest ‘anti’-state strutures in Germany for instance were socialist co-operatives. One of the biggest demands of the popular revolution in Russia was the autonomy of the mir from central control. Lenin’s creation of War communism, that is the complete control of life via a totalitarian state was not inspired by socialist tradition as copied from the war economy of the Grey Dictatorship in the East. The foremost figure head of the early statist movement was not a pigeon chested Lefty, it was FeldMarschall Hindenburg, a scion of a Junker house and an upholder of hierarchy and tradition. The ANI probably put forward the most comphehesive plan for a statist society pre 1914 and to make Corrandini a leftist would a remarkable piece of revisionist history. The State’s development and grow have less to do with a pure left/right division rather growing out of nationalist traditions about relative power, enforced identity and the possibilities of social engineering. Just as Lenin and Ramsey believed in the power of the state to ‘emacipate’, Franco and Baldwin saw its power to preserve and renew. Both left and right can be comformist and collectivist, just as they can both be uber-libertarian

Why i place fascism on the right is about how it conceives scoiety and it’s ‘ills’. The ideologies of the left, Anarchism, Socialism/Communism and Liberalism see society as society plagued by inequality of some sort, be it class based or a matter of politics. Similarly they view a horizontal cleavege dividing the ‘powerless’ from the ‘powerful’. The right, including fascists see society afflicted by faction and discord which must be transcended, their model of society is based on a vertical cleavege between a ‘good and healthy’ hierarchial society and a ‘evil and disruptive’ anti-society, with its own hierarchy.

I also base fascism’s attachment to the right on the basis of the numerous alliances and pacts that the radical or conservative right have made with fascists. Despite their divergent telos and the clash of means, common cause between fascists and the ‘tradtional’ right is common especially before 1945. In the inter-war period, apart from a single incident between a splinter group of the Portugese fascists and an anarchist group against Salazaar, I can find no comparative cooperation between fascists and the left.

Islamism I would count on the right as well due to the similarities of perception of society and struggle, although many a stupid nominally ‘leftist’ has seen something progressive in that bloody mix of Organic theocracy and feudalism reborn

Ta JP, now i know what all the words mean in NSDAP. Its a bit like Richard Nixon and the Second American Revolution, quite blantantly Tricky Dicky want to throw off the Tyranny of George III and bash the redcoats all over again. I believe the term National Socialism was popularised by the Social Christian Party of pre 1914 Vienna, a party that sought to defeat both liberalism and socialism by making rightist themes of Kaiser und Kirche a mass movement.

I apologise, massively OT

Sawalha is a twat, a coward and a fraud

‘SOCIETY is indeed a contract. Subordinate contracts for objects of mere occasional interest may be dissolved at pleasure — but the state ought not to be considered as nothing better than a partnership agreement in a trade of pepper and coffee, calico, or tobacco, or some other such low concern, to be taken up for a little temporary interest, and to be dissolved by the fancy of the parties’

- This defence of the state was brought to you by Edmund Burke

I read this blog has been sued by the enigmatic Mr. Sawalha of the British Muslim Initiative.

That represents the new secret weapon the Mr. Sawalha’s of Europe have recently discovered to use in its full potential: eagerly sue sources of any critical observation.

These days, speaking out critically on their relatively childish & cruel metaphysics may end one up accused in court. Courts that run on HR rules, not in a 1001-&-1 years to be allowed in islamic states of origin.

Cultural relativism, slowly undermining itself.
It seems that indeed, fate is not without a sense of irony.

As for that sueing: sew them for instigating their islamofascist caliphat ideology & fucking up the civilised world in general.

Give them good a anti-fun-da-mentalists show.
Great place this is for just that.

Mazzel tov,

rens wez

why don’t they do us a favour and all commit suicide, but then again there won’t be enough vestal virgins to go round, assuming of course they get to paradise. I often wondered how they could handle a vestal virgin when one’s dick is blown to smitherines!!