Harry's Place

Not much I disagree with on his list, though I am not familiar with the output of many of the names he mentions, so don’t have much to say about his citations.

I wasn’t aware that Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch has rendered “support for fascism, violence, and genocide”. I’d be interested to see how that conclusion came about.

LGF is my RSS feed, though I rarely go beyond reading the headings and drill into the posts and never bother with reviewing comments.

I have noticed that he seems to have stopped blogging about his bike rides and no longer refers to Islam sarcastically as ‘The Religion of Peace’.

Top Five reasons I stopped reading Little Greeen Footballs.

1. Its weird insistance in conflating any bizarre obsession, besides it’s own, with “the Right.”

2. Its increasingly obvious marginalisation.

3. I don’t care to read any more proofs of evolution and denunciations of Creationism. I’m an evolutionist in the Bible Belt, and it’s never caused me a second of hassle. I can’t believe Los Angeles is any worse.

4. Johnson, who has all too often been accused of racism and bigotry, should know better than to casually toss the smear about himself.

5. LGF has grown insular and cultish.

I must admit that I rather do enjoy Ann Coulter, in a sort of perverse pruriance, knock about Morgoth sort of a way…if you know what I mean.

LGF has embraced the “fake but accurate” meme that permeates the American left. He now outright bans any commenter asking for clarification of AGW data/theories.

But in the day, Charles Johnson’s contribution to Iraqi War reporting was to ask for accuracy … which is rather telling that was the point that Gene started to ignore his blog.

Iraqi war issues that LGF brought up included: photoshopping of war damage; photos of journalists staging war damage photos; or even articles re: such things as Paul Bremer (once the civilian administrator for Iraq), “left without even giving a final speech” breathlessly reported by the LA Times and completely without merit as his speech was posted on the internet and commented upon favorably by other newspapers whose reporters had actually called and asked when the final briefing was to be held.

Accuracy in reporting, God! what an annoying little detail that is …

Oh….I especially don’t care for the clunky associations in the term ‘climate change denialism’, that’s not really a kosher way of arguing the toss.

I say that as one who, on balance is of the view that man’s activity is partly responsible for some temperature rise – though I have very little time for Goresque hyperbole and I’m pretty much with Lomborg on what to do about it.

Nick (in South Africa)*: Maybe it is different for you and others, but I associate people who like Ann Coulter with those who are into leather, chains and being whipped. (joke)

*Are you back in South Africa?

Gene

Not much to argue with in that list.

Can’t say I blame him. The US Right lives in la la land now.

Not often I say this but, thank heaven for people like Cameron in the UK, he might be smug but he is at least sane.

David All

I associate people who like Ann Coulter with those who are into leather, chains and being whipped

OK, you saw right through me there, guilty as charged.

Are you back in South Africa?

Yup, but only for 5 weeks, my knees were getting a tad pale and I desperately missed my Glock.

I agree with Charles Johnson on almost all points, and agree with Nick upthread.

There you have it. Johnson has joined Morgoth, Gene, and the rest of the Reasonable People.

I think he repeats his criticisms to extend about six main points into ten.

I can understand his complaints with some of the American right – birfers, creationists, homophobes etc,. but I see that almost all of his condemnations of the American right are really criticisms of the more extreme members of the American RELIGIOUS right.

When the Republicans joined with the religious right, it threatened the separation of church and state, and in the battle with Islamists automatically led to a general vilification of Muslims.

I think secularism and some of the values that caused Abraham Lincoln to found the Republican party would give the American right some authenticity. I do get to cringe when I hear anti-commie, anti-pinko language that comes from the 1950s being used still.

Some of Johnson’s targets are mere personal bugbears. He demonises Robert Spencer :
“9 – Anti-Islamic bigotry that goes far beyond simply criticizing radical Islam, into support for fascism, violence, and genocide (see: Pamela Geller,Robert Spencer, etc.)”

And though I do not think that Pamela Geller or Robert always make the appropriate noises in relation to European groups, there has been a huge spilt in the anti-Islamist movements.

And Spencer, who was once a close ally of Johnson, is now seen as an enemy by Johnson, and I think that the split there is personal.

I do remember when the split began a couple of years ago – first Fjordman got banned. Now Fjordman writes well-researched articles, but he is also an intolerant prick who nowadays writes basically from the perspective of a neo-fascist. And sorry Fjordman – but don’t think you can call me a “ridiculous PC fascist who is not nearly as clever as you think you are” and have me praising you. You have gone into the mode of a first class bigot.

But the split went through many European sites – Gates of Vienna, the Brussels Journal et alia forced to take sides. Paul Belien’s wife got insulted, there was nastiness.

But what recently annoyed me about Johnson is that he always imputed the worst possible motives to British and European anti-Islamists, and failed to objectively discriminate between those who were against all Muslims and those who were against Islamists only.

However, I cannot really blame Johnson because the Europeans have not helped themselves. Groups like SIOE presented themselves at first as only against the creeping influence of social Islamism. When women members of their Danish group were physically attacked by “anti-fascists” they got a lot of sympathy.

But I have sent questionnaires to Anders Gravers and Stephen Gash of SIOE and they are intolerant to the degree that there is no middle ground.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.4398/pub_detail.asp

A selection of their comments: “We do not believe in moderate Muslims. We believe there are Muslims and those who want to leave Islam. Some Muslims are more active than others, but all Muslims want sharia law and Islam to rule the world. Moderate Muslims are those who watch non-Muslims being killed, but still say Allah u Akbar when the killing is happening.

Therefore, we obviously oppose Islamists because Islamists are merely Muslims, and Muslims are Islamists.”

I could not believe it. This group, feted as a “reasonable” opposition to Islamic extremism was extremist and uncompromising.

They actively want confrontation.

Last week, I tried to act as a go-between for the BMSD group, trying to persuade Stephen Gash to have talks before going ahead with the Harrow mosque protest.

He could not be polite enough to even respond to me by email.

The rise of the EDL is something that does not really do anything other than pitch communities against each other.

And I found that many of the people I had been communicating with on blog sites supported all this.

And all the anti-Islamists semed to be against Islamism, but were prepared to support methods that even the BNP would not dare suggest – expel all Muslims, ban all Muslim immigration, ban Islam, ban all mosques.

Any one of those “demands”, if met, would forever destroy the democracy of a country I love.

I write for an American website now, and I find that I am put off by some aspects of a minority of contributors. But that site is run entirely by women.

I understand Charles Johnson’s ennui, and in some ways I share many of his concerns, but I still feel Islamism – as well as PCism and BNPism – are real threats to Britain and to Europe.

But to fight Islamism, one must respect Muslims’ rights to be citizens in this country with freedom to follow their faith in any way they choose, like any other citizen.

I have found that I have had to shed and revise some of the associations that I once tolerated as their intransigence has proved itself to be intolerable.

Top Five reasons I stopped reading Harry’s Place.

1. Its weird insistence in conflating any bizarre obsession, besides it’s own, with “the Left.”

2. Its increasingly obvious marginalisation.

3. I don’t care to read any more proofs of dhimmitude and denunciations of Islam. I’m a Christian in Bradford, and it’s never caused me a second of hassle. I can’t believe London is any worse.

4. Gene, who has all too often been accused of racism and bigotry, should know better than to casually toss the smear about himself.

5. HP has grown insular and cultish.

Giggles.

But I’m still permitted to leave comments here, however.

While I agree with that list, his attack on Robert Spencer was exaggerated.

If I had to be completely honest I would say that Spencer isn’t quite bright enough to do his job perfectly and is so paranoid that he occasionally attacks a sincere reformer in the Muslim world…

But while I haven’t read him a while, I would have to see an example of Spencer supporting “fascism, violence, and genocide” before I would buy that accusation. I haven’t seen it.

I also think there is something rather anti-European about Johnson. I think his radical change came shortly after he left his joint venture with Roger Simon. That was all rather mysterious.

Then he seems to have gone on a bit of a de-linking and banning binge. As I understand it Robert Spencer was cast aside because he had maintained his links to sites that Johnson had unilaterally condemned. It was interesting, in the way that a toddler having a violent tantrum in the supermarket is interesting.

A slight re-arrangement of the opening paragraph…

I haven’t been a regular reader of Harry’s Place for many years (not since the invasion of Iraq). Even when I agreed with a post, the anti-Muslim and anti-Arab bigotry (especially in the comments, which the HP bloggers were pleased to tolerate), smugness and general pandering to readers’ worst instincts put me off the site rather quickly.

Sorry, Gene, but I couldn’t help it.

As I understand it Robert Spencer was cast aside because he had maintained his links to sites that Johnson had unilaterally condemned. It was interesting, in the way that a toddler having a violent tantrum in the supermarket is interesting.

Yes – this is true. The nastiness with which Johnson attacked Robert Spencer this August (when the two had once been friends) was inflammatory and based purely upon bile, not upon substance.

My brief meeting with Robert Spencer at that time showed him to be a charming and affable individual. He takes people at face value, though, and that can be a weakness. He does not always do the necessary “background checks” on people who invite him to talks. These checks could protect him from the accusations of “consorting with the enemy”, as made by Johnson et alia.

So tell me Francis Sedgemore, why the fuck should anyone tolerate murderous delusional bullshit?

Why should someone who claims a direct line to a non-existant sky-fairy, who insists that people should eat certain foods or dress in certain ways be treated as anything other than mentally ill?

I’ll hazard an answer.

Because the mentally ill in question have brown skin, and you’re so full of typical liberal self-loathing that “racism” is considered by you a worse offense than being mean to brown-skinned irrational nutters.

Francis Sedgemore – supporter of homophobia, mysogny and barbarism.

Francis beat me to it.

Cue Morgie, the Emo Anne Coulter.

P.

“Libelblogger Charles Johnson: Why I parted ways with sanity and truth-telling”

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/11/libelblogger-charles-johnson-why-i-parted-ways-with-sanity-and-truth-telling.html

Keeping with Gene’s logic that if you didn’t complain about something years ago you have no credibility complaining about it today, the same should apply to Charles Johnson. Other than a few bloggers who emerged during his right wing episode, nothing has changed in the Republican party. The religious right still has undue influence over the party, Pat Buchanan is still around (though I had the impression he was done with the Republicans), creationism, anti-global warming, etc.

Or was that Gene’s point, he has no credibility?

Adrian Morgan:

I have never met Mr Spencer, but he strikes me as someone who know what he is talking about. And he aims his criticisms at scripture, and those who adhere to the violent prescriptions within it.

Look, I could live without the birthers, the “black helicopters” end of the libertarian movement, the religious right (both the extreme anti-abortionists and the anti-evolutionists), people who think Obama is a closet Communist or Muslim or probably both or who insist on categorising ANY level of taxation as “state theft” and so on, but it’s become increasingly clear over the past year or two that CJ is having some kind of weird on-line nervous breakdown. His site turned into one colossal bitchfest with de-linkings and mass bannings and I stopped visiting it a while ago. Never read the comments at any time – they were always pretty foul.

Spencer takes a depressing view of Islam but he’s always willing to back up his points with logical arguments, not to mention prolific Koranic quotations, Sunnah and Hadith. The fact that he may have bumped into the odd fascist on European trips hardly makes him one himself. It’s a mistake a lot of people make (Boris Johnson for one) and I doubt he has much of a research staff to make the appropriate checks Boris should have done.

I never understood that Birth Certificate row.

I assumed that anyone running for the Presidency, Vice Presidency, or Speaker, would have to submit all of their documentation for full validation by an independant department, the Supreme Court perhaps, and their civil servants would do all the elligibility tests. Surely it should have been like that all along? But obviously they have never had the system in place.

I assumed that anyone running for the Presidency, Vice Presidency, or Speaker, would have to submit all of their documentation for full validation by an independant department, the Supreme Court perhaps, and their civil servants would do all the elligibility tests. Surely it should have been like that all along? But obviously they have never had the system in place.

It’s basically an honor system. That’s what the birthers don’t understand. Even if their ludicrous claims are true, they have no standing in any court. The only “court” that can challenge the credentials of a sitting President is the United States Congress. And there is no mechanism for checking candidates because there is no central election authority in the United States, thank God. Elections are run but a multitude of smaller fish.

And that’s how it should be, imho.

I never understood it either.

But then I’ve never understood the “native-born” stipulation either.

A slight re-arrangement of the opening paragraph…

Sorry, Gene, but I couldn’t help it.

Francis, I can tell from that comparison that you never read Little Green Footballs at its worst.

“Francis Sedgemore – supporter of homophobia, mysogny and barbarism.”

Beat me harder, big boy!

I never got the impression that Charles Johnson (unlike much of the vile, screaming, fanatical, hordes that were attracted to his website) was of the right, really (even allowing for terms like left and right being essentially meaningless) – he struck me as being more of a (verging loosely in the direction of libertarianism – californian wanting a good life sort of thing) relatively apolitical liberal, with all that that label implies: above all a tendency to be misled by malevolent elements far better informed than he was.

By no means the only blog to attract a more obnoxious clientele than its authorship, however.

Mesquito I don’t understand why the US has an elligibility criterion, with no means of independant audit of the compliance of candidates.

Especially as we are talking about the most advanced nation in the world here. I’m not being critical of Obama here, it is the lack of a systemic decisive judgement that no-one would be able to question.

@Adrian Morgan

ban all Muslim immigration, ban Islam, ban all mosques.

Regarding immigration policy, could you elaborate on why advocating discrimination against noncitizens on religious or political grounds is conflated with banning Islam or all mosques.
Saying that members of a certain religious or racial group can’t get in is not equivalent with discriminating against them once they have attained citizenship or lawful residency.

But then I’ve never understood the “native-born” stipulation either.

Me neither. Through trick of fate (her father was a Chemistry professor, briefly employed at Princeton at the time of her birth) the Welsh lady who sits at the desk opposite me at work (in the UK) is theoretically eligible for US President but say, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who’s lived and worked there Donkey’s years and seved as State Govenor ain’t? Go figure…

I’m not being critical of Obama here, it is the lack of a systemic decisive judgement that no-one would be able to question.

I understand you completely. But remember, there’s a good reason not to put some central authority in charge of who can be candidates. (Witness, for example, the machinations of the Venezuelan electoral system.) The qualifications for office are few and very clear, and the final certification of the winner rests with the Congress. Short of that, there are numeous formal and informal criteria a candidate must meet, mostly having to do with their respective parties. When the Congress certified the election of Barack Obama as our President, and he was duly inaugurated, it became a question only for the Congress to revisit if it chose.

I suppose, as a matter a theory, a federal court could find that the President fails to meet the criteria, but this would set up a divisions-of-powers crisis that would ultimately be resolved in the Congress, if not struck on appeal. So why bother?

Elections are amazing things. They involve literally millions of people (besides the voters) who come together as a matter of civic ritual and carry them out. The involvement of the State is actually very light, supervising from a distance.

LGF used to be pretty sensible – did a good job of mocking the vile Rachel Corrie, and all the “Palestinian” fauxtography. But now he’s gone back to being a dozy lefty.

But then I’ve never understood the “native-born” stipulation either.

The sources of the clause are unclear, and there doesn’t seem to have much duscussion of it at the Constitutional Convention.

Senator Orrin Hatch suggested the the following amendment:

SECTION 1. A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been for 20 years a citizen of the United States, and who is otherwise eligible to the Office of President, is not ineligible to that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States.

SECTION 2. This article shall not take effect unless it has been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States not later than 7 years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

Interesting that the revert to dozy leftism Charles Johnson condemns the odd anti-abortion nutter, but is silent on stoning, FGM, the almost universal rape and/or paedophilia that passes for Islamic “marriage” and all the other delights of Islam and multiculturalism.

He adduces not one shred of evidence to support any of his claims.

I used to think Charles Johnson was an Islamophobe but he’s showing himself to be one of the more reasonable people around.

He’s broken with “Jihad Watch” and also Pam Geller because a) they frequently sound hysterical b) they lump all Muslims together and c) they are so afraid of Muslims apparently they have no problem aligning themselves with outfits like the BNP, ie racist, hard right, all white facists.

Also -what’s going on in the US is RIGHT HERE, it isn’t in Pakistan or Africa.

Talking about FGM and other abuses of women, etc is fine, it’s very important – but when you see your own country and your own political party going right off the damn rails you have a responsibility to talk about THAT.

It isn’t “over there”. It’s right here. Even people I had formerly respected, like Roger Simon, are starting to make me nervous. Anti-environmentalism is something that really baffles me. What happened to the conservation movement started by Theodore Roosevelt?

These, please note, are the same people who supposedly like to hunt and fish yet apparently animals and fish are miraculously going to be there in spite of our depradations?

Recognizing these things doesn’t make Johnson a “dozy leftist.” Sheese. It makes him rational.

So hooray for Johnson. He is sane.

PS for all you anti-scientific types out there: HOORAY FOR JOHNSON.

He actually posts pictures of outer space and doesn’t believe the tooth fairy will save the planet from pollution or that kids should be taught creationism in public schools.

Awesome. A person who notices we’re living in the Space Age. In the Republican Party.

Imagine that.

He actually posts pictures of outer space and doesn’t believe the tooth fairy will save the planet from pollution or that kids should be taught creationism in public schools.

Naturally, Johnson’s critics all believe these things. Even if they say they don’t. Especially if they say they don’t.

He’s broken with “Jihad Watch” and also Pam Geller because a) they frequently sound hysterical b) they lump all Muslims together and c) they are so afraid of Muslims apparently they have no problem aligning themselves with outfits like the BNP, ie racist, hard right, all white facists.

So where exactly have either Pamela Geller or Robert Spencer aligned themselves with groups “like the BNP”?

Regarding Charles Johnson…

Two words:

So what?

So where exactly have either Pamela Geller or Robert Spencer aligned themselves with groups “like the BNP”?

They haven’t. Robert Spencer has explicitly condemned the BNP.

But facts don’t matter in the cloud cuckoo land of denial.

Yes. Charles got spooked by all those right wing loons and has migrated to the other side of the political spectrum, where he can now mingle with such luminaries as Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore. George Galloway, Noam Chomsky, all those anti-Israel fucktards at Berkeley etc. etc. etc.

It works both ways.

“Interesting that the revert to dozy leftism Charles Johnson condemns the odd anti-abortion nutter, but is silent on stoning, FGM, the almost universal rape and/or paedophilia that passes for Islamic “marriage” and all the other delights of Islam and multiculturalism.”

Actually he does continue to condemn the evils of Islamism, not that it is relevant. The Left in the US doesn’t support Islamism to the extent that the Left does so in the UK.

“he can now mingle with such luminaries as Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore. George Galloway, Noam Chomsky”

If you think that these fringe loonies effect US policy to the extent that Rush, Beck and Co. do, then, well, you’re wrong.

It seems that Spencer may also be changing his mind about Vlaams Belang. And not before time.

All Mr Johnson’s points seem perfectly sensible to me.

@Adrian Morgan

Regarding immigration policy, could you elaborate on why advocating discrimination against noncitizens on religious or political grounds is conflated with banning Islam or all mosques.
Saying that members of a certain religious or racial group can’t get in is not equivalent with discriminating against them once they have attained citizenship or lawful residency.

I believe that banning all Muslim immigration would be discriminatory. I could condone a ban on all immigration, with a few “refugee” or “skilled worker” exceptions, but if you declare “no Muslims”, it is as bad as saying “no blacks”, “no Chinese” etc.

How would a Border Agency person know if someone were Muslim or not? What about apostates?

There should be principles of fairness in immigration. No-one has a “right” to come here, and Britain should protect itself from overcrowding. But I have fallen out with a former associate from a blog I wrote for when she (an American) kept telling me that we in the UK must stop all Muslim immigration.

Immigration needs to be limited, but discriminating against a whole class of people is wrong.

However, if Britain were at war with a country/ideology, then there would be grounds to stop members of that country/ideology from entering.

When and if situations get so bad that Britain and Islam are at war, then perhaps there could be a case for banning all Muslims. I know many people think that there is a war going on between Islam and the West, but until the British elected government declares war upon Muslims, there should be no discrimination.

@Sophia

To my knowledge,Jihad Watch and Pamela Gellar have never in any way aligned themselves with ” B.N.P/ie.racists,hard right,all white fascists” as you call them.
I would have noticed.However,this is exactly the problem.Many Muslims have Brown skins and Arabic features,but we can’t blame Spencer or Gellar for that most unfortunate of demographic,ethnic,historical accidents.
I’m afraid you must have taken a left turn instead of a right(no pun intended)if you expect to find “tooth fairy”fans at Harrys Place.
Once again,too many knee-jerk assumptions.
(If there are any “tooth fairy” guys here at Harrys Place,please say so now,because I’m just ad-libing in the hope that I’m right).

Lets be honest Sophia,I mean,what would make for you and LGF,the perfect proportionate response to re-activated Islam from those such as Spencer and Gellar.
You want your porridge—not too cold—not too hot..but just right.
Nah,your not going to give me the old….

“I’m not saying there isn’t anything wrong with Islam”

spiel are you? Because if not,you win first prize.

At present ,Islam has become relentlessy ambitious and aggressive.
Perhaps you would rather Spencers rhetoric should be reigned in just a little,and just a little more–until hey-presto,they are just you.
But you see, “anti-racism”is not the answer to Islams insidious,fascistic,right-wing ,supreamacist,global creep.
it might feel all nice and righteous and ticklishly fluffy inside to delegate ones entire “raison d’etre”to the fanatical religion of “anti-racism”—but one day ,both you and Charley boy ,might find yourself in the awkward situation of having to choose between “anti-racism” and democracy.Which would be embarrasing indeed.
You couldn’t percieve Islam as a form of political fascism unless it was wearing jack-boots and dressed in a swastika.
Welcome to the real world of “miserable options”.

@Adrian Morgan

And all the anti-Islamists semed to be against Islamism, but were prepared to support methods that even the BNP would not dare suggest – expel all Muslims, ban all Muslim immigration, ban Islam, ban all mosques.

Any one of those “demands”, if met, would forever destroy the democracy of a country I love.

Sing along!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZIvgQ9ik48

“One of these things is not like the others, One of these things just doesn’t belong”

Pamela Gellar is a vocal supporter of Vlaams Belang, the Sweden Democrats and the Austrian Freedom Party and regularly reproduces the ravings of racists like Julia Gorin. On the front page of her website she likens Britain’s CST to the Judenräte of Nazi-occupied Europe for failing to endorse the English Defence League riot in Harrow – she also supported the affairs/affrays in Birmingham and Luton.

“One of these things is not like the others, One of these things just doesn’t belong”

Well my vocals aren’t so good now, but I did shake my head while I watched. Very nice!

By way of a compromise, I will now state something that will perhaps shock the more “PC” people here.

Migrants who come here could make a far better display of being here as full British citizens if they stopped demanding that their offspring bring in arranged marriage partners who do not come from Britain.

I am opposed to arranged marriages, as these can become forced marriages, and sometimes failure to comply with arranged marriages leads to honour killing. But I have no right to say a person should not marry someone their Mum and Dad choose, if all parties freely consent.

That aside, I think that people who come to Britain and want to be treated as “British” could perhaps try to demonstrate their integration into Britain and stop the practice of arranged marriages with people imported from the “old country”, wherever that is.

If they cannot throw this custom aside, which has nothing to do with religion, they are showing arrogant contempt to the people here. And neither they nor their kids will ever really be “British” as they are choosing to see themselves as “non-British”.

It is part of social cohesion to integrate. Demanding a “right” to import a not-too-distant relative who lives thousands of miles away to marry one’s child is the act of a person who has failed at the most basic level of integrating.

I am often told that arranged marriages are about keeping plots of land, back “home”, but if one has moved to a country to become a citizen, concerns about plots of land “back home” should be inconsequential.

Can someone here defend arranged marriages for me in a logical manner, without using ad hominem insult or obfuscation?

And more importantly tell me how in any way arranged marriages help social cohesion and integration?

hasan,

the rioting in Harrow was actually caused by Muslim youths who responded (understandably, perhaps) to the SIOE marching against their mosque. Some EDL members attended, but Gash of SIOE maintains it was a “SIOE” event.

On the Vlaams-Belang issue, you are right. She argues for it here:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/01/sweden-democrat.html

where she justifies it by claiming that they were the only party supporting Israel (at the time of Jan 2009).

I do not read her blog much as I personally find her language re Europe strident and not always as well-informed as it could be.

I am not sure if she is frequently “wrong” on so many European issues of Zeitgeist because of distance, being misinformed, or seeing things in terms of a “war”.

I am trying to find out. I am now two thirds of the way through her recent (Nov 7, 2009) talk in Texas on video here:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/11/video-pamela-geller-in-texas.html

I believe that banning all Muslim immigration would be discriminatory. I could condone a ban on all immigration, with a few “refugee” or “skilled worker” exceptions, but if you declare “no Muslims”, it is as bad as saying “no blacks”, “no Chinese” etc.

No it isn’t. People can’t help being black or Chinese, but they could renounce Islam as a condition of entry to a civilised country.

Why not discriminate? Islam discriminates against non-Muslims. It is eternally and completely hostile, and should be kept out of civilised countries at all costs.

If there are any “tooth fairy” guys here at Harrys Place,please say so now,because I’m just ad-libing in the hope that I’m right

Would that include “denture fairy” or “bridgework fairy” guys too?

Why not discriminate? Islam discriminates against non-Muslims. It is eternally and completely hostile, and should be kept out of civilised countries at all costs.

It is possible to do this, but it would discriminate. Let’s say for the sake of argument that the government that orders such a ban does not give a stuff about principle.

It would probably trigger resentments at home and abroad. What about those who would want their daughters to marry their first cousin who had the nikah namah betrothal arranged when they were only two, years before the ban?

Their parents would probably think their own rights had been denied (assuming we overlook the fact that such an arrangement would have denied their children’s right to choose their f*ck partner).

It could get ugly. Protests. Riots. Diplomatic embargos. Sanctions.. Would Britain’s multicultural ethos win the day and drop the ban? Or would the multicultural communities unite in a collective sense of national multicultural pride?

I think it could lead to civil unrest, even civil war, at home and economic war in the world at large.

Real-world politics suck, and ultimately have to temper high ideas and principles against practicality or settling only for what can practically be achieved.

but if you declare “no Muslims”, it is as bad as saying “no blacks”, “no Chinese” etc.

Is it? Since when was “Muslim” a race (like “black”) or an ethnicity (like “Chinese”)?

By contrast, what’s wrong with “no communists” (as the US tried to enforce for years)?

What about those who would want their daughters to marry their first cousin who had the nikah namah betrothal arranged when they were only two, years before the ban?

Why are such people considered desirable to have in this country, or any civilised country? Why should their absurd, tyrannical wishes be pandered to in any way whatsoever?

Why not discriminate? Islam discriminates against non-Muslims.

Tit for tat isn’t a serious argument, I hope.

It is eternally and completely hostile, and should be kept out of civilised countries at all costs.

Indeed. This is the real debate that needs to happen: a proper public scrutiny of Islam. Not the “Islamism” bogosity, but Islam itself: its scriptures, its history and the cultural values it inculcates. Asking immigrants to leave Islam behind is the humane, decent and civilized thing to do.

@Adrian Morgan

“Would that include “denture fairy” or “bridge fairy” guys too?

I can’t think of any objections really,as long as it doesn’t suddenly evolve into some kind-a-kill- all dentist fairy non-believer mass psychosis loonies.
May Peace Be Upon Them.

Blogger X approvingly quotes previously-dismissed-as-bonkers Blogger Y now that Y says something X agrees with. Fancy that.

Old Peculier –

LGF used to be pretty sensible – did a good job of mocking the vile Rachel Corrie…..the almost universal rape and/or paedophilia that passes for Islamic “marriage”……Why not discriminate? Islam discriminates against non-Muslims

Ah, the return of the bigoted old cunt.

Tit for tat isn’t a serious argument, I hope.

Tit for tat is the most practical strategy for encouraging ethical behaviour and avoiding being penalized for other people’s exploitative behavour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation

@@Adrian Morgan
You wrote:
“I believe that banning all Muslim immigration would be discriminatory. I could condone a ban on all immigration, with a few “refugee” or “skilled worker” exceptions, but if you declare “no Muslims”, it is as bad as saying “no blacks”, “no Chinese” etc.”
Changing one’s religious or political belief is possible, but changing one’s color is not.
Whether or not using such a classification in a nation’s policy is ever morally legitimate is a distinct issue. Rejecting the use of such a classification on the ground that it’s wrong to discriminate does not address why discrimination against members of the group X holding certain likely beliefs and customs is always wrong. Rather it’s a circular statement like claiming that a law is wrong because it restrict individual freedom. Now it might well be wrong to discriminate against all members of the group X, like it might also be wrong to impose a specific restriction on individual liberty, but if the law’s objective is not 100 % certainty but is meant to prevent things from getting worse by prophylactically screening out people likely to engage in acts inimical to the host nation, you must justify why a nation should not defend itself by the means of discriminating against all aliens belonging to the suspect group.

“How would a Border Agency person know if someone were Muslim or not? What about apostates? ”
I agree that such a policy would very likely not be very effective, but you argue against such a policy on moral grounds, not on the limited assumption that it would be unfair if it were ineffective. Conversely, if you think that the problem with the policy position is moral rather than utilitarian, it matters not whether the policy would be 100 % effective.

“There should be principles of fairness in immigration. No-one has a “right” to come here, and Britain should protect itself from overcrowding. But I have fallen out with a former associate from a blog I wrote for when she (an American) kept telling me that we in the UK must stop all Muslim immigration.
Immigration needs to be limited, but discriminating against a whole class of people is wrong. ”

Let me ask, and please don’t take this as an insult. Is it not logical that discriminating against the whole class of all Muslims in immigration policy would at least at the margins make the country more safe? If there were a halt to all family reunification from Muslim majority nations, many of the pathologies associated with Islam could vanish over a generation.

You wrote:

“I think it could lead to civil unrest, even civil war, at home and economic war in the world at large.”

So in other words, the coherent position you are arguing is apparently (1) Discrimination against Muslims is wrong by principle possibly because the majority of Muslims is as peaceful and moderate like you and me; (2) Sorting out who is a Muslim is impossible (very likely); (3) Officially discriminating against Muslims is dangerous because it make them go postal. Your fear of anticipated Muslim violence actually validates at least one assumption underlying the argument for treating Muslim immigration different from other immigration. If we hypothetically discriminated against all Jews in immigration policy, it would be morally wrong, but Jewish resentment would certainly not trigger a civil war or other large scale civil disorder.
But Muslims are so different, that even limited official discrimination against them will make them go violent, but still no matter the reality, discrimination against a group with an average higher probability of violence is wrong, because?

I suspect Johnson will regret embracing the global warming delusion just as it (fortunately) is starting to fade.

“I suspect Johnson will regret embracing the global warming delusion just as it (fortunately) is starting to fade.”

No he wont. He doesn’t regret anything. Prove him wrong or disagree with his wisdom and he will banish you like the pouting kid who took the toys and kicked the sand castle.
He will just banish a new group of people leaving what looks more and more like a Cif blog. He sees Nazis, racists and Islamophobes everywhere. Oh yes, forgot creationists and climate deniers.

On here for example, debate ensues whether Israel can be a Jewish state or not. Look what the cat drags in when one goes Left.

-While occasionally the obsessive references to Pamela Geller as a Nazi and an alcoholic and Europe descending into all out fascism.

Classy stuff. Apt for a burnout turncoat.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35242/comments/

He said nothing new with his “declaration”. Everybody already knew he sold out for free snacks at the next Huffington cocktail party.

He can go the way of Andrew Sullivan looking for Palin conspiracies while the rest of us can go on with our lives.

As a secular rationalist who recognizes that Man Made Global
Warming is a fraud, I object to being bracketed with assorted
religious & racist nutters.

I also think the “right” he is breaking with is just one of
numerous coexistent strains of conservative/liberal thought
that are emphatically not socialist, & are, in some cases,
highly desirable.

The problem with islam is that it is intrinsically very “right”
in the generally accepted sense.
Enlightened Westerners find it very hard to have serious
debates with representatives of a culture which seeks
to demean us in our own lands.
Purely religious muslims are no problem, as long as they
obey all our laws, especially in the treatment of women.

Let me ask, and please don’t take this as an insult. Is it not logical that discriminating against the whole class of all Muslims in immigration policy would at least at the margins make the country more safe? If there were a halt to all family reunification from Muslim majority nations, many of the pathologies associated with Islam could vanish over a generation.

Why should I take that as an insult, LC? This is a place of discussion, not feeling wounds and wanting revenge (unless Graham is involved – only kidding).

If a particular country has been identified as harbouring/exporting terrorists, there could be grounds to place extra checks upon visas of people entering from there, though a country that has descended that far would also be likely to have high levels of corruption, so “all-clear” official records could be the result of pay-offs rather than accuracy.

On family reunions, could people assimilated into Britain not be able to leave our shores and return, as could any UK citizens?

I think that some of the government’s recent “point systems” for migration were ostensibly designed to discriminate against Muslims and against the ill-educated poor of third world countries. In practice, no-one at the Border Agency gave a stuff, and let virtually anyone in. The “points system” was merely a sop to appease the mounting ire of the Daily Mail’s readership, exhibited proudly like a big dog to protect the house of Britain, but totally lacking teeth and attitude.

I believe that laws, once made, should be enforced or repealed. Such dishonest gestures as have been made by this government (like the “points system”) not only discredit all politics, but are a form of suicide for the party that endorses such blatant deception.

But Muslims are so different, that even limited official discrimination against them will make them go violent, but still no matter the reality, discrimination against a group with an average higher probability of violence is wrong, because?

Are they so different?

This government tries to impose minority-defined legislation to redress the imbalances that faux-socialism always believes it can remove. In this unreal climate it has aided many minorities to argue, coalesce politically and campaign from a position of difference, or from the position of victims of discrimination.

This principle combines with another delirious establishment policy that tries to jubilantly praise the visible social imbalances that such policies create. Bizarrely the government attempts to celebrate “multiculturalism” when what it is doing is attempting to pretend that ghettoised segregation and a total lack of social of social cohesion is not a failure in social engineering, but instead, a triumph of diversity.

Eventually, if a normal person went around declaring simultaneously that differences were awful, but differences were great, eventually they would rip themselves away from reality and go insane, or would have to be shot (hopefully with tranquillisers, rather than bullets).

This government has gerrymandered, it has caused social divisions and ghettoisations on its way to flooding marginal seats with people who might vote for it, and it has demanded that everyone should celebrate the fact that shocked Trevor Phillips in 2005 – that there are vast ghettoes in UK cities across the country where people do not integrate, and many do not even speak the same language as people from the other side of the tracks.

And then ministers and wet-behind-the-ears newbie Labour candidates on the husting declare that multiculturalism is wonderful, a social bonus, rather than a social curse. Simultaneously Labour praises the one-purpose Tower of Babel and also the polyglot incomprehension of the scattered peoples as victories of its own vainglorious political misrule.

It is time to take the current government and its advisers out to the barn and, like Old Yeller, dispatch them with a necessary coup-de-grace.

In the struggle to embrace everything different for the sake of it, this government has encouraged sharia and welfare payments for multiple marriages. By doing so, it has basically signed a death warrant for freedom, assimilation and women’s emancipation within these same ghettoes that it has helped to create.

Give it enough time, and it will be a re-run in some of these semi-autonomous and politically neglected (until election times of course) ghettoes of Samira Belil’s “L’enfer des Tournantes”.

The government should enforce the points system it promoted, for real, and then see if it can work on encouraging one-society multiethnic and multiracial politics, and stuff multiculturalism back in the empty void of policy that – if truth were to be told – actually created it. Equality and inclusion are far better principles than the forced divisions that automatically come from multiculturalism.

If there were a halt to all family reunification from Muslim majority nations, many of the pathologies associated with Islam could vanish over a generation.

Unarguable.

I’m flattered that some poster has adopted my name. A pity that he – and I imagine that it is a he – has no arguments.

@Old Peculier
What do you mean? Has someone taken your screen name?

I mean the person wittily calling himself “OP is a an empty glass on the draining board that nobody cares about” at 6.25 am.

Adrian, I take your point about Harrow. She doesn’t however, shrink from support for the EDF at Birmingham and Luton and her comparison of the Community Security Trust to a Judenrat is, well, inflammatory?

Her views of Europe are heavily distorted. For example, her stance on the German NPD seems to be that they would be fine people (they are in fact little more than neo-nazis) if only they could support Israel.

He doesn’t seem to have any sources to prove anything.
E.g. “Anti-Islamic bigotry that goes far beyond simply criticizing radical Islam, into support for fascism, violence, and genocide (see: Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, etc.)”
I have never seen any support for genocide at Jihadwatch.

@ Hasan

Yes – Pamela’s views on Europe are all upside down. I think she rarely travels here, and relies upon extremist and “agenda-driven” activists to inform her, rather than doing the necessary research into the layers, contradictions and nuances within the European situation.

Her Texas video (it was very long) had one or two reactionary moments, but it came across as coherent. She is often described by people like Johnson on LGF as “insane” as she is passionate. That passion translates sometimes into rushed blog posts that do not take a step back to assess their subject matter from a broader more open perspective.

She feels the world is on the brink of chaos and acts accordingly.

But I think that she is not mad, just frantic to change a tide of Islamism that she perceives to be about to engulf America and Israel.

And on the “judenrat” comment about CST. I did not see the original placing of that, but she is Jewish, which would excuse her from charges of “antisemitism”. It would probably have been made in irony. And being Jewish American would inform her worries about Israel in the face of Islamist (and far leftist) hostility.

She certainly sees that there is a war already being fought. For the most part I agree with her points made in her recent Texas video, which were delivered 2 days after the Fort Hood shootings.

I think that Robert Spencer, as he travels to Europe and sees what is going on at ground level – is slightly better at comprehending the events in Europe.

And I think Robert also engages with a broader range of European commentators. From Fjordman (who is informed but very far-right) to Douglas Murray who is informed but has enough common sense to temper his speech and comments with sanity.

On EDL and the carnivals with bottles that accompany their shared performances with the execrable UAF – I would rather not comment.

Let me merely suggest that the events that came into being this summer have caused me to turn away in disgust from any attempts to solve issues of vital social and political importance by means of cheap street theatre.

Such strategies have forced me to seriously question my own position and how I may have expressed myself in any of my previous writing. Have I been unwittingly encouraging such things? My shock has weakened the hard edge I used to have. In shock I want to build bridges, to look for the middle ground.

End of confession…..

obsessive references to Pamela Geller as a Nazi

There are a total of 166 references to Charles Johnson, mostly in extremely unflattering terms, on Atlas Shrugs (just look at her search engine). As for her dalliances with Nazis, we’ve covered this before and there’s plenty to choose from. As I noted above, Robert Spencer neatly summarises some of the reasons why Vlaams Belang is an organization that no-one outside the extreme right would want anything to do with.

Is it? Since when was “Muslim” a race (like “black”) or an ethnicity (like “Chinese”)?

Since the 1940s in former Yugoslavia. There are many people who came as refugees from Bosnia, Serbia and Kosova who are ethnic Muslims.

Is it not logical that discriminating against the whole class of all Muslims in immigration policy would at least at the margins make the country more safe?

If the overall concern were terrorism, there would have been a good case for restricting or banning the entry during the 1970s of not only Muslims but Catholics, coming as they did from countries such as Ireland, Spain and Italy, then frequently the origins of international terrorism. Adrian’s idea of taking things on a country by country basis seems to me to be rather more sensible.

I have never seen any support for genocide at Jihadwatch.

Nor have I, though he does deny genocide at Srebrenica and any atrocity committed by VJ/VRS/MUP forces in Bosnia, Croatia or Kosova. This is not a small peccadillo as Oliver Kamm so ably demonstrates. His knowledge of Europe evidently doesn’t extend much beyond the west of the continent.

“I did not see the original placing of that, but she is Jewish, which would excuse her from charges of “antisemitism””

If it doesn’t excuse Gilad Atzmon, why should it excuse her?

P.

If it doesn’t excuse Gilad Atzmon, why should it excuse her?

Ok Paul,

Point taken. I should have used the word “could” instead of “would”.

As I mention above, I do not know in what context she made this association as I have not seen a direct link to the offending piece.

As for Pamela being merely “passionate”, this is the woman who thinks that Obama is a jihadist drug-dealer who was in relationships with crack whores (while his mother was posing for nude pictures) and was the illegimate son of Malcolm X (based on his “slanted forehead”). She makes Ann Coulter look rational.

P.

She makes Ann Coulter look rational.

Ann Coulter may not always be rational, but she is hugely entertaining to watch.

I think I’m becoming an Adrian Morgan fan. I’ll think carefully before attacking you again. Whereas I’m a madcap so be sure to give me a rap on the knuckles when I deserve it. I’ll do the same if absolutely necessary. Such good letters.

You belong with my favourites, Mettaculture, Valdechaye, Anaximander, Israelinurse and others.

But I do like a bit of multiculture: the Indian, Sri Lankan, Arabic and other foods and spices that have come onto our markets recently…

If EDL and SIOE have been paying attention to the islamist methodology, they will probably stay away from formal membership, and easily identifiable leadership. Especially if they want to retain plausible deniability whenever one of their supporters goes OTT.

Adrian’s writing a lot of sense here, yes. Going to pick him up on a minor EDL point again though:

“the rioting in Harrow was actually caused by Muslim youths who responded (understandably, perhaps) to the SIOE marching against their mosque. Some EDL members attended, but Gash of SIOE maintains it was a “SIOE” event”

I can categorically state that no EDL members attended, because there are no EDL members. The idea of formal membership as opposed to the current open to everyone policy is currently being debated within the EDL. Some people who support the EDL may undeniably support SIOE, but if they were to make that clear then should EDL membership come about, it wouldn’t be open to them. SIOE and EDL have different aims and different methods, so members of one would not find themselves welcome at the other.

Great news.

Bring on the non-loony, libertarian right.

Point taken, Bert Preast

From recent pronouncements made by Stephen Gash I am becoming aware of a parting of ideological position there between SIOE and EDL.

In theory it should be easier to start a debate with the EDL, but if they don’t acknowledge membership, do they acknowledge leaders or representatives who could conduct negotiations?

And @ Felix, fans are always welcome!

I am not sure if an abundance of varied and exotic foodstuffs is a product of multiculturalism or just multiracial ethnicity.

In the city nearby there is some diversity, but nothing compared to what could be found in London. I used to love Merguez sausages, but as they are North African, and there is no N. African community in the county I will have to look at mail order options if I want them. Then again, there are traditional medlar (a type of fruit) orchards here, and no medlar jam. Again I have to get that by mail order.

Adrian – I get the impression that the EDL are not interested in negotiations. Their leaders maintain anonymity and they are neither a political party nor do they harbour ambitions of becoming one. The idea is to protest against islamism until the major political parties realise that pandering to it is a vote loser rather than a vote winner.

They’re doing pretty well so far – a month back we had Denham’s ludicrous comparisons of the EDL to the British Union of Fascists, but this week we have Denham acknowledging that the white working class has been neglected and needs some support and respect. Naturally this is just empty electioneering – or possibly cowardice as the EDL are planning a demo in Denham’s constituency in the first quarter of 2010 – but it does show the message is getting through.

Perhaps the EDL is forcing the issues to be taken seriously, perhaps Denham’s volte-face (and it won’t be the first in his career) may have come from advisers and analysts studying the trends in the demographic prior to the elections.

They knew already that when two out of 72 MEPs were BNP (with that party receiving a total of 900,000 votes, representing about 1.4% of the entire population, non-voting babies included) that there had to be reasons for this change.

The BNP has gained votes due to the alienations and disaffections of the white working class – and educationally, white working class kids have recently been shown to be neglected.

Even when Denham was making his comments about Cable Street (which were forced out of him by a Guardian journalist) he was also aware of other factors.

My transcript from his Justin Webb interview, made the day after the Guardian ran its interview:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/sep/11/minister-warns-facists-streets

shows clearly here:

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.4392/pub_detail.asp

“HOME > PUBLICATIONS > Exclusive: Britain’s Street Protests – What is Going On? (Part One of Four)

JD: I think we have been very consistent, both about the value of change, and also acknowledging the – that there are perfectly legitimate questions to raise about rates of migration, people who come, and whatever. But we haven’t finished the job yet, and we know that there are communities that don’t feel that their questions are being answered, who may have beliefs, for example, about how the housing allocation system operates which are far from the truth but people will try to exploit, and so, much beyond this small organization we are talking about, we’ve got to make a really concerted effort over the next few months to make sure that people are able to express their fears, that people can address them, that we can show that on jobs, on housing, on how housing allocations work and on migration, we are really responding to issues which at the moment they perhaps fear we are not.
”

that he was aware that there was a problem.

Another transcript which was made on Sept 27,
“What we’ve done is say that we are going to do in order to undercut Far Right extremism – similar sorts of things that we have done with the Prevent program, recognizing that where people feel alienated, they don’t feel engaged, perhaps feel under threat because their community is being changing recently, they don’t feel their views are being articulated – that people can be prone to exploitation by extremists, particularly by those who want to reduce every issue to an issue of race, and racism. So we will, over the next few weeks, be engaging in a very determined way in communities where we think that risk is there, and actually challenging the myths that exist – say about the allocation of social housing. But also enabling people to express their concerns and to make sure that we respond to them.””
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.4405/pub_detail.asp

So I think the EDL may have drawn attention to something in relation to the media. However, out of electoral obligations, Denham and others in his party would have had to started looking at what was making their main support base feel so disillusioned with their performance.

Elections next year – so they have to choose which empty present to dump on the demographic units they need to impress.

OMG – I only meant to copy part of the Denham interview, not all the stuff in the sidebars next to it. Drat. Sorry.

Any moderator would be most welcome to take cyber-scissors to that block in italics.

Ahem…..

I used to love Merguez sausages

Certainly one of the things I missed most after I stopped living in Paris.

Adrian: Firstly, Justin Webb is very wrong in his intro – “the right-wing groups demonstrating in British Muslim communities”. Unless Leeds, Birmingham, London etc are now classed as ‘British Muslim communities’, he’s either not referring to the EDL or far more likely he doesn’t know his arse from his elbow. The EDL demonstrates in city centres, pointedly resisting calls from some supporters to demonstrate outside mosques or in ‘muslim communities’. Very sensible, I’d say.

A minister letting Guardian journos put words in his mouth? Sorry, I don’t believe him. If we do believe him, he has no business being a minister anyway. I also don’t think a minister for communities should let Webb’s “people who are basically thugs” have passed – he wouldn’t have were the discussion on an islamist group, would he? Hardly the way forward for cohesion.

I should perhaps point out that I’m not ‘in’ the EDL, nor anything to do with them. I’m just a builder who became a little suspicious of the media reports on them, so registered on their web forum to have a look for myself. Following the media reports they had a large influx of nazis and racists thinking they’d found their home from home and had quite a fight to remove them – sometimes literally. I don’t like to see a genuine grassroots movement so misrepresented not just by the media but also by politicians. I’m no conspiracy theorist, but the blanket ‘racist’ and ‘fascist’ coverage they recieved has certainly made me wonder what the hell is going on. They wave banners proclaiming “black and white unite” and make an endearingly amateur attempt to burn a swastika – it really is difficult to see what more they could do? Depressing.

“There are a total of 166 references to Charles Johnson, mostly in extremely unflattering terms, on Atlas Shrugs (just look at her search engine). As for her dalliances with Nazis, we’ve covered this before and there’s plenty to choose from.”

Really

where are they?

Nazi is a serious charge. As is “support of genocide”.
So without reference it is merely BS.
I would say slander, but from a bloated liar like Johnson, it need not be taken so seriously.

Kinda like Garofalo calling the Tea Parties white supremacists or Michael Jackson calling prosecutors racists when he was caught in the pants of young boys.

Laugh, smirk and moving on ’til the next episode of total mind breakdown.

There are several factors which LGF and HP ignore in approachng Islam:

- Stating that an ideology is a moral and practical problem is not the same as racism. Opposing Nazism, Communism, and Islamism as ideologies is not the same thing as hating Germans, Russians, or Arabs.

- Aggressive, violent, imperialist ideologies (as Nazism, Communism, and Islamism) are indeed dangers to civilisation and must be fought. They MUST be fought if civilisation is to survive. It would be desirable to do so without appending bigotry (against Germans, Russians, or Arabs), but it could be argued the ideologies are perhaps even a greater danger to civilisation than would be a veneer of bigotry.

- Even of those “assimilated” muslims in the West, a dangerously high percentage agree with a number of the objectives of Islamism.

- In majority-Muslim countries, the percentages are yet higher.

- Even a weak form of a strong ideology, augmented by numbers, is dangerous. For example, even assuming every Muslim in the west were comletely assimilated, once their numbers in a given country pass a threshold (say, 4% or perhaps even less), then it is certain the rest of the society will be subjected to a form of creeping dhimmitude. For example, even the US military was afraid to discipline a Muslim service member for his Islamism, until he shot a dozen people. UK schools are afraid to teach about the Holocaust. In some French suburbs, non-Muslim women may be attacked for their form of dress. Etc.

- The group has gagantuan power – the power of numbers (1.3 billions); the power of oil control and of oil revenues; the power of violence and intimidation; the power of political alliances (with the western left); and soon the power of missile-borne Iranian nuclear weapons.

That gargantuan power, advancing an authoritarian, conquering political ideology of centuries-longer life than Communism or Nazism, may indeed be a greater threat to civilisation than occasional soft discrimination or bigotry against Muslims.

Given a choice between the alleged Islamophobia of Lewis and Spencer and the alleged Islamophilia of the left, the safer and perhaps wiser choice is the former.

“Nazism, may indeed be a greater threat to civilisation than occasional soft discrimination or bigotry against Muslims.”

For sure.

And if we had internet during WWII, we would have been exposed to the racism in America toward Japan and the bigotry among the Allied nations toward the German people. During war these things happen. One cannot remove human nature from the equation.

Probably we would have lost the war also as the Germans and Japanese could have hidden under the “we are victims of bigotry tent” immunized in the eyes of liberals and self righteous gas bags like Charles Johnson.

@Edward Stone

Well said.I’d like to use that piece–with your permission.

Yes, and thanks.

where are they?

I told you the answer in the post to which you’re replying; it’s even in the bit you quoted. I suggest you go to her website, press ‘Search,’ enter ‘Charles Johnson’ and read. It’s not difficult.

Nazi is indeed a serious charge and one consistently upheld by the courts in Belgium.

As is “support of genocide”.

I don’t know to whom this refers, because I didn’t make the charge. However Gellar is, without question, a denier of genocide as ruled by the International Court of Justice.

@hasan prishtina

“However Gellar is,without question,a denier of genocide as ruled by the International Court of Justice”

That is highly unlikely as I suspect you well know.Because Gellar as you also well know–is a Jew and dedicated anti-Islamo-Fascist campaigner.

The wording of your statement could mislead lesser mortals into believing that— either the International Court of Justice is of the opinion that Gellar is a “holocaust denier” or that Gellar qualifies all of the Courts criteria–as a “holocaust denier”.

Whereas,I am more inclined to interpret you statement in this way.

You,have for one reason or another,made your own personal interpretation or conclusion as to what you think are the criteria that the International Court of Justice follows to reach such a conclusion.
Is this not so.?Please elaborate in detail and clarify as to which of my above interpretations are correct.

journeyman

That is highly unlikely as I suspect you well know.Because Gellar as you also well know–is a Jew and dedicated anti-Islamo-Fascist campaigner.

Unfortunately, journeyman, even some Jews and some “dedicated anti-Islamo-Fascists” are capable of denying genocide.

@Gene @hasan prishtina

I should of course make a correction to my previous post.
Where I wrote “holocaust denier”it should be replaced by “genocide denier”–as reffered to by both yourself and hasan prishtina.
A laps of concentration due to tiredness.My apologies.

Well,look.I know of several areas of white flight/ethnic cleansing tacking place throughout western Europe,due entirely to the psychopathic, relentless and pervasive existential threat to non-Muslims,by Muslim “yooves”.
Incremental , insidious,tribal,cultural,Urban Jihad.
If the “genocide denial” by Gellar you refer to, is concerning Palestine—I have a question.
Which “Palestine”are you reffering to?
The one in London AD 2025
The one in Denmark AD2026
The one in Brussels AD 2027
The one in Paris AD 2028
The one in Malmo,Sweden AD 2029
Or the one in Rottredam,The Netherlands,AD 2030.
And if so,do you recommend a two-state solution.? Or just plain old semi-autonomy Sharia-compliant, Dar-al-Salam.

Given a choice between the alleged Islamophobia of Lewis and Spencer and the alleged Islamophilia of the left, the safer and perhaps wiser choice is the former.

As for Pamela Geller being a genocide denier, that is absolute nonsense. Unless you accept that Israel defending itself against “Palestinians” constitutes a genocide. If so it is a very ineffective one since the population of the “Palestinians” is burgeoning.

Sorry, quoted Edward Stone above without attribution:

“Given a choice between the alleged Islamophobia of Lewis and Spencer and the alleged Islamophilia of the left, the safer and perhaps wiser choice is the former.”

I’ll drink to that. While I still can….

Gellar indeed qualifies as a denier of genocide as defined by the International Court of Justice. The Court’s view of the slaughter at Srebrenica was that

[t]he Court concludes that the acts committed at Srebrenica falling within Article II (a) and (b) of the Convention were committed with the specific intent to destroy in part the group of the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina as such; and accordingly that these were acts of genocide, committed by members of the VRS in and around Srebrenica from about 13 July 1995.

Gellars view is that: The real Srebrenica Genocide not reported by the corrupt, racist pro-Islamist-Nazi Western corporate-controlled media, was the brutal mass murder – using axes, knives, daggers, sledgehammers, iron bars, flamethrowers and explosives – of 3,870 Serbian elderly men, women and young children in and around the town of Srebrenica and its adjoining towns and villages(Bratunac,Skelani,Milici, et al) as well as the town of Gorazde.

or this which she quotes approvingly from Nathan Pearlstein:

We all remember the Western media hoaxes and fakery concerning the events in Jenin and Qana recently and how these media frauds were used to demonize Israel and the Jewish people. So it is absolutely crucial that we also expose the Western media fraud concerning the events in Srebrenica, Bosnia in July, 1995, in order to reveal just how corrupt and dishonest the Western media, the US, NATO and EU Imperialist governments are when they turn the world upside down by demonizing the victims of a massacre in order to prop up the Islamofascist perpetrators

She also regularly reproduces the work of deniers like the ‘intrepid’ Julia “Srebrenica Party Weekend” Gorin and Robert North.

Hasan, I’m not sure I understand your inclusion of the first Geller citation. Asserting mass murders of Serbs took place, is irelevant to whether mass murders of Muslims took place.

Your remaining citations are apparently material she took on faith from others. I’ll have to investigate further, but I’m not so sure that makes Geller’s every word evil.

By the way, her name is Geller not Gellar. Not even knowing her name correctly makes me wonder whether those demonising her are that accurate.

Unless you accept that Israel defending itself against “Palestinians” constitutes a genocide. If so it is a very ineffective one since the population of the “Palestinians” is burgeoning.

What rubbish! Of course it’s genocide!! How can it not be when of the vibrant community of 800,000 in 1948 there is now only a pitiful remnant of 4 million??!? It’s an outrage!!!!