Is Islam Incompatible With Freedom Of Speech?

The latest massacre at the hands of Islamist Radicals happened in France. 12 People were killed. 8 were journalists at a publication that did a LOT of satire, and refused to limit themselves to ‘everyone but Mohammed’. Completely in keeping with the standards, laws, and values of The West. 2 were police assigned to protect the Editor at that publication. (Clearly they needed more…) One was a maintenance person and one was a visitor.

Another 11 were wounded. All by 3 attackers.

Eight journalists, two police officers, a maintenance worker and a visitor were killed, said prosecutor Francois Molins. He said 11 people were wounded four of them seriously.

I’ve read the Koran. It tells Muslims to do this kind of thing. Many more times than I care to think about. (It also says it is just fine to lie about it to the infidel…) Frequently saying to kill off those who refuse to submit. In many parts, it is a policy manual for conversion or death. In many cases I’ve worked with Muslims and even in a Muslim dominated company. Individually they are nice folks and easy to work with (for me at least). Then again, the Koran tells “sojourners” in non-Muslim countries to blend in, go along to get along, conform and keep a low profile, until Islam takes over… (Yes, it does say that. I’m just accurately reporting what it says, non-judgmentally.)

So my question is a simple one:

How long will it take for The Powers That Be to decide that Islam is not compatible with Western Democratic values and freedom of speech? There has been ample evidence. Their own book is clear. The hadith and other findings of “clerics” along with their “sermons” are also quite clear. They will not change (since it is their sacred and immutable Koran that sets these rules and behavior) so if they are waiting for Islam to have a “Reformation” they are out of luck.

How long will it take for The Powers That Be to realize that this is asymmetric and needs to be made very symmetric to stop it? Become more like: we kill them as long as they kill Christians. We insult their “prophet” as long as they insult Christ and Christians. They kill journalists for satire, we kill them and publish double the satire.

As long as it is asymmetric ( 8 dead and 11 wounded for at most 3 potentially to be caught ) the attacks will escalate. They see it as a ‘win’. As long as they can kill and expel Christians while killing journalists for saying Islam does not look much like the ‘religion of peace’, attacks will continue (and escalate).

The “end game” of that is exactly what the Islamic Radicals want: A world of all Islam all the time. (Their book tells them to fight for that outcome).

So your choices are very simple, convert or die… or change the ‘politically correct’ and suicidal behaviour to something that is in touch with reality.

What I don’t understand is why TPTB are continuing to push the PC ‘multicultural’ stuff that clearly isn’t working. Is it a desire to destroy any ‘nationalism’ anywhere in the world? Is it a desire to create chaos in nations so that the “world government” becomes a necessity? Is it just naive stupidity? Frankly, I just dont’ get it… But I do get that it just killed another 8 and wounded another 11…

I, too, am Charlie…

The South Park response to such censorship:

Subscribe to feed

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Political Current Events and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

72 Responses to Is Islam Incompatible With Freedom Of Speech?

  1. Cheyne Gordon says:

    Where’s my apology, dude?

    As the dust settles from the attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris, politicians appear on TV, speaking on our defence of democracy, freedom of speech, peace and the rule of law.
    Nowhere do I hear anyone accepting responsibility for what has happened: the changes to our western civilisation brought about by multiculturalism.

    Islam is incompatible with democracy. Period.

    The politicians who allowed immigration from multiple cultures under the misconception that it would be beneficial, now should explain how we can deal with the terrorists in our midst. Sadly, they are now safely retired on their parliamentary pensions, and they express no liability for the current state of affairs.

    Am I Islamophobic? You bet! Haven’t I got a reason?

  2. M Simon says:

    I have read Europeans who say that one day there will be a tipping point and blood will run in the street.

    The real killer? Socialism.

  3. R. de Haan says:

    A horrible attack but a preventable one if the security system hadn’t failed.
    I don’t deny these extremist islamist lunatics don’t pose a problem but it is still a very small group holding millions of people hostage. Just realize that over a million people from Algeria live in France and they are just as shocked. In fact many of them have joined the anti islamic party from Le Penn just to stop the immigration of the extremists. France, so I hear in the news is at war. The real problem however that is going to overshadow all other problems in the world is the upcoming collapse of our financial system and the epicenter of it could very well be right here:

    Liked the video although the article is already somewhat dated (Last year).

  4. Graeme No.3 says:

    The Muslims themselves don’t believe in a multi-cultural society. Most are peaceable but the radicals can always stir up trouble by claiming to be purer in their version of the religion. Islam is split into many sects, not just Sunni and Shia, as events in Syria and Iraq are proving. The same sorts of troubles were occurring there in 960 AD. The same primitive savagery is happening today.
    The reaction of the Establishment in Germany to the mass demonstrations against islamisation and the organising of counter demonstrations by supporters of “multiculturalism” show it will take a long while before this problem is solved.
    In the meantime the general public will get more and more fed up and move away from the established parties. At the last European Parliamentary elections over 25% voted for ‘fringe parties’ who were anti-migrant i.e. largely islamophobic.
    Eventually the European and other western nations will block immigration, but it will be too late, with many muslims born in the west and resentful of the general attitude of society and easily converted to jihad.
    It will require much blood, sweat, toil and tears to resolve this problem.
    I have thought of one possible solution but it isn’t something that one posts on a respectable blog.

  5. R. de Haan says:

    It’s a poison and it’s spreading infecting our own youth. Just think about the Dutch guy who converted to extreme Islam and blew himself up in Iraq killing 25 Iraqi police. His family still can’t explain what happened. All his father can say is that he went crazy. No immigration stop will solve this. The guy was a normal kid who was attending school making good grades. Then he was caught by the extremist websites and was transformed into an extremist in a very short period of time. He disappeared without leaving any message, When the news reported about the attack on the Iraqi police and a reporter claimed the bomber was from the Netherlands the father immediately concluded it was his son. As I said this is a poison that has to be rooted out but at what price…

  6. There’s nothing else on the news here. It has also been condemned by Muslim leaders around Europe.

    Satire, which seems to me to be pointing out the truth in a way that makes it funny (all good comedy has a basis in truth, after all) has annoyed people down the ages when they’re the butt of the joke. Being a satirist has always been a somewhat dangerous occupation, too. When I was young, Dave Allen (an Irish comedian) received death-threats from the IRA and others in the Catholic church for poking fun at the well-known faults and hypocrisies in that religion (including child-molestation). His comedy still has bite nowadays if you watch it again. Even “Life of Brian” resulted in death-threats – just a bit too much Truth in that film and it’s still my favourite.

    Where people are being forced to confront their inconsistencies between what they say and what they do, we should maybe expect some violent reaction. It would of course be better if they instead re-examined their own attitudes and thus remove the basis for the satire, but that doesn’t often happen.

    Although the Muslims I’ve known have been normal peace-loving people and in no way jihadists, the basis of the creed is “convert and submit or die”. That’s a problem. The other problem, as pointed out above, is that there are many sub-sects that disagree with each other as to the precise interpretation of the Book and the oral traditions. Maybe if that goat hadn’t eaten the evidence things would have been more settled.

    There’s been a second shooting in Paris, and though it seems to be unconnected it’s again a jihadist according to the news here.

    France has for a long time been a pretty tolerant society. The problem with terrorist attacks such as this is that in order to protect against them the rest of us must endure armed guards in airports and all public places and longer waits for security checks etc.. Where there are no reasonable ways of telling who is a jihadist (or other type of terrorist), the authorities will use unreasonable ways (such as the NSA looking at all communications) and will most likely make cock-ups now and again. This has resulted in innocent people being killed through misinterpreted intelligence reports or misidentification. In trying to protect against such an insidious threat there are bound to be occasional injustices done. I wonder how long it will be before someone thinks the unthinkable and starts a mass-extermination program (or pogrom)?

  7. Bloke down the pub says:

    Gadaffi didn’t advocate the use of force for the muslim take over of the western world. He was well aware that they would out procreate their hosts and within a generation or two the west would be under sharia law. Sad to say, but the terrorism seen on the streets of Paris will have done us all a favour if it shakes us out of complacency.

  8. philjourdan says:

    As long as you have one in the White house, it will not happen. Obama did not even mention Islam in his excusing of the murders. And I am sure that France, being so politically correct, is not looking for 3 muslim mass murderers. instead they are looking for 3 people of indeterminate gender, race, creed and color. So lock up your grannies. They will be body searched looking for the perps.

  9. R. de Haan says:

    There are doubts. Who leaves and ID in the car that was used for the hit.
    I know conspiracy thinkers can be found everywhere these days but here is the link:

  10. Larry Ledwick says:

    Unfortunately Islam as currently structured and practiced is incompatible with both freedom of speech and democratic government as practiced in the west. It is incompatible with a world view founded on a basis of individual liberty. Assertions to the contrary be damned. It is not Islamophobia to say that, simply recognition of reality and objective examination of both the history and primary sources of the faith/philosophy.

    I have also worked with Muslims and found them to to be pleasant and friendly individuals and co-workers. It is they, the modern moderate Islam who must push for a reformation in Islam or they will be condemning their fellow travelers to generations of slaughter and suffering.

    The radical factions are nothing short of monsters and need to be treated with the same respect granted a rabid dog.

    Islam is both a religion and a philosophy of military conquest. Any objective study of history clearly shows that, and that It is also an historically young religion. It is comparable to the brutal Christian religion during the period of the Spanish Inquisition. It is at its heart centered on the the idea of zealotry and dominance of other religions as documented by its own words and deeds. It (the radical factions) celebrates this sort of violence and until the mainstream of that faith renounce that sort of religious extremism and the medieval view of religious conquest and political dominance it has no place in western cultures beyond a minority component of secular Islam as it matures out of its infant tantrums of violence.

    The only rational response to this sort of violence is direct opposition, and defiance wishful thinking and patting them on the head will not get the job done.

    Je Suis Charlie
    Molon Labe

  11. Larry Ledwick says:

    The best outcome of this atrocity would be for it to be the trigger event to snuff out oppressive Political Correctness. Next time some college rants about politically offensive speech the students should get in their face chanting “Je Suis Charlie”

    The same goes for any situation where “higher authority” attempts to enforce conformity of thought, be it in the climate debate, race relations, censorship of the internet by companies like Facebook or any other place where lock step conformity is enforced through social pressure and PC rules.

  12. gallopingcamel says:

    Some good came out of this dreadful act. The publication in question had a circulation of ~50,000 but the next issue will have twenty times that. In the weeks that follow is seems likely that the circulation will diminish but let’s hope it remains stronger than before.

    Thomas Jefferson had to endure Islamic pirates attacking American ships and the only thing that stopped them was the American Navy and our Marines.

    Radical Islam is still up to the same old tricks. The only argument those extremists understand is force. Forget about using NASA for “Muslim Outreach”. That kind of appeasement simply emboldens the murderous retards from the 6th century. We need leaders like General “Black Jack” Pershing and plenty of pig blood.

  13. Ben Vorlich says:

    To me ISIS and Boko Harem are the true face of Islam as represented by “Islam or the sword” during previous periods of expansion. Perhaps I had an islamaphobe history teacher in the early 60s when I was taught that it was part of the Koran. I’ve worried about it ever since, and have never visited an Islamic country as a policy. Infiltration by Islam is aided by Prince Charles and the left in general.

  14. Larry Ledwick says:

    With all the discussion about islamophobia and what term you should use to refer to the most violent / militant believers in Islam I submit the proper term that both carries the proper connotation and is not open to broad slurs of islamophobia is :

    Salafi jihadist or similar verisions such as Salafic-Jihadist as you might prefer.

  15. Sally says:

    There is no way that our police and security intelligence services can predict and protect society from the majority of attacks by the “enemies within” ie Muslims seeking to use violence to terrorise “Western” democratic countries in order to gain ascendancy. We should allow responsible citizens and especially business owners to carry and conceal hand guns so at least there is a level playing field, so they can protect themselves, their families, their staff and fellow citizens from terrorists attacking them with guns and bombs. Why have we taken away the right of citizens to protect themselves from those who attack them, when the police and governments are unable to protect such citizens?

  16. Chris M says:

    “if they are waiting for Islam to have a “Reformation” they are out of luck.”

    This IS the Moslem reformation underway! They are returning to the true teaching of the Koran – with the result being violence, jihad, destruction and misery.

  17. Paul Hanlon says:

    I have to say I’m conflicted on this, and I apologise in advance for any offence caused. I utterly condemn the killings, and my sympathies go out to the families. AFAIK there is still a fourth member at large, and God only knows what she has planned. My daughter lives in Paris about ten minutes from the Charlie Hebdo premises.

    There is wall to wall coverage on this in the media, which isn’t surprising because it is after all one of their own. The unrelenting message is that they should have the right to offend if they so choose, no matter how gratuitous or demeaning to others. Why?

    Further, those people whom they offend are only allowed a very narrow window within which they can vent their outrage, basically amounting to a strongly worded letter, or a protest march which the original offenders can safely ignore. There’s a disconnect here.

    Look at the way climate skeptics have been depicted in the media. Holocaust Deniers, Flat Earthers, Birthers, only fit for locking up and castrating, ultimately culminating in the “Splattergate” video showing people being blown up for having a different point of view.

    Now, while I would never have done it myself, if Fran what’s her name had her offices firebombed, I probably would have condemned it for the extra importance it gave her and her Fascist friends, rather than the act itself. The pen is only mightier than the sword when it is used as a pen. When it is used as a sword, people are just going to use a bigger sword to smite it.

    I also object to the hypocrisy around the right to offend. If a woman or a person of colour was depicted in that way, there would be outrage at the depiction. Indeed, from a link over at WUWT, it has already happened. Further, if we are allowing this right, then should we be offended if a Muslim exercises their right to free speech in an offensive way. Just as there are passages in the Koran which fundamentalists highlight to justify their actions, there are also passages in the Bible that some fundamentalists use to justify their world view, just as I’m sure there are in the Torah or the Pali Canon.

    The three gunmen were French, and from what I have read, had fairly mundane lives up to the time they were radicalised. What needs to be addressed are the circumstances that left them open and susceptible to radicalisation.

  18. E.M.Smith says: Haan:

    It ought not to require a ‘security system’ to live in a western democracy and publish a satire magazine. While the “proximal cause” might well have been insufficient armed guards for the ‘threat’, the simple fact is that the threatening folks would simply have upped their team size and armament to match the observed level of defense. These folks are not dumb, do their intelligence gathering, size up the target, and are patient enough to wait for you to drop your guard.


    The “root cause” is an ideology that glories death, that provides moral cover for murder, and that explicitly demands of adherents that they kill folks not in the “club”. ( I’ve read their book. It is filled with times and ways that it is appropriate to kill the “infidel”. It is the notion that Islam is “Christianity Light” that is broken. It is not.) In the context of their book, what they did was a positive and desirable thing; something that guarantees them entrance to heaven, and that is to be glorified and admired. It is that which is the root cause, and being as it is essential to do what their book says, it is not going to diminish nor go away over time.

    @Graham No. 3:

    The Koran specifically directs that Islam is to take over the world and that there is no room for the infidel in the end state. Anyone who thinks otherwise has not read the book and is accepting propaganda as fact. In particular, it gives specific guidance that “sojourners” are to keep a low profile ( i.e. be nice quiet and polite “not a radical” Muslim ) but that once things are majority Islamic, toe the line and be more hard core. It also states that it is no sin to lie to the infidel in the furtherance of Islam – so ANY Muslim talking head on the news / TV / whatever who says they are the “Religion of Peace” or are fine with a “multicultural” world and all simply can NOT be trusted, at all. It might be that individual’s belief, or it might be a bald faced lie. No way to know. “Conversion by the sword” is still just fine and dandy … ( and there are specific bits of guidance given about when and how to employ said sword…) Oh, and any claim that that is “just like in the Bible” and that we don’t run around being all violent like the Bible so it’s OK for their book to be similar is a “lie to the infidel” that’s ‘just fine’ and ignores that Muslims are to accept every single word in the Koran as sacred and immutable and to be followed.

    This is NOT an anti-Islamic ‘rant’. It is my best dispassionate description of what I read in the Koran. Not embellished nor enhanced. Read it with a flat non-emotional tone.

    @Simon Derricutt:

    Any “condemnation” in English is “for show” and for keeping a low profile as a “sojourner”. What is said in Arabic in the Mosque is all that matters. That is the ‘truth’…

    So ask the Muslims and a large number (majority of the non-sojourners) will say that Charlie “got what the deserved” for “insulting the Prophet”. THAT is what matters, and it is entirely incompatible with western freedom of expression.

    BTW, just LOVE Dave Allen…

    Yes, the “unreasonable” loss of freedom becomes acceptable… so one MUST ask:

    Could folks in positions of power be advancing “multiculturalism” for effect? So that there is a pressure to accept the “unreasonable” loss of liberty?

    Sure, it’s a hypothetical. But a very rational one. The British Empire in particular has a long history of “mixing peoples” to break cultures, and provide a ‘need’ for their ‘control’ to keep things peaceful. “Firing for effect” in a political “leads to empire” kind of way. (See the design of Iraq for one example; and the division of Palestine / Israel for another. ) So this is NOT a ‘paranoid moment’. It is simply looking at the past actions of those folks in long term political power and asking “Might they be doing it again, since it is in their playbook?”

    (For other examples, see old Rome. Not the least of which was scattering Israel all over Europe and making 20% of Hispania Jews. There are dozens of examples…)

    @Another Ian:

    Will do… in about an hour…

    @Bloke Down The Pub:

    The formal name of it (at least in Israel) is “The war of the womb”. Yes, they have a name for it… and it is a real and deliberate strategy. Oh, and since the ‘kids’ are born into Islam, and the Koran specifies that leaving Islam is a mandatory death sentence, it’s a guaranteed win. Those who don’t toe the line are called “honor killings”… And effective but fundamentally evil system.

    @R. de Haan:

    I’ve done similar. Left ID in the car (badge to get into building) when I didn’t want it on me where I was going, then forgot to take it out when I wanted it again. So guys going to do a ‘hit’ leave the ID in the car (so if killed it’s not a lead) then in the adrenalin rush of the getaway, the ID in the glove box is low on the level of awareness…

    @Larry Ledwick:

    IMHO, the simple and obvious thing to do is that any time there is such an event, ALL immigration of ANY Muslim is put on indefinite hold. ALL travel of non-diplomatic folks (i.e. tourism) into ‘the West’ and from the West into any majority Islamic state) is also put ‘on hold’. No tourist dollars. No immigration. Anyone on a visitor visa must leave when it expires and there is a 100% ’round up and export’ requirement. Such ‘hold’ is to be in place for no less than the average interval between such ‘events’ ( I’d guess about 2 years right now). All permits for building Mosques are withdrawn. They can start over.

    Until the average Muslim gets some kind of penalty (and Islam writ large sees a ‘loss’) nothing will change. So some kinds of penalties need to be applied. Yes, this violates the western idea of punishing the responsible individuals, but it is appropriate as it is Islamic ideals that are the root cause, so all of Islam needs to be shown that what they support is not working.

    And yes, I agree on the “Je suis Charlie” chanting…


    Yup. We’ve “been there, done that” before. Direct and overwhelming force is what works.

    BTW, I’d also advocate that the various military and police forces advise that all anti-terror activities will be conducted with bullets dipped in bacon grease. Among many Muslims that implies that being shot with said bullet prevents entry to heaven… Might think twice about doing Jihad for heaven when pig grease is on the bullet that will kill them…

    @Ben Vorlich:

    I’ve read the Koran (a few times). It’s in there. Clear as can be. Your teacher was just being accurate.

    @Paul Hanlon:

    The West made a fundamental shift from the Bible as literal truth to the Bible as metaphorical truth, subject to interpretation. Islam holds the Koran to be the direct and pure word of God as transmitted through The Prophet and NOT subject to re-write or interpretation. Even to the point of requiring adherents to learn Arabic to get it straight from the original…

    There is NO comparison of (now) metaphorical and often ignored ‘advisory’ and ‘historical’ text in the Bible and the ‘mandatory literal word of God’ in the Koran. You have bought into one of the apologist “Christianity Lite” forms of argument used deliberately by Islam to disarm your critical thinking about it. Sorry…

    The only cure is a simple one: Get a copy of the Koran, or read it on line, and remember that what is says is to be done. It is an explicit rule book. For example:

    There are lots of downloadable versions ( I don’t know how much they vary from Arberry) so easy to get.

    Sura XLVII


    (About verse 4)

    When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks,
    then, when you have made wide slaughter among them,
    tie fast the bonds;
    then set them free, either by grace or ransom.,
    till the war lays down its loads.
    So it shall be; and if God had willed,
    He would have avenged Himself upon them;
    but that He may try some of you by means of others.
    And those who are slain in the way of God, He
    will not send their works astray,
    He will guide them, and dispose of their minds aright,
    and He will admit them to Paradise,
    that He has made known to them.

    I’d say ” wide slaughter among them” is pretty clear…

    Select verses from Volume 2 are here:

    I’ve not been ready to go back and do the same for Volume 1 as it wasn’t pleasant (emotionally it is distressing) and I’ve got to earn a living so not had the time. Maybe sometime…

    UPDATE: Sorry for the long unintended quote. I’ve now trimmed it back to what was intended (instead of the entire top half of the posting…)

  19. E.M.Smith says:

    Oh, for those who wonder if the actions of Islam have a “chilling effect” on political commentary and / or satire: I can guarantee it does. Back when they went after that Dutch newspaper for a picture of Mohammed, my “mind wandered” as it does… and, unbidden, an image came to mind…. Now I’ve carefully NOT shared this image with much of anyone. Why? For the simple reason that I didn’t want to be seen as “getting in the grill” of Islam. Given recent events, I now see it as cowardice. Not wanting to be a coward, my vision must be shared. (The nutcases seem to have forgotten the “law of unintended consequences”…)

    So what I’d thought was “That Dutch image wasn’t offensive. What would be really offensive is…” and the image flashed… Like being told “Don’t think of an Elephant”… it just happens anyway… A more or less pig-face, with turban and beard. Saying, roughly, “Hi, my name is Ed. Ed Mo’-Ham”. With the humor being a pig calling himself “More Ham” in Southern dialect… and the implicit mental rearrangement of the name being a “you did it not me” structural mind game. But I was sure that would likely end up being turned into something of a “Kilroy Was Here” kind of image so suppressed it. Were it not for the “don’t want to offend” PC override, I’d likely have shared (just as an interesting pun-game of sorts). Now? Well, now I’m not seeing where being P.C. is going to work out in the long run… So if anyone wants to use the image, feel free. Just don’t give me credit! ;-)

    See, what’s missed in the minds of the Evil and PC is that for “folks like me” we just think of “stuff like that” at the drop of a ‘noun clause’. There are a hundred ‘connections’ that fire off from any one such stimulus, and it has nothing to do with political intent or desire to hurt. It’s kind of on the fringe of Touretts Syndrome in a way. Ask me about “the Pope’s (mode of) dress” and in addition to seeing the Pope’s “Vestments”, I also see the Pope in a Dress, and the Pope with “dressing” (think “turkey and…”) and … I am constantly suppressing the secondary and tertiary links as otherwise I tend to giggle at way too many inappropriate times … Every so often I’ll share a particularly odd one, but mostly I just keep it hidden. And there is nothing that can be done to “fix” it, as it is just how associative memory works. The source of endless puns, satire, and all sorts of oddities. No amount of ‘classes’ or ‘training’ or ‘sensitivity’ will prevent that from happening. It just does.

    Most importantly, it has absolutely NO connection to any “attitude” pro or con toward the subject. Frankly, most of the time I get giggle items about things that I’m “pro” simply because I’m most often involved with them. I finally learned to stop sharing them with friends as they were often about my friends… and it seems most folks have no sense of humor when it comes to themselves; and can not accept that “it isn’t about me” and it “isn’t about them”; that it’s just a structure-of-thought-storage connection artifact.

    Oh Well.

  20. EM – thanks for the extra lesson. I’m also reminded of Salman Rushdie, and Cat Stevens (as a Muslim convert renamed Yusuf) as a man of peace saying that the death-sentence fatwah was in fact correct. There was later a bit of backing-away in that it was only legally correct if you read the Koran, but it does point out the dangers of any insult to the religion.

    The full quote came in the email, and that’s worth saving since there’s more there than your cut-down version.

    It’s also worth noting that in traditional Japanese culture it’s honourable to lie for your boss, and in Indian culture it’s only bad form to be late if you don’t make up an excuse, even if that is obviously a lie. I suspect that the Japanese culture gas changed from dealing with the West, and that the Indian polite lies also would need to change outside the traditional culture. I don’t know whether Islamic tradition will change over the next few centuries to be compatible with Western culture. I suppose the other problem is that families of 10 kids or more are common in the Arab culture, so a generation or two down the line there will be a lot more of them if they keep the precepts, and of course not so many if they lapse from the religion and naturalise in their new country (risking of course death for apostasy). The problems look like they’re going to get bigger.

  21. E.M.Smith says:


    In most of the USA, we do still have the right to “keep and use arms”, though in most places “bearing” them has become a luxury for the politically well connected. So many store owners can and do have guns “in the shop”.

    No idea about the EU and other places.

    @Simon Derricutt:

    You are most welcome.

    I just hope we don’t end up back at the founding / naming of France. Named for the throwing axe of the Germanic (Franks) tribe that last chased Islam out of France…

  22. gary turner says:

    Linked to my 3 followers on Twitter

  23. Paul Hanlon says:

    I get that you are angry, but to misinterpret and mischaracterise me as an apologist for what happened is a bit of a reach, to put it mildly. The West may have moved on from a strict interpretation of the Bible, but Christianity hasn’t, just as Islam hasn’t, but I think it would be fair to say that most Muslims have.

    I was subjected to the exact same Fire and Brimstone “you are all sinners” bullshit, and as a result have only entered a Catholic church for weddings and funerals since I was fourteen. I am not even an atheist, and I most assuredly have not “bought into one of the apologist “Christianity Lite” forms of argument used deliberately by Islam to disarm your critical thinking about it”.


    I strayed from the strict interpretation of your post, and pointed out that we in the West need to sort out our own double standards first before assuming that we have all the answers, and that what we say goes. So to keep to your original question, the answer is No, Islam is not compatible with free speech, but neither is any other written down religion.

  24. omanuel says:

    Thanks, E.M. Smith, for having the courage to discuss this issue openly.

    My spiritual advisor, the late Sri Eknath Easwaran, quoted spiritual verses from the Koran as well as other religious literature. I suspect some Muslim sects are more dogmatic and violent than others.

  25. Power Grab says:

    Since EM and others have done more study of the Islamic writings and culture, I want to describe a situation and get your impressions of it. I know a family who lives in an apartment that is immediately downstairs from a Muslim family that is (if my sources are correct) composed of 2 parents and 2 young-adult-age daughters. The windows of the upstairs apartment are covered with aluminum foil. All day there are heavy footsteps of varying tempo heard from the upstairs apartment. They are usually quick steps. Frequently there sounds as if someone were falling down or being thrown down on the floor. They have described it as living underneath a dojo. Other times, the pattern of heavy steps reminds one of the sound one might hear if the upstairs family had a small pet and let it out occasionally, to chase it around the room. No voices are heard, with the exception that a visitor one time heard a female voice make a distressing sound, and a male voice raised in expletives. Fairly regular bedtime hours are observed, when the heavy footsteps and thuds don’t take place. One member of the family reported that every morning around 7 a.m. there is a pattern of repetitive thuds on the floor of the upstairs bedroom that goes on for a long time. That family member has moved bedrooms because of the disturbance of the morning thuds.

    So after hearing about this situation, I have been wondering if there are daily practices of Muslims that involve dropping to the floor and banging, say, one’s head on the ground heavily. Or does familial abuse involve throwing family members to the floor, etc. It is puzzling to think that such abuse could be taking place while no outcry is heard.

    What do you all think?

  26. Since I also get those non-PC thoughts that can easily offend people (my daughter calls them “dad-jokes”) I’d probably not survive long in a prophet-oriented society.

  27. Wayne Job says:

    Thanks EM for being upfront and honest. I read a koran translated directly from Arabic in 1850 by a an English scholar. Islam is nothing more than a political control system with strict rules for the average idiot. Absolute crock of shitte.

  28. Larry Ledwick says:

    @Power Grab says:
    12 January 2015 at 4:21 am

    Regarding the aluminum foil, there are several explanations for that. First is it really aluminum foil or aluminized mylar sun screen film? Mylar film is used to keep solar heat gain down in a hot climate or to give privacy, ie you can see out but others cannot see in. The tell on that is if the neighbors can see through the windows at night when interior lights are on.

    I also have aluminum foil on my bedroom windows, but I work a night shift and the apartment complex has area lighting which even at night with the normal blinds closed makes the bedroom too light for me to get good sleep. The aluminum foil is except for small pin holes and cracks totally opaque and even when there is snow on the ground and bright sun it is dark enough to sleep well with the foil on the window.
    It is also often used to screen lights from windows to make a room into a dark room for photography (not much needed any more thanks to digital photography).

    Aluminum foil was also used by marijuana grow operations so an outside passerby would not see the 24 hour grow lights.

    The last usage that comes to mind is to make it next to impossible for exterior surveillance and help minimize electronic eavesdropping via tempest monitoring.

    Especially with the old CRT type computer monitors, it was trivial for someone nearby to see everything that appeared on the computer monitor by monitoring the electromagnetic signals the computer gave off as the computer monitor modulated the high voltage signal that created the electron beam which scanned the computer monitor screen.

    So you have a full spectrum of possibilities.

    Regarding the thumping could be anything from a rambunctious small child in bare feet and a carpet free floor to a pet that likes to jump on and off furniture and poor sound insulation construction. I have a neighbor who “walks hard”. I call her little miss hard walker, as she over strides as she walks and pounds the ground with her heels as she walks. She sounds like she weighs 300 pounds but really is a thin athletic female of about 120# who just has a very emphatic walking style. (Her knees and hips will hate her when she is in her 60’s from the constant pounding)

    It is easy for you imagination to read all sorts of sinister things into what you hear and see in an apartment complex (see Jimmy Steward and rear window)
    This is another useful application of Occam’s Razor, benign explanations are more likely than something sinister.

  29. w.w.wygart says:

    Thanks E.M for speaking your mind and putting up with the rest of us speaking our minds. Thanks everyone else for speaking your minds as well.

    What is truly remarkable is the degree to which educated and intelligent people in the West self-sensor to avoid criticism to the point where they allow themselves to become politically silenced. What is equally remarkable is how readily modern liberality allows the “demopaths” in its midst to subvert democratic institutions for use as political weapons to destroy those very same democratic institutions.

    In Paris we had a perfect example of a Muslim sub-population that has demanded, and has been largely granted, the liberty to take blood revenge for anything it perceives as ‘offensive’ to itself and transfer all responsibility for the results from itself to the self-defined ‘provocations’ committed by the larger society. The follow on move is to demand protection for any retribution against themselves, even as it makes another bloody attack against members of its perceived culture-enemy – the Jews – when no provocations were committed by the Jews except for them to exist.

    Lets be perfectly clear, whatever your opinion about Charlie Hebdo and the worthiness of its editorial policy, the subsequent attacks and murder of Jewish Parisians was very deliberate and premeditated and was carried out with the expectation that any retribution against the attackers communities would be prevented by the larger society. Even as France’s Muslim population is demanding protection and equal treatment for itself before the law it is in fact conducting an ethnic cleansing of the Jewish population of France in broad daylight – and the French don’t seem to mind very much.

    The French don’t seem to get it – they are next. Or, maybe they will now.

    The Islamists in France have been perfectly clear with their intentions, it is their goal to make France into a Muslim caliphate, they see their objective within sight within just a generation or two. This is fascinating to watch unfold. If anyone else has ever wondered what the original Muslim conquests of the Middle East, North Africa, and Spain actually looked like, we seem to be getting a replay in our own lifetime – immensely brutal and swift. It remains to be seem if another Charles Martel will rise from the French to defend their civilization.

    Spoken as a not-a-jew and the grandson of a Frenchman.


  30. w.w.wygart says:


    Interesting though.

    Two questions to ask yourself when evaluating your statement, ” I suspect some Muslim sects are more dogmatic and violent than others,” – which is true enough. First question: Suffi or not? Suffiism being essentially an entirely different religion form Islam, they wear only the ‘outer garment’ of Islam [but don’t repeat that where any other Muslim might hear you]. Second question: how Arabized is the group in question? Arabized rhymes with barbarized. The thing that has really changed in the last hundred years with Islam worldwide is how increasingly Arabized Islam has become worldwide. Still, there do seem to be some fundamental[ist] flaws contained in the Koran that others here have made note of above.

    Eknath Easwaran was an interesting character, he managed to take on board the best of both the traditional Hindustani and Catholic religions he was brought up around and synthesize that understanding into something modern and wonderful. So, you have to ask yourself if he was drawing from the ‘passages’ of the Koran he meditated upon anything like what a native born Muslim would?

    People take from texts [any kind of a text], generally, what the bring to them. Take for example the famous passage from Luke: “He said to them, ‘But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.’” [Luke 22:36, NIV]

    You will find some Muslims today quoting that passage as evidence that Jesus was also a ‘man of the sword’ and was exhorting his disciples at the last supper to take up arms ‘a la jihad’. That’s an interpretation a modern Christian could never make, because in modern Christianity it is immediately understood that it could only have meant a ‘spiritual sword’ not a real weapon. Or, if you are a little more with it you might understand it as Jesus consciously fulfilling the biblical prophesy that he should be “placed in the ranks of criminals,” the so called Prophesy Fulfillment Theory. In no case should any literate Christian conclude that the remark, taken in its proper context should, shows Jesus suddenly giving anyone permission to use violence against anyone for any reason.

    Islamist jihadists seem to have a need to see Jesus as equivalent to Mohammad in this way rather than Jesus’ inferior in this way, so the passage is always interpreted in jihadist terms by them.


  31. omanuel says:


    Thanks for your comments. I guess that I am as bigoted as anyone else because at the core I am convinced that we are all inter-connected and all humanity will sink or swim together.

    No proof, just a gut feeling that we will learn to work together for the benefit of all, or all humanity will perish.

  32. w.w.wygart says:

    Extinction is a possibility, but seems very unlikely – we’re just so damned good at surviving – usually at someone else’s expense.

    My view of Nature is that species and populations can perish either in whole or in part and it is pretty ruthless about excluding the ones that cannot adapt from advancing into the future. I don’t see any good reason to suppose humanity is any exception to this rule except as a conscious choice – the moral and modern choice by the way.

    Modernity and technological evolution seems unstoppable at this point. The big questions is how humane the transitions will be and if those with power will lighten their grip enough to share the wealth.

    As my buddy φ observed recently on FB:

    ~ Understanding how to generate wealth is an economics problem.

    ~ Understanding not to desire to keep all of it for yourself is a spiritual problem.

    ~ Understanding the difference is an intellectual problem.

    The way I look at it if we are to continue to evolve and thrive as a global civilization we must be able to update the global cultural ‘operating system’ to create a more humane and less dysfunctional global society.

    When under stress societies desire to revert to their foundation myths. If you are Lakota you idealize hunting buffalo on the prairie; if you are a Yankee you idealize small holder farming, deer hunting, and agrarian living; if you are Russian you idealize the Romanovs and the Orthodox Church; and if you are Muslim you idealize the wave of conquests that established the first great Caliphates.

    None of those are ideals that will serve us well in the future – they aren’t serving us very well now. At some point you have to stop putting patches on an archaic, outdated, and bug-ridden O/S’s, reformat the hard drive and download a new O/S that has the powerful new features that a globe-girdling-advanced-technological society based on global information exchange needs to operate properly.

    Unfortunately, as partially evolved monkeys, the last thing most people want to do is dump the old O/S, and cultural authority structures usually prohibit the attempt anyway. However, there are cultural deconditioning agents and advanced techniques for their use that can accomplish this change, but unfortunately almost every society on earth outside of the rainforest prohibits their use or possession – can’t have people taking the contents of their minds into their own hands can we?

    I’m really not sure about Islam, ideological control seems too deeply scripted into their program I’m not sure change is really possible for them in the necessary time frame.

    We’ll see, the Dar al Islam seems to having its Thirty Years War right now and we all know how that one went.


  33. omanuel says:


    Perhaps the downtrodden – whether females, blacks or Muslims, etc. – react in anger.

    My concern is that incompetent and delusional fools that took totalitarian control of society in 1945 – “to save themselves and the world from nuclear annihilation” – will now turn Christians against Muslims against Hindus against . . .

    in a desperate, last-ditch effort to stay in control.

    I am doing everything possible to get out the information they foolishly tried to hide from the public in 1945:

    Click to access Solar_Energy_For_Review.pdf

  34. Larry Ledwick says:

    EM when you get a chance I have a comment in limbo spam filter

  35. E.M.Smith says:

    @Omanuel: While people may all be bound together, there are many ideologies that could sink and provide a collective improvement. ..

  36. omanuel says:

    @E.M. Smith

    I agree. The question is whether or not world leaders are encouraging world strife.

  37. E.M.Smith says:

    @Another Ian:

    One can hope that some day some Muslim Leader can show their people what real peace is. It is tolerance for others, as they tolerate you. We will see how long he stays alive.

    @Ben Vorlich:

    There are at least 3 “faces of Islam” in my opinion.

    1) The “Average Joe”. Most people pay lip service to their religion and ‘follow the forms’ as that is what they grew up doing. Not really understanding it, just doing the motions and “going along to get along”. (How many Christians really understand the “Christology” issues that divide / divided Catholics and Protestants and lead to centuries of war? “Solo Scriptura” means nothing to most…) These are the “Seems Like an OK Guy” folks, since most folks are “OK Guys” at heart IMHO.

    2) “Sojourners”. IF Muslims are a minority population in a non-Sharia or non-Muslim land, the Koran gives specific directions to them. Basically, do what it takes to come across as a Nice Guy and not cause any waves. “Go along to get along” with the Infidel if needed. This is NOT what “true Islam” looks like as it is a prescribed “cover story” behaviour.

    3) The True Believers. These are the folks who dedicate themselves to the teachings. This is the “true face” of Islam as the religious officials want it to be. The world is to be converted, or killed. The Book is a literal word of God guide book (and it says often how and when to kill the infidel…). These are the “radical” islamists, and their Imams, leaders, priests, clerics, whatever name you give them.

    Unfortunately, there are many more than the 10% in that #3 group, and it only takes 10% of hard core folks to control a society. Thus, as soon as Muslims are 51% in any location, you lose all of the #2 folks, and the #1 folks take their guidance and orders from the #3 (structural to the religion). See “Christian Lebanon” and the transition to the terrorist dominated Lebanon of today as an example, and, as what is the destiny of Europe as of now.

    (That is not a political statement, it is a statement of observed facts and events.)

    @Paul Hanlon:

    I did not characterize YOU as an apologist. I was pointing out that the argument you were making was from the apologist side / orientation. Big difference.

    Also, please do not read “emotion” into my text or CAPS use. I almost always use CAPS, not for emotional (“shouting”) purposes, but to make it clear when a small word that is critical might be missed (like NOT) in a rapid read. When typing I usually enter a “flat affect mode” to assure the text carries the information. Substantially all emotion read into text is wrong. It is what you bring to the text, not what the writer wrote. It’s terribly hard to “emotionally load” text and have it be read with the same feeling. So I don’t.

    BTW, big difference between Biblical “violence” and Koranic violence. The Bible has a little of it scattered through a lot of what I’d call “good advice” and fun stories. The Koran has loads of it, with a few (nearly trivial) references to Christ and Mary, and very little good advice. What ‘advice’ it has often comes in the form of strict edicts. (How to divorce and split property. That a Muslim may capture infidel girls and open a whore house, but must not use Muslim girls. etc. Yes, that one is in there…) So any attempt at moral equivalency between the two books is bankrupt. They are just very different texts.

  38. omanuel says:

    Now that Western Europe and the US are under communist control, equally fanatical Muslim groups may be the last barrier to a tyrannical, one-world government.

  39. Jason Calley says:

    @ E.M. “One can hope that some day some Muslim Leader can show their people what real peace is. It is tolerance for others, as they tolerate you. We will see how long he stays alive. ”


  40. p.g.sharrow says:

    @Jason; That will happen. He is hidden to protect him until his time is ripe. pg

  41. E.M.Smith says:

    @Jason & P.G.:

    While I generally agree with the Baha’i attitudes, they are heavily persecuted in Muslim nations, so I find it difficult to hold them up as a flavor of reformed Islam that understands true peace… but they are on the right track, IMHO.

    And per “time is ripe”, there is an odd cycle to religious history, were there are great sea changes on about a 700 year basis (rather like the climate cycle 1/2 Bond Events…)

    I don’t know which leads and which is the result…

    But, every time there is a dramatic change of religion, the society tends to collapse. Or is it that every time the society collapses there is a dramatic change of religion?…

    Rome dumped pagan for Christianity in 300 AD, the empire split, then the West fell about 200 years later with 535 AD to about 800 AD being very dark ages. Then the East fell to Islam at the next turn (about 1400 AD) and the Roman Empire was no more… One must wonder…

    Christian zealots expanded Europe into the “New World”, and now, about 700 years later we are turning to “Secular Humanism”… just as Europe is hitting the dumper and North America is following as fast as it can. ( I give it about 20 years for Europe, maybe 50 for the USA. Tops. Something will break…)

    Islam ran onto the world scene about 700 AD, and reached a peak about 1400. Downhill for a long time now, only recently returning to a more violent form (and one wonders if that could be called a ‘new religion’… it isn’t the same as the religion of the Ottoman Empire, but is a close cousin…). IMHO that’s an open question. Continued decline, or resurgence in new form.

    At any rate, as Islam takes over Europe, the “old Empire” of the EU values will cease to exist.

    By all this ‘reckoning’, The “New World” got rolling on a new form in about 1700 (what with the government being ‘not royalty’ and the general thrust being Christian, but without a Pope or Government setting the rules. That would argue for about 2400 as the “sell by” date. Then again, if you date the start from 1492, it’s only 2192 …

    Or it all may just be nonsense based on cloud vision type correlations… or more likely based on a change of climate leading to modest chaos that causes folks to dump the “old comfort” since it didn’t comfort much…

  42. p.g.sharrow says:

    There is no doubt social chaos breeds Religious revivals. Early in their development they inspire Hope and Change, but later as they gain political power the rent seekers take control and build their Empires. Later as the hierarchy are threatened with loss of control things get nasty. That 700 plus year cycle was recognized by the Egyptians and Astrologers as a great cycle of human behavior. 340years up, 340 years down. Just where you put the “ZERO” would have great deal to do your view of future developments. Ben Franklin created the concept of “Americans” in 1750s. I think that America has more to give the world over the next 100 years, so this period is more of a minor time of chaos in our world that happens every 60 or so years. Remember your electronics, There is 5 significant divisions in a quarter of a sine wave. The present major change over is in the world of the Muslim. They have had their 700 plus years of increase and are nearly at the end of their 700 plus demise. A dangerous animal indeed is one that is dying. A rebirth to peace is promised after they grow tired of the smell of their own blood. pg

  43. tom0mason says:

    In keeping with the spirit of ‘freedom of speech’ here is a link to a piece on Mohammed’s image

    I post this only for those who will not be offended and enjoy freedom, for all others look away now!

  44. Paul Hanlon says:

    Taking my cue from the other posters, I’d like to thank you for having the courage to provide a forum for what is a very contentious issue, and also for the right to an unedited reply.
    I read your original post on the Koran when you posted it, and other than the bits and pieces one hears along the way, that is the sum total of my knowledge of that religion. For better or worse, religion has been pretty much subsumed by politics and science, so I haven’t spent much time with it. Knowing you to be a “bend over backwards to be fair” kind of guy, I’ve no issues with your characterisation of it, and you’re right, you have to look long and hard to find calls to violence in the Bible.

    Another posting of yours that held a lot of resonance for me was your Be the Mirror posting. It was the first time I saw in words the way I’ve conducted myself most of my life. The problem is, that this is as you say, an asymmetric war. You’re fighting ghosts. Just when you think you’ve exorcised them, another couple pop out of the woodwork.

    Ultimately it boils down to what people want as the end result. Do you want to be seen as having prevailed over and emasculated “these people”, have them subjugated and under your complete control or just not there any more, or do you just want to be able to get on with your life in peace and not be in fear and under threat of constant random terrorist events.

    If the first way, then you commit atrocities of your own. Blow them up or shoot them up coming out of Friday prayers. Announce that you lubricate your bullets with ham grease. Make their day to day lives miserable with constant searches. Openly spy on them. Maybe even start up your own paramilitary organisation which you deny having any involvement in, so that you can be seen as a peacemaker. Lock them up for the slightest misdemeanour, and deny them justice.

    If that sounds familiar, it’s pretty much exactly what the British tried during the first half of “The Troubles”, and it was the best recruitment / publicity campaign that the IRA ever had. They had people queuing up to be volunteers. They even got help from other disaffected British people, and Americans rooting for the underdog.

    The other way is to do the hard yards, and win hearts and minds. You start off by differentiating the terrorists from ordinary Muslims as Larry Ledwick pointed out upthread. You lionise those Muslims who have worked hard and made something of themselves. You distance yourself from the more extreme forms of parody against the people (but not ban it). You engage with them, and try to get them to engage more with the political process, make them feel included, because right now they don’t.

    You stop trying to “fix” the Middle East problem, instead ring fencing it as best as possible from the rest of the World and let them get on with it. Nothing will demonstrate better what awaits your Muslims if they prevail. You get your media “on message” and bang it home as much as you can. At every opportunity, you point out that the Salifists have killed way more Muslims than Westerners, and that their intentions towards them and Islam are not honourable.

    By doing that you seperate the terrorists from their natural base. Ordinary Muslims feel more comfortable about informing on the bad guys because they feel part of the solution and have as much to lose as the next guy if an atrocity is carried out. It might take a half to a whole generation before the results start to show through, but they will be enduring and lasting.

    Or we can try it the other way and carry on having this conversation a hundred years from now.

  45. philjourdan says:

    @Simon Derricutt – I destroyed all my Cat Stevens records then, and have not listened to a single song of his since. But your point is well taken.

  46. omanuel says:

    I oppose all dogmatic tyranny, . . .

    but I personally fear the expansion of tyrannical communist control of 2/3 of the globe today even more than I fear tyrannical Muslim control of the other 1/3 of the globe.

    Stalin’s form of dishonest government science conveyed the false impression science and spirituality are opponents rather than two separate paths to the same truths.

    Elimination of dishonest government science will reduce the alienation of all religious fanatics – Christian, Muslim, etc. – from scientific truths.

  47. philjourdan says:

    @Paul Hanlon – how old are you? I ask because your experience with the Church sounds like mine as a child too. But the Church has changed. That does not mean it is perfect, but I think you might be surprised.

  48. Paul Hanlon says:

    I’m 53. Wow, that looks old when I write it down. I certainly don’t feel it. So around ’75 when I stopped attending. The Catholic church was already losing congregation at that point, at least here in Ireland, and then all the other revelations about child molestation came up. It was particularly bad here. I was never interfered with, although I was alone in a room on a few occasions with a priest who was subsequently found to have engaged in that behaviour.

    Yes, they have ameliorated their message (they’ve had to), and I believe that congregations are rising, particularly with the influx of Polish people who have settled here. But really, I’m past all that now. I still have problems with “authority” figures telling me what to do, but then I always was a bit of a square peg. I prefer to plough my own furrow, and let the chips fall where they may.

  49. RobL says:

    Maybe technology will save us; Very high probability of AI happening in next 25 years, and superintelligence 10-15 years beyond that.

    But agree that Islam is a huge problem – not compatible with enlightenment/western ideals. A system of thinking/culture that brooks no dissent or criticism and that gives all the power and control to old/married men at the cost of everyone else’s happiness (including unmarried young men). Kill homosexuals, atheists, apostates, ‘heretics’, mutilate daughters, force women into marriage (rape), murder rebellious daughters or daughters that are raped by men the family did not choose. Islamic countries have not even ratified the UN convention of human rights as it is not compatible with Sharia.

    It is an abject failure as a culture – mostly discarding the developmentally positive contribution that women can make. I doubt that any Islamic nation (possibly excepting Persians of Iran), or Islam as a whole could maintain or grow their technology level without the West/East to drive industry and innovation.

  50. R. de Haan says:

    E.M.Smith says:
    11 January 2015 at 9:30 pm Haan:

    It ought not to require a ‘security system’ to live in a western democracy and publish a satire magazine. While the “proximal cause” might well have been insufficient armed guards for the ‘threat’, the simple fact is that the threatening folks would simply have upped their team size and armament to match the observed level of defense. These folks are not dumb, do their intelligence gathering, size up the target, and are patient enough to wait for you to drop your guard.


    The “root cause” is an ideology that glories death, that provides moral cover for murder, and that explicitly demands of adherents that they kill folks not in the “club”. ( I’ve read their book. It is filled with times and ways that it is appropriate to kill the “infidel”. It is the notion that Islam is “Christianity Light” that is broken. It is not.) In the context of their book, what they did was a positive and desirable thing; something that guarantees them entrance to heaven, and that is to be glorified and admired. It is that which is the root cause, and being as it is essential to do what their book says, it is not going to diminish nor go away over time”.

    E. M. these guy’s were known terrorists and they shouldn’t be walking the streets in the first place.
    In the mean time I watched some of our world leaders walk the Paris streets in the name of freedom and unity. Among them some of the worst totalitarians of our times with blood on their hands and zero respect for human rights. As long as our establishment continues to regard ISLAM as a religion instead of a political suppression system (Sharia Law) we’re screwed. In the meantime the UN has introduced a Global Patriot Act and we have heavily armed police and military walking the streets.

    These guy’s will turn against the public when the bank runs begin.

    We want our freedoms at any price but all we get is suppression.

    So the terrorists have won.

    Our open society is no more.

  51. R. de Haan says:

    Progressive Definition Of Free Speech
    Posted on January 15, 2015 by stevengoddard

    According to CNN and MSNBC, free speech means you can criticize Christianity or Judaism, but not Islam.

  52. R. de Haan says:

    It would be nice if the public was allowed to carry a gun, just like a number of US States.
    Unfortunately in Europe the political establishment believes an armed public is a bigger threat than the worst terrorists.
    I am sure they can send all the State security personal, the police and the army home when the public has the right to carry a gun.

  53. p.g.sharrow says:

    The new day is darkest just before the dawn.
    So be of good cheer. I can see the green shoots amid the debris of this cycle end. The Liberal Progressive Philosophy of Moore is fast loosing it’s luster. They are running out of access to “Other Peoples Money”. The Ecoloon Greenies are being discredited by their own excessive claims and regulation over reach The new generation of politicians are singing a different tune. Even Main Street Muslims are beginning to realize that the Glorious smell of blood of “Others” is their own. Saudi Princes are learning that their attack dog creation has turned on them.
    The World Wide Web is the Key to the New Age. All of humanity can communicate without the information manipulation of their Elite. We no longer Need Them to manage our affairs, (for their benefit).
    The Bureaucracy of Elites Always destroy the society that they manage, ALWAYS. They must grow in power and control over everything. It is their nature.The best governance is the least controlling of the general population. Bureaucracy is organized crime by a different group of people with legalized enforcement. They are the ones that need to be controlled. pg

  54. Jerry Singlwton says:

    The River War: An Historical Account of the Reconquest of the Soudan (1899), by Winston Churchill, concerning his experiences as a British Army officer, during the Mahdist War (1881–99) in the Sudan

    “ How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die: but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome’

    Maybe Obama ought to get that bust of Winston back on his desk and look at it everyday. (fat chance). only cure for rabies is still a bullet to the head. sooner rather than later.

  55. Larry Ledwick says:

    This site has an interesting short video map of the expansion of Islam, documenting 548 battles in a time line map. (dynamic battle map) and the 400 year effort of Christianity to push Islam out of modern Europe, and the 1400 year extent of Jihad.

  56. R. de Haan says:

    He’s not Charlie:
    Lost his religion anyhow now he calls for the flock to save the planet and the climate.
    In some sense he’s a terrorist too.

  57. R. de Haan says:

    @Larry Ledwick
    Thanks for the link.
    Obviously they have made their biggest progress over the past 55 years with offices in all major Western city in the world.
    From Europe to the USA, from Australia to Canada.

    Someone left the door open.

  58. Larry Ledwick says:

    That dynamic battle map was the visual that made me realize that Islam is really a philosophy of dominance and military conquest dressed up in the trappings of a religion. I’ts primary driving force is to grow and convert the world, and it is perfectly happy to accomplish that goal with the sword and genocide if gentle persuasion does not work. I suspect Europe is in line for another 400 years of religious wars, coming soon to a country near you.

  59. Larry Ledwick says:

    A very inconvenient view of Islam as a political and military force from the above link page.

  60. Larry Ledwick says:
  61. omanuel says:

    @p.g.sharrow 15 Jan 2015 4:37 pm

    Yes, the new day is darkest just before the dawn!

    Tonight there are encouraging signs Climategate may soon be resolved and we will all finally reap the benefits that Lord Aston promised humanity ninety-two years ago in DEC 1922: “Powers beyond the dreams of scientific fiction!”

  62. E.M.Smith says:


    There are mandatory prayers 5 times a day. Before sunrise is one of them. This involves getting up, and down, and putting head to floor. This happens at specific hours, so clock watching can tell you if the noises they hear are ‘on a schedule’.

    The Koran directs the man to “beat to her couches” any disobedient wife… so if the wife or daughters give any “push back”, beating is prescribed and approved. Unless the spouse is willing to lodge a complaint (and risk a death sentence for going against the Koran) the police can’t do much. Minor children likely can be helped, but it will require visible evidence…

    It will be a judgement call based on the actual nature of the sounds and what they indicated.


    There must be “one law for all” or there is “no law for any”…


    Oddly, I find myself thinking similar things at times about the Islamists and Russia… since “The West” has slid into a Police State with Central Control and is no long a Democratic Republic in anything but name-only; I find myself occasionally thinking that our two major “opponents” are potentially the only thing preventing the arrival of a full on Tyranny.. and maybe the only hope for removing one. (Then I wonder if they are “for effect” faux attacks ginned up for the purpose of fear mongering to get us to hand over our rights and liberties… )

    Oh Well. I can’t change it in either direction, so speculating about the nature of it is about all I can do…


    Any pointer to prior “art” on the “340 years up, 340 years down” cycle? I’d like to know what others have observed before…

    @Paul Hanlon:

    In general, I’m a “live and let live” kind of guy. However…

    When someone wants to control my life, what I can think and do, how I can live, and is willing to kill ‘me and mine’ to enforce that, I get cranky.

    Now the reason I put a lot of time into reading the Koran and looking into the culture and all, was exactly that ‘search for a fair solution’. I’m sorry to say that based on all I’ve seen (in the Books and in the news…) the only “fair” solution is to wall off the mental infection and let it fester in its own dogma. Yes, “expulsion” and “exclusion”. I’ve not advocated for that for the simple reason that it is barbaric. I keep thinking that there simply MUST be something better. But “Reality just is. -E.M.Smith” and at some time you must give up on the search for the Unicorn and accept riding the Ass… though I’m not there just yet… (but I can see it from here.)

    Simply put: We do not have an existence proof of Islam being in a stable and compatible coexistence with Christianity nor Secular Humanism that lasts for hundreds of years. We have many existence proofs of Islam doing a ‘slow takeover’ and then going for “slaughter and convert”. (see the history if Spain, Lebanon, France, Greece, all of North Africa, … for examples). At some point that has to be recognized.

    @R. de Haan:

    I’d like to disagree with you on our loss of liberty… I really would… maybe someone can give me a way, since I can’t see one…


    I have some thoughts on “we don’t need them”, but that will wait for another posting…


    Very interesting quote… Always admired Winston…


    I see you are perceptive…

  63. omanuel says:

    @ E.M. Smith et al

    Thanks to the internet and a few brave souls like you, dawn is breaking and wannabe world tyrants are being exposed as fools who tried to hide the source of energy that destroyed Hiroshima . . .

    and ended up blinding themselves to the Alpha and Omega – the Creator, Destroyer & Sustainer of every atom, living cell and world in the entire Solar System – FOOLS, ABSOLUTE FOOLS !

    Now the public has no choice but to replace these fools and their armies of “scientists” who used public funds to deceive the public:

    See: “Solar energy,” Adv. Astronomy (submitted for on-line review, 6 Jan 2015)

    Click to access Solar_Energy_For_Review.pdf

  64. Steve C says:

    Sorry I’m a bit “late to the show”, but I’ve beencatching and “enjoying” This Year’s Influenza for a few weeks. Having always been rather over-prone to breathing passage problems, my system tends to “make a meal of it” …

    To return to “the incident which started everybody talking about this stuff again” (a phrase I use quite coldly and deliberately), I am absolutely not Charlie. Like so much else thrust in the public’s face in the modern world to cries of “Freedom of Speech! Freedom of Speech!”, the magazine seemed to be more about seeing how much debased filth could be served up to the public and got away with. They pile profanity upon profanity, the while solemnly proclaiming it to be profundity.

    No. A magazine which truly represented the hard-won right to free speech (let me repeat that: the hard-won right) would be using that freedom responsibly, with care and discretion, asking questions unpopular with the powerful, hosting intelligent discussions about possible solutions to the endless rain of catastrophic fall-out from their destructive activities. It would not be publishing tasteless cartoons of the prophet of a religion – you know, that one, the one which is most certainly going to be grossly offended and which we’re all supposed to demonise – baring his arse in front of a camera and making lurid sexual comments. As the Good Book says, “Ye shall know them by their fruits”. Charlie’s fruit is rotten.

    It gives me deep sadness to note that this general debasement has slowly permeated Western culture over roughly the last century. From Duchamp’s urinal on, modern art has progressively abandoned every touchstone by which we used to make aesthetic judgements of art. We must forget the awe one can still feel in the presence of a truly great marriage of complete mastery of the technical skills of the art and an inspiring interpretation of a known theme. No, a pile of bricks, or an unmade bed are “art” now, simply because some fool with more money than sense declares it to be so. The heirs to the architects who, only a century ago, produced buildings of beauty and balance, now spew ugly concrete cuboids across our public spaces. The measured development of music through the centuries which led to (for me) the infinitely absorbing, layered richness of something like Wagner’s “Ring des Nibelungen” has been cut off, replaced by twelve-tone rows and Stockhausen’s “works” for corrugated iron and shortwave radio.

    My honest opinion is that our culture has been shredded, and that the new age’s replacement structure simply contains no-one of either the technical skill or the vision to produce art to compete with the greats of the past. As with Charlie Hebdo, we are force fed crap and told that it is wonderful, mould-breakingly original stuff. I’m sorry. It’s not. It’s crap. Any modern artists who want to prove me wrong – please, please do! I would really love to see exactly that. Write a proper, moving piece of music which speaks to our souls, rather than some discordant technical exercise. Build us a building, or paint us a picture, which we actually want to stand and look at and be absorbed by – and for which you don’t need to give us a lecture telling us what it’s “about”. Be daring. Produce a magazine which uses such freedom of speech as we still have left to reflect openly on the evils which afflict us all. The glove is down. Go on. Dare ya.

    So no, I am not Charlie. I wouldn’t p-ss on Charlie if he were on fire. He is a complete embarrassment to the freedom of speech he is so widely claimed to represent. Still, smart marketing move, eh? The French had got fed up with CH, its circulation was (thoroughly deservedly) falling, and now this. Revenue stream assured for another few years.

    And as a passing comment on “other religions”, there are three Abrahamic religions. Hardcore Judaism is every bit as worrying as hardcore Islam if your core isn’t identical with theirs. Christianity, whatever the flaws in its earthly hierarchies, really is incomparably the most civilised.

    Good to see you’re back in circulation, EM, despite the fickleness of a system which just chucks out guys of your obvious talent. Hope something a tad more lucrative than part-time English turns up to support you in the new year – are you looking primarily in Florida, back in Fruit’n’Nut country or “just lookin'”? (Must admit, with a flu hit system here in a Britain whose temps are on the point of dropping off a cliff, either of the first two sounds unbelievably appealing!)

  65. philjourdan says:

    A magazine which truly represented the hard-won right to free speech (let me repeat that: the hard-won right) would be using that freedom responsibly, with care and discretion,

    Je suis Charlie. Freedom of speech is not defending speech you like! Any fool can do that. it is defending speech you find abhorrent! What you find distasteful others find encouraging or enlightening! I have only to offer you the current debate on CAGW, where one side seeks to stifle the other for no reason other than they cannot debate them. Is that the measure of your support of freedom of speech? That which you agree with? That is the lamest of excuses and contradicts the very right of free speech!

    The ones making the rules decide what is “debasing” and what is “polite”. Real free speech is about NOT being polite! Should the 6 million Jews not said anything as the nazis made them statistics? They were in charge so they were setting the rules. So why make waves! Go along to get along! Do not upset the apple cart. What is 6 million, or 20 million, or 50 million or 25% of the population of a country compared to not ruffling feathers?

    The scary part is so many are willing to sacrifice for expediency just as you. Defending polite speech is nothing. Defending the idiots in white robes marching down main street is the epitome of free speech. Not because you agree with it! But because they allow you to call them idiots and racists as well – because they certainly do not agree with you.

  66. E.M.Smith says:

    @Steve C:

    I’m “just looking” for whatever pays the bills. While I have my preferences, I quit thinking they mattered long ago…

    Per ‘quality of art’: While I find much “modern art” less interesting than a cow pie, the point of freedom of speech is precisely that it is for that speech you find abhorrent. As soon as any speech is subject to “quality control” by some body or other, ALL speech is reduced and you get a monotone from The Committee.

    The answer to speech you do not like is counter speech, not suppression.

    Trust in the average person to recognize the turd in the punch bowl is not a statement, just a floating turd… and ridicule the author of it with counter speech.

    Banning turds in punch bowls just makes it into a political statement de facto…

    See Noam Chomsky on freedom of speech for a much better exposition of the point. (While I find much of his stuff irritating and often a bit left-daft, he has his points.)

  67. Steve C says:

    @Phil, EM: I’m sorry you thought I was trying to defend “only the speech I like”, which wasn’t my intention at all. All I thought I was doing was passing a world-weary comment on the fact that somewhere close to 100% of these “proponents of free speech” seem in practice to choose to be the turds in the punchbowl, to offend rather than inspire. Sure, people can be as offensive as they want, which is part but not the main part of the point of what it’s all about. So (I’m using my right to free speech to ask) why do we only get turds?

    As to politeness, a civil discussion with people of different views is a lot more likely to communicate your own views effectively to them than walking up and gobbing in their face, which will only persuade them that they’re dealing with an offensive git.

    [Side note on real-world punchbowls. At one point in my schooldays, we had a party after one of our school plays, which included a large bowl of “non-alcoholic punch” made of mixed soft drinks, Interestingly, the party became noticeably livelier about half an hour after a friend and I popped down to the Chemistry lab for a couple of hundred ml of 99% ethanol … ;-)]

    Re Chomsky, I quite agree. He’s been alternately enraging me and impressing me with intelligent points most of my life, which I rather like.

  68. E.M.Smith says:

    @Steve C:

    Oh, I get it now. Yes, life has vastly more unpleasant ‘free speech’ than good effective stuff. I do wish there were a way to “filter without censorship”, but it’s not a clear line.

    “Moderation” at sites like WUWT are about as close as you can get ( “light handed moderation”); but even there you get forbidden subjects (like barycenter…) that can be a PITA.

    Heck, I try to have the lightest moderation possible (mostly just ‘be polite’ and don’t name call, insult, or denigrate others) and still end up with a few banned folks and ‘dust binned’ topics. Simply to conserve my limited time in some (most?) cases and trying to keep things focused on “stuff of interest”. (One gets tired of fishing the ‘brown stuff’ out of the punch bowl after a while…)

    Oh Well.

  69. philjourdan says:

    So (I’m using my right to free speech to ask) why do we only get turds?

    it is perception. You do not get ONLY turds. But you do notice them more than you do the ones you agree with. How many times do you read a story about “nothing happened of note today”, versus “the world is ending! Film at 11!”?

    Free Speech is Piss Christ, dung Mary, AND Mohammed as a pedophile. I am sure some Muslims love piss Christ and Dung Mary. I do not.

  70. GTR says:

    Islam is a religion + political ideology + legal system in one package; the components being incompatible with western values, and dangerous – holy wars and severe punishments for noncompliance. The only way to eliminate such incompatibility is to ban islam, and islam-like systems.

    It’s the most incompatible with left-wing political values like feminism or tolerance etc. The left-wing parties propably know about this, and that when their electorate realized it there’s going to be a split itnto few smaller parties. That’s may be why they promote multiculturalism, as a coverup for the lack of compatibility of their electorate.

Comments are closed.