“The secret of all victory lies in the organization of the non-obvious.” -Marcus Aurelius
Here are three great clips put together from the TV debate. THe original clips from YT I found much too quiet. So I boosted the volume and put them together. If the embed does not work for you, please click here to watch the video directly where it lives. Firefox users may have a problem seeing it here.
From Israeli TV
If you cannot call a person who stabs a sleeping family to death in cold blood, and then all the people who are like him who celebrate these murders by a public celebration and the handing out of candy ‘Savages’ then what exactly does the word mean?
Eeyore
Melanie Phillips’ Spectator blogpost titled ‘Armchair barbarism’ prompted complaints to the PCC. Photograph: Sarah Lee for the Guardian
A Melanie Phillips blogpost on the Spectator website which referred to the “moral depravity” of Arab “savages” is being investigated by the Press Complaints Commission.
The online comment piece, headlined “Armchair barbarism”, focused on media coverage of the murder of five members of a Jewish family in the West Bank settlement of Itamar by Palestinian militants earlier this month.
“The moral depravity of the Arabs is finding a grotesque echo in the moral bankruptcy and worse of the British and American ‘liberal’ media,” wrote Phillips.
“Overwhelmingly, the media have either ignored or downplayed the atrocity – or worse, effectively blamed the victims for bringing it on themselves, describing them as ‘hard-line settlers’ or extremists.
“To the New York Times, it’s not the Arab massacre of a Jewish family which has jeopardised ‘peace prospects’ – because the Israelis will quite rightly never trust any agreement with such savages – but instead Israeli policy on building more homes, on land to which it is legally and morally entitled, which is responsible instead for making peace elusive. Twisted, and sick.”
The column, which also referred to coverage of the murders by CNN, the BBC and the Guardian – part of the group that publishes MediaGuardian.co.uk – prompted two complaints to the press watchdog, one of them from Engage, a group promoting Muslim engagement in British society.
Inayat Bunglawala, chair of Muslims4UK, said: “Her words went far beyond just denouncing the killings. It was a far more generalised racist outburst against Arabs as a whole.
“If you insert the word ‘Jew’ or ‘Jewish’ where she has referred to Arabs then I am sure she would have no doubt that those words would be antisemitic. Just as she abhors antisemitism it is important that she maintains the same vigorous anti-racist stance against Arabs. It is just unacceptable to use that kind of language.”
Bunglawala said he had also complained to the police about the column.
In November last year the Spectator and Phillips published an online apology to a prominent British Muslim they falsely accused of antisemitism in an online column.
The Spectator had not responded to a request for comment at the time of publication.
Post and commentary from Gates of Vienna. The translation of the video is thanks to Timo.
The Netherlands will hold provincial elections on March 2, and Geert Wilders’ party (the PVV) is poised once again to do well. The entrenched forces of reaction are determined to stop the PVV, and are running a no-holds-barred campaign against it.
Our Dutch correspondent Timo alerted us to a particularly disgusting political TV spot put out by the left-wing opponents of Geert Wilders. He explains the title of the commercial and its context:
“Guide on what to vote against* — Freedom” [i.e. the Party for Freedom]
In this commercial the leftist people in Holland have hit bottom by using kids in their campaign against the PVV. There will be provincial elections in Holland on 2 March 2011. Instead of focusing on their own parties, the leftists are using kids to repeat Geert Wilders’ “worst” (i.e. most offensive when seen out of context) statements about Islam. The upshot is that if you vote for the PVV, the CDA, or the VVD, your kids will be fed with hate the moment they are born.
* Explanation of the title:
“Stemwijzer” is normally a Dutch website with a list of questions which helps people choose the right party if they haven’t made up their mind yet. The word “tegen” in front of the word gives it a meaning of against — “counter-vote advisor”, tegenstemwijzer.
Timo also points out the illustrious company these lefties are keeping in their exploitation of children: the Nazis, who frequently used children for their propaganda, and Hamas, who send them out as suicide bombers. To that I might add the infamous “Daisy” commercial — a countdown to nuclear war featuring a little girl — that was put out by President Lyndon Baines Johnson during his 1964 election campaign against Barry Goldwater.
Continue Reading →
From Melanie Phillips web site. Click here for the whole article please. I have republished about half of it here.
The reaction in Britain and America to the turmoil in Egypt has produced a number of astounding revelations.
The first is that everyone in the bien-pensant world is now apparently a neo-con. You really do have to rub your eyes at this very hard.
For the past seven years, western progressives have screamed without remission that George W Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Uncle Tom Neo-Con and all were criminally out to lunch to pretend that democracy could ever come to Iraq through ousting a dictator.
The neo-con article of faith, that the Arab or Islamic world could or should embrace democracy and human rights, was held up as an example of cultural imperialism, racist bigotry or insanity or all three.
Yet when the Egyptian protesters called for regime change and free elections, those very same Bush-whackers excitedly hailed this brave new dawn of Islamic freedom.
They further declared that America had been criminally obtuse in propping up the dictator Hosni Mubarak rather than promoting regime change and helping install democracy on the banks of the Nile.
What’s the difference? Saddam Hussein was an enemy of the west; Hosni Mubarak is an ally. So progressives claim that getting rid of the former was a crime against humanity, while not getting rid of the latter was a crime against humanity. Got that?
Thanks to SDAMMAT and Tundra Tabloids for this
Spectator, 17 September 2010
Everyone can agree that today’s Britain — which we’re always being told has become so much more liberal — is the very model of a forward-looking, tolerant society in which freedom of expression is paramount. Correct?
If only. In fact, the intellectual trend in Britain is a remorseless slide towards a dark age of intolerance, reverting to a reason-suppressing, heresy-hunting culture in which certain opinions are being turned into thought crimes.
Astoundingly, people are being arrested by the police — even if the case against them eventually falls — because of what they have said. They are not inciting violence or any criminal activity. They are merely expressing a point of view. Yet for that they may find the police feeling their collars.
It is difficult to say when, exactly, the priorities of the British police shifted from the prevention of criminal offences towards criminalising people for causing offence. The police have become the thin blue line against the Wrong Opinion. Instead of protecting society against oppression, British police officers have become the agents of oppression.
Freedom of religious expression, for example, is a bedrock principle of an open society. Yet if Christians express their religious opposition to homosexuality, they are treated like criminals.
Dale McAlpine, a Christian preacher in Cumbria, was carted off by the police, locked in a cell for seven hours and charged with using abusive or insulting words or behaviour after telling a passer-by that he believed homosexuality was a crime against God.
Harry Hammond, an evangelist, was convicted of a public order offence and fined for holding a placard saying ‘Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism, Jesus is Lord’ at a street demonstration in Bournemouth — even though he was attacked by members of the public who poured soil and water over him.
From the Spectator:
An illuminating post on the excellent Muqata blog (backed up also here) reveals what western pro-Palestinian war (aka peace) activists don’t tell us what happens — it would seem frequently — to the women amongst them when they sally forth to protect the ‘defenceless’ Arabs against Israeli ‘aggression’. They get sexually assaulted by the defenceless Arabs.
Back in July, Ha’aretz reported the story of a former Arab convict named Alladin who would find these young female peace activist staying in nearby villages, he would tell them he was on the run from the Shabak (Israel security), and ask them to hide him. These young female dupes would of course be happy to help an Arab on the lam from the Israeli authorities and let him sleep in their rooms.
So far one girl initially came forward about the attempted rape against her. She was found wandering the village of Umm Salmuna (near Bethlehem) in a state of shock, so who knows if the attempt actually failed. But in the end [she] retracted her story due to pressure to ‘not hurt the cause’. Haaretz had learned that representatives of both the popular protest movement and the PA have since applied pressure on the American peace activist as to prevent her from making the story public.
The story could have ended there, except that there’s more. Apparently, quite a number of female protesters have been sexually assaulted and molested by the Arabs they are protesting for. One attack occurred just recently in Bil’in. After the army fired smoke gas towards the rioting crowd of ‘peace’ activists and Arabs, the protesters ran. One Arab decisively used the smoke cover as an opportunity to sexually assault one of the more seasoned female activists.
The problem has gotten so bad, that some female protesters have stopped showing up to the protests…Two months ago, some of the radical leftwing organizers started running secret workshops… The subject? ‘How to deal with sexual harassment during direct activities against the occupation’. The workshop is for female and transgender activists.
You’d have to have a heart of stone not to laugh.
From The Daily Mail U.K.
By Melanie Phillips
Last updated at 11:30 AM on 28th December 2009
So here we go again. Another international Islamic terrorist plot – and yet another British connection.
The attempt by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to blow up an American plane was averted only by luck and courage.
The incident obviously raises alarming questions about gross lapses in security. In particular, how did Abdulmutallab obtain a U.S. visa when he had been on an American watch-list of people with known terrorist connections?
But the deeper and more urgent issue for Britain concerns the key role this country has once again played in a Muslim’s trajectory to radicalisation and terror. Abdulmutallab, who claims to have been working for Al Qaeda, was an engineering student at prestigious University College London for three years until 2008.
He was actually refused an entry visa to Britain earlier this year, but only because the institution at which he said he wanted to study turned out to be non-existent.
How, people might well ask, could such a radical have been educated in Britain without the authorities jumping on him?
Did MI5 know anything about him – especially since he was on a U.S. terrorism watch-list for two years?
As yet, we still don’t know much about this man’s history.
It appears he became a religiously extreme Muslim at a school in Togo, but was further radicalised while studying in London before apparently going to Yemen and linking to Al Qaeda.
Who can be surprised? After all, this is ‘ Londonistan’ – the contemptuous term coined by the French security service back in the Nineties as they watched Britain become the central hub of Islamic terrorism in Europe. Continue Reading →
Melanie does her usual excellent job of analyzing some important aspects of UK politics.
“This is why all decent people must join in the fight against Islamic supremacism. Support for the BNP would plummet if the political mainstream were to limit immigration, denounce cultural Islamic imperialism and refuse to give one inch to sharia law, saying no to polygamy, sharia finance, sharia courts and all attempts to set up a parallel Islamic society in Britain.”
Spectator, 24 October 2009
The frenzy over the participation of BNP leader Nick Griffin on Question Time this week has been a classic case of failing to identify the real elephant in the room.
By fixating on the ‘far right’ as the supremely evil force in British public life, the mainstream political class has failed to grasp that a half-baked neo-Nazi rabble is not the main issue. There is another more lethal type of fascism on the march in the form of Islamic supremacism.
The Islamists, or jihadis, are intent upon snuffing out individual freedom and imposing a totalitarian regime of submission to religious dogma which erodes and then replaces British and Western values. Now these two types of fascism are doing battle with each other — and with the white working class and lower-middle classes caught between them.
For it is the intense anger of these people with the fact that — as they see it — they are the ignored victims of the jihadis that is driving them into the arms of the BNP.
There are, of course, many factors fuelling BNP support. Most broadly, increasing numbers at the lower end of the social scale feel the mainstream parties are ignoring their most pressing concerns. Most of these anxieties involve British national identity: uncontrolled immigration, multiculturalism, the loss to the EU of Britain’s ability to govern itself.
Most toxic of all, however, is the threat from Islamic supremacism and the concern of the disenfranchised white voters that the political establishment is supinely going along with the progressive Islamisation of Britain. Continue Reading →
Daily Mail, 19 October 2009
The participation on this Thursday’s Question Time of the British National Party leader Nick Griffin is a priceless publicity coup for his party.
From the commotion this is causing, a casual observer might imagine that Griffin is the pivotal figure in British political life.
His appearance is being treated by the chattering classes as the biggest showdown since Attila the Hun’s rampage through Gaul was halted by the Roman general Flavius Aetius in 451AD.
Never has a TV show attracted more feverish attention. Broadcasting executives and party officials are drawing up and re-drawing battle plans and strategies to deal with this one-man threat to the body politic.
The selection of the other panellists has been decided around one question alone — how to contain and demolish Nick Griffin.
The reason for the frenzy is the fear that the high-profile BBC1 Question Time panel format will enable him to present himself as a reasonable politician.
Alas, despite all the uproar, his opponents have settled upon the wrong strategy. And the reason they have got it wrong is precisely why Griffin has made the headway that he has.
In a democracy, politicians from distasteful but lawfully constituted political parties – and the BNP is a legal organisation, with two MEPs — should not have their views suppressed but taken on and defeated in argument.
But to do so, the positions they take and the source of their appeal have to be honestly acknowledged. And that is what the political class is getting so badly wrong.
For the strategy being adopted to contain and destroy Griffin is to attack him for being a racist. Which he is.
But that is not the reason for his appeal. Those who support him do not in the main do so because they are racially prejudiced. It is because he also opposes mass immigration, Islamisation and the loss of sovereignty to the EU.
These are all legitimate concerns which are widely held by people who fear the loss of Britain’s historic identity — but which are stigmatised as beyond the pale by an intelligentsia which considers any such expression of nationalistic sentiment to be a form of racism. Continue Reading →