Comment: This was to be expected….
HELL IS ETERNAL!!!
anti racism
Liberal White Folks
Will S. : Here’s the thing: progressives, of various ethnicities, are in favour of mass immigration of all different kinds of immigrants, even when the immigrants in question don’t hold to progressive values on things like abortion, ‘gay rights’, feminism, etc. They don’t care. So while some neo-conservative Jews like Pam Geller can rightly perceive the threat of Islam to the West, other liberal ones do not, and cheer on multiculturalism and diversity. Now, the neo-Nazis are stupid to fail to recognize that Jews are far from monolithic in their views, and that the biggest proponents of multiculturalism tend to be liberal white folks. But no-one should be surprised that they’re that stupid
Women Against Islam
A dozen women, including bloggers, activists, TV personalities and others, are at the core of the anti-Muslim radical right
By Mark Potok and Janet Smith
Illustrations by Zé Otavio
When two apparent Muslim radicals attacked a Muhammad cartoon contest in a Dallas suburb this May, a national spotlight was focused on the group that hosted the provocative event — the American Freedom Defense Initiative, whose leader is Pamela Geller, the country’s most flamboyant and visible Muslim-basher.
The gunmen were killed by a police officer almost immediately as they tried to break into the event, although not before they wounded another officer in the leg. But in the aftermath of the jihadist attack, the national conversation turned not only to the dangers of radical Islam, but also to professional provocateurs like Geller. After all, although nothing she or her allies had said or done merited the violence, Geller had a long and infamous record of smearing and demonizing Muslims.
The radical right, and more broadly the political right, has generally been dominated by men. And there are certainly plenty of men in the world of Muslim-bashing activism — men like Robert Spencer, Geller’s partner; David Yerushalmi, who has led the charge against an imaginary plot to impose Shariah religious law in the United States; and a crew of terrorism “experts” who see Islam as the enemy.
But the universe of American anti-Muslim activists is peculiarly dominated by women. They are a mixed bag of bloggers, politicos, authors, TV personalities, radio talk show hosts, and leaders of anti-Muslim organizations. Many of them have other windmills to tilt at, from gay rights to communism to President Obama, but most have increasingly focused on attacking Muslims. That has been even truer in recent months, in the wake of the horrific Islamist attacks on the Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris and the many barbaric murders carried out by the Islamic State.
What follows are short profiles of a dozen of the most hardline anti-Muslim women activists in America. These are people who do not merely criticize radical Islam, but effectively describe all Muslims as part of a serious global problem.
CATHIE ADAMS
born 1950
Dallas, Texas
Texas Eagle Forum
As former chairwoman of the Texas Republican Party and current leader of the Texas chapter of Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum, Cathie Adams believes that while Muslims are “extremely hospitable when you are under their roof,” as their religion requires, “Walk out of their home and you can be shot in the back.” She has said that immigration reform is a “tool of Satan that will lead to the enactment of Sharia law and usher in the End Times.” In a 2013 interview with “End Times” radio show host Rick Wiles, she said that refugees from Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist societies — “who are not here because they love America” — are coming to the United States and “want Sharia law” implemented here. (Hinduism and Buddhism have nothing to do with Islamic Shariah law.) Adams also attacked conservative anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist because “he had a beard, and he’s showing signs of converting to Islam” and is “married to a Muslim woman.” She has compared President Obama to Adolf Hitler and questioned his Christianity. She opposed funds for cancer research in Texas, falsely claiming that scientists would soon be “cloning humans, injecting them with diseases … and killing them.” And she was against the Children’s Health Insurance Plan because it would allow “illegal aliens” to insure their offspring.
ANN BARNHARDT
born 1976
Centennial, Colo.
barnhardt.biz
Ann Barnhardt, a blogger and former commodities brokerage owner whose house was sold in 2013 to satisfy a federal tax lien, is one of the most extreme Muslim-bashers in the United States. She refers to Muslims as “musloids,” says that Islam is a “seditious system working against every government” in the world that must be “exterminated,” and once burned a Koran with a bacon bookmark for a YouTube video. In 2011, she said “the Muslim population is mentally and developmentally disabled on a mass scale,” describing it in the same essay as the only population that “is mentally and physically devolving.” But Barnhardt’s blind rage isn’t only directed at Muslims. She says that beginning in 2008, when Barack Obama was elected, a “cold putsch” began that she predicts will lead to riots and civil war, the importation of “millions of socialist Latin Americans,” and, ultimately, the Chinese Red Army landing in America. She urges people to buy long guns because “THERE WILL BE MASS RAPES when the inner city hip-hop contingent can no longer be contained by standard law enforcement.” And she opposes women’s suffrage, saying that it “effectively castrated” men and wrecked the family. She once described herself as “a buzzsaw crossed with a blowtorch,” and about that, at least, she is surely right.
ANN COULTER
born 1961
New York, N.Y.
anncoulter.com
Ann Coulter hates many things — Bill Clinton, Democrats, immigrants, the declining percentage of white people in America, and anything that remotely smacks of liberalism. But she reserves a special animus for Muslims. In 2001, three days after Al Qaeda’s World Trade Center attacks, she wrote that “[w]e should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.” The same month, she said, “Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims — at least all terrorists capable of assembling a murderous plot against America.” In 2013, on Fox News, she put it like this: “Someone needs to explain to me why gassing Arabs is such a bad thing. I mean, aren’t these the same people that attacked us on September the 11th? … I say we send them all the chemical weapons we have, and let them sort it out amongst themselves. Hopefully, when it’s all over we’d be left with some empty space to colonize.” In 2013, on Fox News, she went after black and Muslim Americans. “If you compare white populations, we have the same murder rate as Belgium,” she said in a conversation about gun violence. “So perhaps it’s not a gun problem, it is a demographic problem.” She went on to discuss a black and a Muslim mass murderer, making it clear just where she saw the problem.
BRIGITTE GABRIEL
born 1964
Virginia Beach, Va.
ACT! for America
The founder of ACT! for America in 2003, Brigitte Gabriel has been described by The New York Times Magazine as a “radical Islamophobe,” and it’s not hard to see why. In a 2007 course at the Department of Defense’s Joint Forces Staff College, she said that any “practicing Muslim who believes the word of the Koran to be the word of Allah … who goes to mosque and prays every Friday, who prays five times a day — this practicing Muslim, who believes in the teachings of the Koran, cannot be a loyal citizen of the United States.” The same year, The Australian Jewish News quoted her saying, “Every practicing Muslim is a radical Muslim.” Four years later, she claimed that “[t]ens of thousands of Islamic militants now reside in America, operating in sleeper cells, attending our colleges and universities.” Gabriel’s anger at Muslims is apparently rooted in her background as a Lebanese Maronite Christian who, she claims, lived in a bomb shelter for seven years “in pitch darkness, freezing cold, drinking stale water and eating grass to survive.” But a number of critics have questioned parts of her story, even calling her a con woman — she once described Hamas as bombing Jordan in the 1970s, but the group did not form until 1987.
PAMELA GELLER
born 1958
New York, N.Y.
Stop Islamization of America
Pam Geller is probably the best known — and the most unhinged — anti-Muslim ideologue in the United States. Aside from the more ridiculous claims on her Atlas Shrugs website, like the assertion that President Obama is the “love child” of Malcolm X, she is known for claims like the one she made on Fox Business in 2011: “Islam … is an extreme ideology, the most radical and extreme ideology on the face of the earth.” Geller, who is also a co-founder of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, made her name opposing the Park51 project in New York City in 2010, labeling it a “victory mosque” being raised by Muslims to celebrate the 9/11 attacks and insinuating without evidence that its financing might be tied to terrorists. She once posted a video implying that Muslims regularly practice bestiality with goats; another time, it was a cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad with a pig’s face. Geller has a special hatred for Obama, who she says is “a third worlder and a coward” who seeks only to “appease his Muslim overlords,” “a muhammadan” who “wants jihad to win.” Geller, who is Jewish, has spoken to a neo-fascist group in Germany and to the white nationalist Bloc Identitaire group, which opposes all race-mixing, in France. She also has invited a notorious British nationalist group, the violently inclined English Defence League, to speak at one of her rallies.
CATHY HINNERS
born 1960
Spring Hill, Tenn.
DailyRollCall.com
A retired New York police officer, Cathy Hinners now lives in Tennessee, where she runs the Muslim-bashing Daily Roll Call blog and has aligned herself with other anti-Muslim groups and leaders, including Brigitte Gabriel’s ACT! for America and the Tennessee Freedom Coalition. Reacting to news about Islamic State atrocities in North Africa in 2014, she sneered at American Muslim leaders’ attempts to distance themselves from the violence, saying, “it’s not working. Islam for those demented barbaric savages is the same Islam practiced by Islamists here in our neighborhood mosques.” In 2015, Hinners attacked the Muslim Public Affairs Council for creating a Congressional Leadership Development Plan, saying that its sole purpose was “to alter political policies and laws to fit an agenda designed to radically transform the United States of America.” She called the moderate Council for American-Islamic Relations a “Muslim terrorist organization” that was using the Ferguson, Mo., police shooting of an unarmed black youth “to ‘revert’ those disgruntled blacks to Islam.” She has railed on about Muslim “training compounds” in the U.S. and claimed that a certain current White House advisor is “a known Muslim Brotherhood supporter.” Hinners also believes American Muslims are on a mission to convert all other Americans to their faith, saying in 2012, “I cannot stress enough the seriousness of their push to spread their religion to all non-Muslims throughout our country.”
LAURA INGRAHAM
born 1963
Washington, D.C.
“The Laura Ingraham Show”
Laura Ingraham is a radio talk show host, author, and ABC News contributor who is known for her hard-right positions on a wide range of issues, including Islam. In the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdoattacks in Paris in early 2015, she agreed with the statement that “hundreds of millions of Muslims” were delighted with the killing of 12 people at the offices of the satirical magazine. “If most Muslims were against this happening,” she said on her show, “we wouldn’t have so much of this happening.” She went on to blame liberals and “governments that refuse to restrict immigration” from places that “do not share [American] values.” Immigration by such Muslims “is pure insanity,” she said a few days later. “A suicide pact.” She added that French “elites” were making regular people suffer by wrongly endorsing multiculturalism. She made a similar point in 2013, writing, “I would submit that people shouldn’t be coming here from Chechnya after 9/11. Dagistan [Dagestan], Chechnya, Kergystan [Kyrgyzstan], uh-uh.” Complaining that Muslims weren’t sufficiently condemning the Islamic State, she asked, “Where are those people?” She has repeated the myth of “no-go zones” in France and, most recently, reacted angrily to the news that a New York high school student had recited the Pledge of Allegiance in Arabic.
CLARE LOPEZ
born 1953
Woodbridge, Va.
Center for Security Policy
After two decades with the CIA, both here and abroad, Clare Lopez is now a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy, run by anti-Muslim activist Frank Gaffney. She is also vice president for the Intelligence Summit; a senior fellow at the Clarion Project, which specializes in rabidly anti-Muslim films; and co-founder of the Iran Policy Committee, whose advisors have called President Obama a “radical Islamic sympathizer” and advocated that Muslim men between 18 and 28 years old “be strip searched.” Lopez has long claimed that the Muslim Brotherhood has “infiltrated and suborned the U.S. government to actively assist … the mission of its grand jihad.” She wrote a 2013 report that linked Huma Abedin, deputy chief of staff to Hillary Clinton when she was secretary of state, to the Muslim Brotherhood — a favorite, but false, allegation on the far right. In 2014, she wrote: “When people in other bona fide religions follow their doctrines they become better people — Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Jews. When Muslims follow their doctrine, they become jihadists.” That same year, she said that because Obama’s father was Muslim, that “de facto makes him [Obama] a Muslim,” which in turn explains why the president “attacks and punishes Israel while allowing the Islamic State to grow and conquer.”
JEANINE PIRRO
born 1951
Elmira, N.Y.
Fox News Channel
Jeanine Pirro is a former prosecutor, judge and elected official in New York who is now the host of Fox News’ “Justice With Judge Jeanine” and a persistent critic of Islam and President Obama. In early 2015, she said that Muslims “have conquered us through immigration. They have conquered us through interfaith dialogue.” “Muslims,” she complained in the same essay, “were even invited to worship at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C.” (by then-President George W. Bush, a fact that Pirro does not mention). She went on to assert that “as sure as I’m talking to you, there will be efforts to limit our First Amendment — our free speech — to comply with Sharia blasphemy laws.” In 2014, she offered her solution to ISIS: “Bomb them! Bomb them! Keep bombing them, bomb them again and again.” At the same time, she attacked Obama, saying he “didn’t have the balls” to try the inmates of Guantanamo and “only knows how to cut and run.” And she claimed that “ISIS was trained by U.S. instructors at a secret base in Jordan” to fight Syrian President Bashar al-Assad — a baseless conspiracy theory. Pirro was the keynote speaker at the 2014 ACT! for America conference and also the Fox host who allowed terrorism “expert” Steve Emerson to claim, unchallenged, that Birmingham, England, was totally Muslim and a “no-go zone” for non-Muslims. Pirro, Emerson and Fox News all had to apologize profusely for that completely bogus claim.
SANDY RIOS
born 1949
Chicago, Ill.
American Family Association
Sandy Rios is a radio talk show host for the American Family Association, a group listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-gay hate group, and, as such, she generally specializes in defaming LGBT people. Former president of the right-wing Concerned Women for America, Rios is a Fox News contributor and writes for The Daily Caller, Townhall, RealClearPolitics and Onenewsnow, all right-wing media outlets. However, as with many on the religious right, she has increasingly turned her guns on Muslims. In 2013, she said on air that “Muslim Americans do not have First Amendment rights” and went on to describe Islam as “a complete and total system that demands usurpation of whatever the local authority is, it demands to dominate it, it demands to conquer, to kill or convert.” She has said that there is “no question” that President Obama’s “sympathies are with Islam,” more than with “his own people.” In early 2015, she launched an attack on U.S. Rep. Andre Carson (D-Ind.), saying that he should be banned from his post on the House Intelligence Committee because he is a Muslim. Around the same time, she said that Obama’s State of the Union speech had betrayed his Muslim sympathies because he used the word “pillar,” which reminded her of the “five pillars of Islam.” And she is known for using truncated radio clips to falsely suggest that Obama is really a Muslim.
DEBBIE SCHLUSSEL
born 1969
Southfield, Mich.
debbieschlussel.com
Few enemies of Islam can match Debbie Schlussel, an attorney, columnist and blogger, for sheer viciousness. The granddaughter of Holocaust survivors, Schlussel has referred to Muslims as “animals”; described the 77 Norwegians murdered by anti-Muslim terrorist Anders Breivik as “hateful, privileged brats” who “sided with Jew-killers” (a completely false allegation); and called Rima Fakih, a Lebanese American who became the first Muslim Miss USA winner in 2010, “Miss Hezbollah USA” and “simply a sharmuta” (whore). When CBS correspondent Lara Logan was sexually assaulted in Egypt in 2011, causing an array of serious injuries, Schlussel responded with this: “So sad, too bad, Lara. No one told her to go there. She knew the risks. And she should have known what Islam is all about.” In 2015, she similarly went after Kayla Mueller, an American aid worker who was murdered by ISIS, calling her a “Jew-Hating, Anti-Israel Bitch.” Perhaps most remarkable of all, however, was Schlussel’s apparent call for the genocide of all Muslims after the 2011 killing of Osama bin Laden: “Rot in Hell, Osama Bin Laden,” she wrote on her blog. “One down, 1.8 billion to go … many of ’em inside U.S. borders.”
DIANA WEST
born 1961
Hollywood, Calif.
dianawest.net
A syndicated columnist and the author of two books, Diana West is a relatively calm critic of Islam, at least compared to some of her fellow travelers. But that doesn’t prevent her from adopting views that are remarkably similar. “When American lawmakers, generals, and security experts omit ‘Islam’ from their debates and war councils, focusing instead on what they have dubbed ‘radical Islam’ and the like … [t]hey are protecting Islam,” she blogged in early 2015. Around the same time, she said in a speech to the Center for Security Policy’s “Defeat Jihad Summit” that “[u]nless we can come to an understanding that it is the teachings of Islam — not the teachings of some peculiar strain called ‘Islamism’ or of an organization such as the Muslim Brotherhood or ISIS — that directly undermines our constitutional liberties, we cannot protect our way of life from these teachings that grow with the increasing Muslim demographic.” Two years earlier, West set her sights on Huma Abedin, calling her “a veritable Muslim Brotherhood princess” with “privileged access to U.S. policymaking through Hillary Clinton,” whose position had implications for “national security.” She also has paraphrased anti-Muslim Dutch politician Geert Wilders, saying “the more Islam there is in a society, the less freedom there is.”
This story was published in the Summer 2015 issue of the Intelligence Report, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s award-winning magazine. The quarterly publication provides comprehensive updates to law enforcement agencies, the media and the general public. It is the nation’s preeminent periodical monitoring the radical right in the U.S.
To read more from the Summer 2015 issue, click here.
We will not tolerate the intolerant
http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/politics/allen-west-threatens-muslim-students-calls-them-jihadists/
len West isn’t very happy with the University of Maryland, College Park. It wasn’t only Muslim students who opposed a screening of “American Sniper” at the school, but West certainly did voice his displeasure with Muslim students, telling them to “go home,” and calling them “jihadists.”
West’s attack came in the form of an article on his website, where he attacked the Muslim Students Association, claiming them to be an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. West doesn’t seem to understand that Muslims aren’t necessarily foreigners, and that it doesn’t take someone to have aimed a weapon at Americans to be offended by the war propaganda film he so desperately loves.
In typical West fashion, apples were compared to pistachio nuts and slavery came to the forefront:
But who are these individuals to tell an American university what can be shown on its campus? I wonder if the movie “Twelve Years a Slave” was shown at the University of Maryland? And if these MSA students believe “American Sniper” is offensive to Muslims it means means [sic] they are supportive of Islamic terrorism and jihadism.
Sorry, Allen, but there’s a big difference between showing a movie that depicts a historical period accurately and one that glorifies violence and hatred towards an entire religion. “American Sniper” was nothing but a kill-fest that martyred a mass-murderer.
And no, it doesn’t “means means” that they are supportive of terrorism and jihad, it means they found the tone of the movie distasteful, much like most rational people find you.
West has a plan for these “jihadists.” The title of his article starts with “Incoming,” and the piece ends with gun nut uber motto “molon labe.” Clearly West thinks the only solution to deal with these horrible students opposed to the violence in a movie is to mount an attack on Universities and rid them of this ominously peaceful presence:
Your time is running out, as we will not tolerate the intolerant for much longer. You will be crushed and defeated, because in America we just don’t take crap for too long — regardless of the complicit bond you’ve found with progressive socialists — stretching from the White House to the College and University campuses — Islamic fascism will not prevail in these great United States of America.
Two words: Molon Labe!
Will the attacks on college students by psychopaths who think Chris Kyle is a hero begin before or after your Presidential campaign is squashed?
Lighten up, Allen. And please…go away. Don’t go away mad, just go away.
Comment: Antifa-chickens coming home to roost? Anyway, learn Arabic so you don’t have to rely on second-hand information. Hell is eternal, hell is eternal, hell is eternal…
Israel is not a normal state. Here’s why.
http://tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/190139/is-zionism-racism?
I am a person of the left and have been ever since I was a girl and Jackie Robinson joined the Brooklyn Dodgers or maybe it began when the Rosenbergs were executed and I knew a great lynching had occurred or maybe it was the photos of Auschwitz that I saw in Life magazine that made it clear I was one of those inside the fence not those waving at passing trains. That is why today the phrase “Zionism is Racism” sends shivers down my spine and sets my teeth to grinding.
Zionism is not about race. It is a nationalism. It makes a claim for the Jewish people that they are a folk like other folk and entitled to a land of their own just like the French have France and the English have England and the Bulgarians have Bulgaria. Nations have histories and the Jews have a history, long and eventful, rich in creative moments, overflowing with sorrowful memories, complete with documents, music, stories, language and also religion, and a religious memory of temples bygone and exiles endured and architecture described and columns buried in the soil and a millennium dream of return.
This dream of return, this next year in Jerusalem, existed long before the Holocaust. It existed before Herzl and the Zionists of the century before last had ever taken their first breath. It is a dream sunk deep into the Seder ritual, “Next Year in Jerusalem.” This vision of an end to exile kept the Jews together and brought them hope through the years spent in Babylon millennia ago when the texts that form our memory were edited and scrolls were connected and ordered into a lasting canon.
Sense was made of Jewish misfortune through a vivid if perhaps dubious belief in God’s punishment and eventual forgiveness. If the disasters that befell the Jews came about through Jewish defiance of God’s law then Jews could hope to make amends and keep their religion and their hope of redemption alive.
Even when Jews were defeated in battle we kept our God and held dear the promises he had made us of a land of our own: a land that he had granted to us in the time before time. Other defeated peoples gave up their gods who had performed badly in war and were now no more than broken stones strewn on the bloodied soil. In blaming ourselves for our misfortune Jews were able to hold on both to our God and to the hope of return to the land that had been promised. Our conception of the wages of communal sin saved our God from the dustbins of abandoned texts where specialists can still read today of Marduk and Sargon.
This hope of return to the land of Israel, which God had given to the Jewish people through Abraham, through David, for all time, this hope of return lasted through the exile of our people from England and France, the calamity of the Spanish exile and and of Portugal’s cruel dictates.
A wish for a land of one’s own for a nation of people with a story and a root, and a hope that carried on for more than a thousand years is unusual in human history. But if one thinks for a moment how the French would feel scattered to the four corners of the globe, Paris gone, the Seine named something else, the great cathedrals burned, the people now living along the Seine having descended from other folk who lived in other places, who did not know the French story, did not honor Charlemagne or Joan of Arc, or even speak French and instead spoke strange words in a language that Proust, or Flaubert, or Molière could not have deciphered, think how they might create a nationalism of their own that called for a return of Paris to the French and if that happened would they be racists or would they be nationalists, and why would they be entitled to a land of their own and the Jews denied?
And what if these French were denied citizen’s rights in some of the places they settled? What if they had been gassed or pushed into trenches where they died by the tens of thousands? What if the French had no army, no police of their own and were prey to the anti-French who roamed across all continents. What if the other countries denied the French access to law courts, to medical schools, to universities? What then? The French would start looking around for a land to call their own and they would call their promised land France and if others were living there they would still return if they could, because the French like any other national group deserves a land of their own, in a world of nation-states. And so do we Jews.
In today’s world to be called a racist is to be attacked with a nasty word that conveys immorality and inhumanity on the part of the racist. It hurts to be called a racist, especially if one is not. A Hungarian immigrant may enjoy a croissant but not feel a strong identity with French culture or history. What if such Hungarian immigrants were unexpectedly in the majority in what had been recognized as France? What if the French in Colombia or Nigeria wanted to return to France: Would anyone call them racists or would they be exiles, carrying with them Diderot, Molière, Madame Curie, Charcot, Camus, Stendahl, André Gide, Corneille, on their backs to lands where they had settled?
Despite United Nations resolutions to the contrary Jews are not racists to want a land of their own, a geography that contains their history, a place where their armies and their arms can protect them. They are human beings who claim the common endowment of what in this day and age passes for humanity.
Racists are despicable people who think they are superior to and more entitled than others of different groups, different nations, different skin color, different religious beliefs. America has a lot of racists living in its cities, small towns, its hills, its purple mountains majesty but slowly we are getting better at understanding that America is a place of many races and the mixture itself creates a nation that is beautiful in its variety and has for spacious skies that stretch from sea to sea.
Yes, Zionism can lead to excess of rage. It can inspire folks to deny others basic human dignity, the same way that anyone else’s nationalism can. It can turn ugly when the desire for “mine” becomes the desire to deny “yours.” But that is not the Zionism of the Jewish people. It was not Herzl’s Zionism. Our bid is just to be a nation like the other nations.
Well, not exactly like all the others. It was hoped that Israel would not enslave anyone. It was hoped that Israel would treat the strangers who lived among its people with justice and equality. It was expected Jews would not throw rocks at passing Arab cars and that we could make room for other dreams and other visions and other nations to settle near by or live in peace among us.
Zionism remembers the vulnerability of the Jews living without a state of their own and so it balances the needs of others to thrive in their own orchards and the needs of the Jewish community to become itself, at last, a nation without a foreign ruler, without a wicked king appointed by a distant empire, but a place where the Jewish story can be told by free men and women with confident voices in safe places where their Jewish children can learn and grow without fear. In other words a nation just like the French or the Spanish or the Poles who are not racist for waving the French, Spanish, or Polish flag or singing the anthem they learned at school.
If this return had happened in 1776 then the state of Israel could easily have acted in the way that America did—a way that came to be viewed, rightly or wrongly, as “normal.” It could have marched its Palestinians out beyond its borders and the crime of it, the pain of it, would have lost its immediacy, no cameras, no reporters on the ground. Native Americans were stripped of their land and their culture trampled and no one saw it on the news and by the time anyone could weep for them, the deed was done and could not be revoked. America had slaves for a hundred and fifty years and was indeed a racist country and remains so in some places. Think of the faces of the men and women who lined up to mock the entrance of a few Black children into a white school in Alabama. That is the face of racism.
If Israel was a normal country like Iraq or Syria the ultra-Orthodox would be at war with the citizens of Tel-Aviv who go to the movies on Shabbat. The followers of this rabbi or that would take to the hills with their guns. If Israel was a normal country like Mexico its citizens would be afraid of the police and the drug cartels would appoint the chief of police. If Israel were really normal the Ashkenazi Jews would arm themselves against the Sephardim and civil war would take the lives of Jews just as civil war decimated the population of young men in America as boys lay dead on battlefield after battlefield, leaving mothers to grieve and sweethearts to weep and children to grow up without fathers. That is our normal.
So, it might be not such a good idea to be a normal state. And while it might not be entirely fair to hold Israel to a higher standard, I do in fact expect that Jews will hold back the killing hand, the truly racist call, and that Zionism would be, could create a decent place, where a variety of religious approaches could co-exist and secular folk could walk about unmolested. It is a dream, but not an impossible one.
This vision of Israel (that is where as a child I thought my tree was growing) did not fully understand that Palestinian Arabs were or would become a people with a claim of their own to a national homeland. This conflict needs to be settled; both peoples need settled borders in which to build and flourish. But Zionism is not racist to speak for itself and the illogic, the unthinking hatred behind that slogan, makes me sick. It is a lie and a smear hiding behind a proclamation of seeming virtue. To be against racism is good but to see it where it is not, to use the word to attack Jews, is appalling.
Comment: A person of the left. Well, others have differing opinions. Hell is eternal, Hell is eternal, Hell is eternal…
Should imbeciles be beaten to death?
http://www.loonwatch.com/2015/02/hindu-center-targeted-with-swastika-and-message-of-muslims-get-out/
Islamophobia in the heartland. Not so bright Neo-Nazis spray-painted hateful messages on a Hindu Temple and Cultural Center.
What’s that about Islamophobia having nothing to do with race again?
My Northwest, By Chelsea Hawkins
It’s not often you see a Lutheran pastor standing in front of a golden Ganesha. But that’s the scene as Christian, Sikh and Muslim leaders stand alongside Hindus in a united front against hate.
“The core value of all faiths and the core value of being an American is about love and care and tolerance,” says Reverend Paul Benz of the Faith Action Network.
Recent acts of vandalism at the Hindu Temple and Cultural Center and Skyview Junior High School in Bothell have members of the community concerned. The Hindu Temple was tagged with a swastika and the message “Get out.” Over at the junior high school a message read, “Get out Muslims.”
Comment: Keeping imbeciles on a short leash is one of the tasks we still need Antifa for. It is highly unethical to attack people without sufficient proof. That is why we should implement eugenics by teaching Arabic and Chinese, instead of all other subjects, on elementary schools and high schools and beating to death children who do not get ahead. This beating should happen before the very eyes of the parents. Only this will teach people to think before they act.
Pundits teach young Hindus Sanskrit. Imams teach young Muslims Arabic. Rabbis teach young Jews Hebrew. However, priests do not teach young Catholics Latin, and reverends do not teach young Protestants Greek. Christian clerics keep their flock stupid, leading to imbecilic vandalism as noted above.
I am beginning to think that eradication of Christianity is necessary before any action against Jews, Muslims and other religious groups could be justified. The stupidity caused by Christianity is pernicious. I do not mince words, Christians should have their arms chopped off and their eyes gouged out, and pointed out to them that Christianity forbids euthanasia. Remind them that the Antichrist would behead them, like ISIS does.
Hell is eternal, Hell is eternal, Hell is eternal…
Chapel Hill shooting: Three young Muslims gunned down in North Carolina family home
Hypocrisy
http://www.loonwatch.com/2014/05/racial-hatred-destroys-home-of-uks-first-muslim-female-band/
These are the same people who claim that Islam “oppresses” women yet here they are, burning down community centers where women can meet and flourish. Disgusting hypocrites.
Non-Muslims accuse Muslims of oppressing women, non-Muslims attack Muslim women. Muslims accuse non-Muslims of oppressing women, Muslims attack non-Muslim women. However, it is better to generalize about Muslims than about non-Muslims. There is a certain set of features a Muslim has to have, and lacking one is enough not to be a Muslim. E.g. Muslims don’t eat pork, but not all non-Muslims do eat pork. Muslims are allowed to eat beef, but not all non-Muslims are forbidden to eat beef. Muslims believe in an Afterlife, but not all non-Muslims don’t believe in an Afterlife. And so on.
The same applies to Christians and non-Christians, Anarchists and non-Anarchists, etc.
Nevertheless, if opponents of Islam coalesce into a movement they do become responsible for the actions of hangers-on, even if they are fringe elements. You cannot have a movement composed of Christians who think even Muslim men can be and should be converted, and White Nationalists who think even Muslim women have to be removed from the country, if not sterilized or even killed.
White Liberals patronizing People of Color
It basically boils down to white Liberals being raised in a segregated, sheltered environment full of implicit whiteness, and adhering to outdated versions of Anti-Racist ideology.
Reactionary Prison Abolition
http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/03/reactionary-philosophy-in-an-enormous-planet-sized-nutshell/
Humane, All Too Humane
There seem to be similar uncanny valley effects in the criminal justice system and in war.
Modern countries pride themselves on their humane treatment of prisoners. And by “humane”, I mean “lock them up in a horrible and psychologically traumatizing concrete jail for ten years of being beaten and raped and degraded, sometimes barely even seeing the sun or a green plant for that entire time, then put it on their permanent record so they can never get a good job or interact with normal people ever again when they come out.”
Compare this to what “inhumane” countries that were still into “cruel and unusual punishment” would do for the same crime. A couple of lashes with the whip, then you’re on your way.
Reader. You have just been convicted of grand theft auto (the crime, not the game). You’re innocent, but the prosecutor was very good at her job and you’ve used up all your appeals and you’re just going to have to accept the punishment. The judge gives you two options:
1) Five years in prison
2) Fifty strokes of the lash
Like everyone else except a few very interesting people who help provide erotic fantasies for the rest of us, I don’t like being whipped. But I would choose (2) in afraction of a heartbeat.
And aside from being better for me, it would be better for society as well. We know that people who spend time in prison are both more likely to stay criminals in the future andbetter at being criminals. And each year in jail costs the State $50,000; more than it would cost to give a kid a year’s free tuition at Harvard. Cutting the prison system in half would free up approximately enough money to give free college tuition to all students at the best school they can get into.
But of course we don’t do that. We stick with the prisons and the rape and the kids who go work at McDonalds because they can’t afford college. Why? Progressives!
If we were to try to replace prison with some kind of corporal punishment, progressives would freak out and say we were cruel and inhumane. Since the prison population is disproportionately minority, they would probably get to use their favorite word-beginning-with-”R”, and allusions would be made to plantation owners who used to whip slaves. In fact, progressives would come up with some reason to oppose even giving criminals the option of corporal punishment (an option most would certainly take) and any politician insufficiently progressive to even recommend it would no doubt be in for some public flagellation himself, albeit of a less literal kind.
So once again, we have an uncanny valley. Being very nice to prisoners is humane and effective (Norway seems to be trying ths with some success), but we’re not going to do it because we’re dumb and it’s probably too expensive anyway. Being very strict to prisoners is humane and effective – the corporal punishment option. But being somewhere in the fuzzy middle is cruel to the prisoners and incredibly destructive to society – and it’s the only route the progressives will allow us to take.
oogenhand 