First They Came for the English Bloggers
by Baron Bodissey
I have said a number of times that what I do here would be illegal in some countries in Europe, and that a European citizen doing what I do can be arrested there.
Britain is such a country. Its recent laws concerning the incitement of racial and religious hatred have made illegal much of what is published in the Counterjihad blogosphere.
And now the first British blogger is about to face the Multicultural perp-walk.
Lionheart is a well-known patriotic blogger in England, and is on our blogroll. He is currently outside the UK, and has been informed that he will be arrested for stirring up racial hatred as soon as he returns home.
---------------------------
My comments:
This stems from the perverted issue of so called ‘hate crimes’. Violent crimes for the history of mankind has been the outward expression of hatred. One does not murder and rape that which they love. The problem is is that it has evolved into a get whitey law. It is what it has always meant for, to stop white hatred and white identity and isolationism. Look at the Jena 6. Hate crimes can only be committed by Caucasians and people of color or of foreign origin, especially the third world, none can be considered racists by this, the largest hate group in the world, western liberalism.
Take Mark Steyn, he is being persecuted for his comments against the jihadists and what is ironic, his most intemperate remarks are those that quote directly Imams and other Muslim leaders. National Review Online has taken up this cause with great ferocity.
“First they came for the redneck trolls, and I did not speak out because I was not a redneck troll. Then they came for the male chauvinist pigs, and I did not speak out because I was not a male chauvinist pig. Then they came for Mark Steyn, and I did not speak out because I was not Mark Steyn...”
There are commercial forms of attacks on free speech as well. The web content filtering software Websense filters out the Gates of Vienna but not MoveOn.org. Go figure.
I posit that the very concept of a hate crime embodied in law is an abrogation of the 1st amendment. If I am bludgeoning someone to death, does it matter that I call them a nappy hedded ho in the process? Everything else can be considered violence or the destruction of property.
The elites believe that they can control the beast. All they need is a little time. They will coddle them to their bosom and protect them from those horrible men. They have learned to protect the weak from those horrible men and eventually, the children of the beasts, weaned from the government teat will sit on the lap of their mothers, the nanny state, and together they will rule by force of numbers and those horrible men will breed no more. In this way Hispanic Catholics will share cause with secular elite for the purpose of building the socialist state. Muslim fascists will play their part as well. It is necessary to break a few eggs to make an omelet.
Ed Mahmoud said...
Annoymouse- The Hispanic Catholics who came to this country fleeing Communism, like the Cubans, and many of the multi-generational ones who have found a middle class existence, don't vote Democrat automatically. Of course, illegals, who don't respect our laws, will tend to gravitate to the party offering the biggest handout.
El Paso County in Texas, 90% Hispanic, went for George W Bush when he ran for re-election as governor of Texas.
They are very much like the blacks, who also have leaders who are more concerned with their personal enrichment and power than the well being of the people they purport to represent.
Ed
I am not digging on the Catholic Church in any way. I do find it ironic that here in America that the secular/atheistic liberals are inviting all of Latin America to the USA who are predominately practicing, breeding Roman Catholics. As a Christian I have more kinship with Catholics than devoted atheist socialists but that it the nature of this conflict of civilizations. Find a common cause from without your country and use that power to reinforce your sides’ argument. Divide and conquer.
I am not digging on the Hispanic either for that matter. I live on the border in San Diego and lately American tourists have been getting robbed and raped by Mexican police officials. Our government is ashamed of our wealth and dare not stand up for US citizens. There is a war at the border. A real war where men with assault rifles are in control of what used to be US sovereign territory. US government agencies are pulling back because the situation is no longer tenable. How this is supposed to relate to the thread at hand, free speech, is that western governments have made it their job to protect the third world from the predations of free men in the place of their birth. They call this nativism. If you can deconstruct that term it would say everything as to why this is germane to this thread. Our elected leaders have a radical vision of what the new world order is going to be and us traditionalists, with our command of the facts and command of the language are making it hard for them. That is why they are inviting illegals who are less politically active into the USA. There are too many chiefs and not enough Indians.
“are all muslim women undead breeding machines whose children will want to kill us?”
It would sure seem so. If I do not speak for the state then I must be silent? I like the cartoon. I like all cartoons. It is reality that is offensive to my senses. What is it about free speech that you find so abhorrent?
I had to fess up to the reality that those who say they are at war with us are at face value at war with us. I do not like the idea. Ten years ago I thought we were all building a great new beautiful tomorrow but now realize that we must give up our vision of the future or go back to basic principles and fight for that vision. In short, I decided not to give up.
El said...
annoymouse:
i do not find free speech abhorrent in the slightest. i find attempts to undermine it disgraceful and alarming, and sympathize greatly with all those who think the gloves need to come off completely, right now, including yourself. strategically, i can see no flaw here. but lionheart's characterization of muslim women, and your approval of it, suggest that the complete dehumanization of muslims for propaganda purposes is something that you now consider morally acceptable. is this a correct appraisal? i should point out that this is not a loaded question. i am not trying to take any moral high ground here, i am simply interested in people's attitudes in this respect. let me reiterate that i hope that the charges awaiting lionheart are dropped.
----
“strategically, i can see no flaw here. but lionheart's characterization of muslim women, and your approval of it, suggest that the complete dehumanization of muslims for propaganda purposes is something that you now consider morally acceptable”
Cartoons, particularly political cartoons, are over the top by nature. I see worse in the editorial pages everyday. I don’t know much about Lionheart personally but I’d imagine he is not that good of an artist. I suspect that this is something that invoked an emotional chord with him… something symbolic, something that embodies ones personal fears in a non-verbal form. He thought enough of the cartoon to share it with us and perhaps to provoke our emotions. It is clear in this light that he has succeeded in awakening something in you. When it is time to fight back, do we begin the fight using our fists or do we first use our voices to raise a call? How do we define that which we are at war with? Are they just a bunch of nice folks who have been led astray by a minority of radical religious fanatics? If we can’t put our finger on what it is we abhor than we stand no possibility of standing against it. You call this propaganda but I say that it is merely shaping the intellectual battleground. I do not seek to demean or dehumanize the jihadists. I believe that their illiberal actions have done enough to that effect. I cannot speak in dispassionate terms of what I think of the jihadists. I believe that they are parasitic to the west. I believe they are like an opportunistic disease. I believe that all western liberal rights are at stake. If it were not for jihadists would so much of the world economy be bent towards the purposes of armies and security? I think not. Would I be required to remove my shoes and denied water during air travel? I think not. I am not worried that I might disturb the sensibilities of the jihadists. That their mothers and daughters are called upon by allah to breed armies whose sole purpose is to ensure my destruction and for the destruction of my way of life, of the western institutions and traditions, the heritage that we might leave our children and grandchildren. We are at war and I will call the jihadists anything that might make them ask: Why do they hate us so much?
A book, a theology and a political system hundreds of years old is a guiding principle that will withstand the test of time. It is a complete system of living that is ABSOLUTELY intolerant of any other competing version of life. That is Islam. Freedom is such a fragile thing because it dilutes the interests of its recipients. Freedom fosters diversity but not by suckling a self-serving parasite does it survive. One cannot be mesmerized by the clever dualities of Islam that are designed to rent reason asunder. It is a cheap charlatans trick and can be deconstructed easily by history and results and statistics. Individualism does not pull together armies, allah does. But collective will and pride in our cultures’ accomplishments can provide the cohesion necessary regardless of religious, economic, or political philosophies only if Westerners can stop hating the minor differences of their fellow peers. When no one will answer freedom’s call we will hear instead the call to prayer five times a day. Eagles don’t flock but when they band together their talons bring fear and respect.
nster said...
Britain is such a country. Its recent laws concerning the incitement of racial and religious hatred have made illegal much of what is published in the Counterjihad blogosphere.
Sadly, Britain's descent into dhimmitude will probably have to serve as an object lesson for the remaining Western world.
Annoymouse: This stems from the perverted issue of so called ‘hate crimes’.
Absolutely. "Hate crimes" and "hate speech" are an outgrowth of both special interest groups and once-entrenched prejudices within our own law enforcement communities. If constitutional law was properly enforced, there would be absolutely no need for "hate" enhancements of any sort. Unfortunately, it is going to be extremely difficult to remove these unequal applications of the law.
-----
“we've stuck it to the natives in just about every corner of this planet, and i would be greatly surprised if there wasn't the odd bit of dehumanizing involved. if we did a world tour through the former british empire together, would you wager we wouldn't encounter anyone who thought their people had ever been dehumanized by us?”
Well there it is; guilt. Can we be as introspective with Islam? We should overlook the head cutters and snuff films and all of the gory infamy of Muslims because we Westerners have not evolved enough? We have not become better people over the centuries, not enough that we should feel that it is okay to impugn those who hold onto a 6th century quaintness. The type of quaintness that kills girls for not wearing burkas or throws homosexuals off of cliffs or flies airplanes into buildings. This is a deep ideology and not a mere inconvenient series of horrific events. This is what Islam brings to the modern world. I am not willing to commit suicide because Western Society has gone through some spotty times. Try that with the rest of the third World, I am over your guilt. I wish you were.
El said...
annoymouse:
well-named you are, sir. it is indeed annoying that you keep fulminating at me about the hideousness of islam when i have pointed out TWICE that such ranting is unnecessary, as i am of exactly the same mind on the subject. i believe i also made reference to two occasions on which i set these opinions down in words, once on GoV (where i made recommendations draconian enough to remove me forever from polite society in the UK), once in a university newspaper. should i take out a full-page ad in the new york times? or just get a propeller-driven aircraft to fly past your house pulling behind it a banner saying 'el ingles hates islam'?
'We should overlook the head cutters and snuff films and all of the gory infamy of Muslims because we Westerners have not evolved enough?'
a ridiculous straw man. read what i write.
'I am not willing to commit suicide because Western Society has gone through some spotty times.'
neither am i. read what i write.
'I am over your guilt. I wish you were.'
why is a british person acknowledging some of the unpleasantness of the british empire assumed to be a cowering, blubbering, advocate of dhimmitude? this baffles me. i must refrain from debating with you further until you demonstrate an interest in paying attention to what people say. i will charitably assume that you are so filled with frustration over islam that it just bubbles out over anyone unfortunate enough to say anything you don't agree with. i am not unfamiliar with this feeling, but if i can control it, you can too.
i await with some trepidation the next installment of 'but el, islam is so terrible, because...'
and down with islam, religion of blood, destruction, and people throwing rocks at the devil.
---
El,
Your point is well taken. Perhaps I have been beating a dead horse. I should have stuck with the guilt aspect without reselling the ‘Islam is bad’ meme but I think it is insightful to compare Western Societies guilt for actions over the centuries verses Islam’s antipathy for actions of long ago, yesterday, and tomorrow. The Arab mindset embodied in Islam creates a culture that seems to thrive on casting shame on others while dissembling about its own shortcomings. This aligns very conveniently with Western guilt. Although one might appreciate that Western Societies have evolved more humble and introspective, this quality is seen as a weakness by Arabs and they spare no opportunity to exploit it.
It seems that the only thing that we disagree about is whether or not it is beyond the pale to make political points using a political cartoon.
First of all, let us consider the caption: “The Other Islamic Bomb”. I Googled this and the phrase “The Islamic Bomb” is so common that there are books and web sites of the same name and it is clear that the term has found its way into the modern lexicon. So at first the cartoon is a play of words. You mention that you have a problem with the graphic being referred to as a cartoon. The American Heritage Dictionary gives us this definition: b - A drawing representing current public figures or issues symbolically and often satirically: a political cartoon. I suppose that it would have been more proper to call it a “political cartoon” but for brevities sake a cartoon will do.
I enjoy cartoons as I have stated before. Some are down right damning to me but I appreciate them for the artfulness of their message. Speaking of cartoons, Muslims believe that those who create cartoons, publish cartoons, or post and discuss cartoons that they believe are an insult to Mohammad or Islam disserve to be put to death. Is this how you feel as well? I kinda doubt it, but you seem to have taken personally something that was meant to be more intellectually provocative than it is meant to be an existential threat to the object of the satire. In the end this whole thread has been about freedom of speech and I still have the lingering feeling that you don’t get it. That you believe the thin skinned sensitivities of certain ethnic groups trumps public discussion and debate. I hope I am wrong.
Oh yeah,
but el, islam is so terrible, because...'
El,
Seriously though, could you add some perma-links to your two other posts... I'd like to read them.
