Saudi Arabia - Denmark, a love story?

[schmosef]

Reptilian what? Pop science doesn't make your argument; it breaks it. We didn't evolve from reptiles the same way we didn't evolve from monkeys. At best, we have a common ancestor.

Anyway, this seems like a nature versus nurture argument. I say that it's nurture. You say that it's nature. Maybe there's some truth to both sides? Nah, I disagree with you. Empathy <> stupidity. You have to be both empathic + stupid to not see the World's problems as they are. Really, it's about stupidity. It could be about having a faulty gene that overrides the drive to survive, but I don't think so.

For sure, I'm very empathic to the plight of the everyday Palistinian people. But I'm not stupid enough to think that it's: a) my fault; b) my responsibility to fix (it's their own); nor c) in my power to fix. When they're ready, I'll help though.

I've had opportunities to "get with" women who were, for lack of a better word, self-hating Jews over the issue of the Palestinians. There's a lot of gratitude to be had when you relieve a woman of the burden of guilt that she's amassed through MSM indoctrination.

The fact that I haven't indulged in those opportunities doesn't discount the fact that I didn't need to suppress my own thoughts, beliefs, and instincts to get "there".

[schmosef]

Where do liberal intellectuals come from? I was one until I was about 25 and finally figured out what was going on. Know why? I was an intellectual whore and thought this was the way to get a woman who was more interesting and intelligent because she had a career or was career bound. I even went to the local Democratic party caucus because of this. Before this, I was pulling for McGovern through the influence of my mother. It really is not a bad thing to have empathy or compassion, but it is abject ignominy to apply these things to outside groups (especially those who have no empathy or compassion for YOU) while you ignore your own. And too many Westerners have forgotten that the purpose of all life is to propagate itself, so in absence of childern of their own, they give their empathy to their enemies.

Why do I discount liberal intellectual guilt? Because in my experience (which includes discussions with the epitome of this type of person.. professors at a top U.S. University) human beings are truly motivated by the animal within. If there is intellectual guilt, it is motivated by a deeper thing in our reptilian brains, methinks.. especially if we let it rule our lives. Oh, I suppose there are those so isolated in their ivory towers that they can cut off that part of their being (thinking of these professors) but these are few. Half the population, on the other hand, is female.. and their reptilian nature is to nurture and reject violence. They may even be repulsed by the violence that protects their very person or child. No.. it is the feminization of government that allows our enemies to thrive.

Ever think that you're misogyny is a knee-jerk reaction to your self-stated former strategy to get laid not working? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and sometimes a vagina is just a vagina.

[schmosef]

btw, i have to say that this whole boycott of Danish products has caused me to become addicted to grilled cheese sandwiches made with Havarti.

One more thing to disdain the Islamists for... Nice going guys, my waist thanks you.

[KvHagedorn]

"Reptilian" was an apellation I got elsewhere you shouldn't take it literally.. but you obviously get the gist.

I seem to remember a film about the Rolling Stones' Altamont concert that tells a lot about human nature.. there is a scene where some gorgeous hippie chick is getting signatures on a petition to free some Black Panthers who were in jail for rape or murder. Her spiel was "they're just poor negroes." Now would any 20yo guy (probably on pot) sign this to make the empathetic brainless blonde happy? Yep. Would either of them stop to think that the Black Panthers were in prison for a crime that was motivated by hatred for whites (themselves?) Nope. Girl: reptilian brain tells her to empathise and her newly felt female empowerment causes her to translate this into political action. Guy: ultrafine chick had this thing for me to sign ands was real passionate about it, so I did.

[schmosef]

"Reptilian" was an apellation I got elsewhere you shouldn't take it literally.. but you obviously get the gist.

I seem to remember a film about the Rolling Stones' Altamont concert that tells a lot about human nature.. there is a scene where some gorgeous hippie chick is getting signatures on a petition to free some Black Panthers who were in jail for rape or murder. Her spiel was "they're just poor negroes." Now would any 20yo guy (probably on pot) sign this to make the empathetic brainless blonde happy? Yep. Would either of them stop to think that the Black Panthers were in prison for a crime that was motivated by hatred for whites (themselves?) Nope. Girl: reptilian brain tells her to empathise and her newly felt female empowerment causes her to translate this into political action. Guy: ultrafine chick had this thing for me to sign ands was real passionate about it, so I did.

Your story doesn't discount her from being a liberal intellectual wracked with guilt over being white and her belief in the truth of moral relativism blinding her so that she's willing to tollerate actions from those "negros" that she wouldn't tollerate from white men.

As for the guys, do I really need me to explain that? For them, it was genetic predisposition to not rule out even the merest possibility of mating with the girl. For them it had nothing to do with empathy.

The motives of the girl were not caused by her "reptilian brain".

For sure, I know girls who would sign anything that some hunky guy asks them to. His reasons for wanting people to sign some piece of paper are his own, not his reptilian brain's.

[schmosef]

Interesting post @ LGF:

State Department Criticism of Cartoons - a Hoax?

What in the world is going on with the story about the State Department condemning the Danish cartoons? LGF reader Ty points out that in three different news wire reports, the same statements are attributed to three different people.

Agence France Presse says the State Department spokesman was “Justin Higgins:” US blasts cartoons of Prophet Mohammed.

Reuters says it was “Kurtis Cooper:” US backs Muslims in cartoon dispute.

And the Associated Press says it was “Janelle Hironimus,” in a story by Qassim Abdel-Zahra: Protests Intensify Over Muhammad Drawings.

Is this story a hoax, or just hopelessly confused?

I hope so!

[schmosef]

Quote for the day:

“Surely we can discuss this?”

Theo Van Gogh, as he was shot and stabbed to death by Mohammed Bouyeri on 11/02/04

[schmosef]

This is a perfect example of the extreme hipocrocsy of the Islamic world. They say its against their religion to print/publish pictures or drawings of Mohammed, yet they use his pictures regularly for their purpose.
Add to that what schmosef said in the couple above posts. They don't complain when their publications blast and threaten other religions, but when anything is published or said about them, they freak out. Comes across to me as a bunch of crybabies who are looking for any excuse to kill others.

http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/2006/02/images-of-muhammad.html

I take it all back. One more "fact" about Islam that can't be taken at face value.

I wasn't even looking for this. I found it by accident.

Jebus!

[schmosef]

Ok, so the daily press briefing isn't quite so bad...

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2006/60394.htm

QUESTION: Yes? Can you say anything about a U.S. response or a U.S. reaction to this uproar in Europe over the Prophet Muhammad pictures? Do you have any reaction to it? Are you concerned that the violence is going to spread and make everything just —

MR. MCCORMACK: I haven’t seen any — first of all, this is matter of fact. I haven’t seen it. I have seen a lot of protests. I’ve seen a great deal of distress expressed by Muslims across the globe. The Muslims around the world have expressed the fact that they are outraged and that they take great offense at the images that were printed in the Danish newspaper, as well as in other newspapers around the world.

Our response is to say that while we certainly don’t agree with, support, or in some cases, we condemn the views that are aired in public that are published in media organizations around the world, we, at the same time, defend the right of those individuals to express their views. For us, freedom of expression is at the core of our democracy and it is something that we have shed blood and treasure around the world to defend and we will continue to do so. That said, there are other aspects to democracy, our democracy — democracies around the world — and that is to promote understanding, to promote respect for minority rights, to try to appreciate the differences that may exist among us.

We believe, for example in our country, that people from different religious backgrounds, ethnic backgrounds, national backgrounds add to our strength as a country. And it is important to recognize and appreciate those differences. And it is also important to protect the rights of individuals and the media to express a point of view concerning various subjects. So while we share the offense that Muslims have taken at these images, we at the same time vigorously defend the right of individuals to express points of view. We may — like I said, we may not agree with those points of view, we may condemn those points of view but we respect and emphasize the importance that those individuals have the right to express those points of view.

For example — and on the particular cartoon that was published — I know the Prime Minister of Denmark has talked about his, I know that the newspaper that originally printed it has apologized, so they have addressed this particular issue. So we would urge all parties to exercise the maximum degree of understanding, the maximum degree of tolerance when they talk about this issue. And we would urge dialogue, not violence. And that also those that might take offense at these images that have been published, when they see similar views or images that could be perceived as anti-Semitic or anti-Catholic, that they speak out with equal vigor against those images.

QUESTION: That the Muslims speak out with equal vigor when they see — that’s what you’re asking?

MR. MCCORMACK: We would — we believe that it is an important principle that peoples around the world encourage dialogue, not violence; dialogue, not misunderstanding and that when you see an image that is offensive to another particular group, to speak out against that. Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images, as anti-Christian images or any other religious belief. We have to remember and respect the deeply held beliefs of those who have different beliefs from us. But it is important that we also support the rights of individuals to express their freely held views.

QUESTION: So basically you’re just hoping that it doesn’t — I’m sorry I misspoke when I said there was violence, I meant uproar. Your bottom line is that both sides have the right to do exactly as they’re doing and you just hope it doesn’t get worse?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I —

QUESTION: You just hope it doesn’t escalate.

MR. MCCORMACK: I gave a pretty long answer, so —

QUESTION: You did. I’m trying to sum it up for you. (Laughter.)

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. Sure.

QUESTION: A couple of years ago, I think it was a couple of years ago when, I think it was the Syrians and the Lebanese were introducing this documentary about the Jews — or it was the Egyptians — this Administration spoke out very strongly about that and called it offensive, said it was —

MR. MCCORMACK: I just said that the images were offensive; we found them offensive.

QUESTION: Well, no you said that you understand that the Muslims found them offensive, but —

MR. MCCORMACK: I’m saying now, we find them offensive. And we certainly understand why Muslims would find these images offensive.

Yes.

QUESTION: One word is puzzling me in this, Sean, and that’s the use of the word “unacceptable” and “not acceptable,” exactly what that implies. I mean, it’s not quite obvious that you find the images offensive. When you say “unacceptable,” it applies some sort of action against the people who perpetrate those images.

MR. MCCORMACK: No. I think I made it very clear that our defense of freedom of expression and the ability of individuals and media organizations to engage in free expression is forthright and it is strong, you know. This is — our First Amendment rights, the freedom of expression, are some of the most strongly held and dearly held views that we have here in America. And certainly nothing that I said, I would hope, would imply any diminution of that support.

QUESTION: It’s just the one word “unacceptable,” I’m just wondering if that implied any action, you know. But it doesn’t you say?

MR. MCCORMACK: No.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes.

I'm not happy by the attempt to equate outright lies about Jews (ie., the blood libel) with simple satiric cartoons of Mohammad. But I do applaud the State department guy for implying that Muslims are hypocrites.

[schmosef]

snap!

US Supreme court contains sculpture of Mo:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf

Page 2, the North Wall frieze... right between Justinian and Charlemagne.

This is priceless, he's holding a Koran and a Sword!

When American Muslims get a hold of this they're gonna freak out.

This could be bad.

The State Department and Clinton are going to have to eat their words.

I wonder if the US will capitulate and chisel him out.

[schmosef]

Democracy in a Cartoon

Best-selling author and Muslim dissident Ibn Warraq argues that freedom of expression is our western heritage and we must defend it against attacks from totalitarian societies. If the west does not stand in solidarity with the Danish, he argues, then the Islamization of Europe will have begun in earnest.

The great British philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote in On Liberty, "Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being 'pushed to an extreme'; not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case."

The cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten raise the most important question of our times: freedom of expression. Are we in the west going to cave into pressure from societies with a medieval mindset, or are we going to defend our most precious freedom -- freedom of expression, a freedom for which thousands of people sacrificed their lives?

A democracy cannot survive long without freedom of expression, the freedom to argue, to dissent, even to insult and offend. It is a freedom sorely lacking in the Islamic world, and without it Islam will remain unassailed in its dogmatic, fanatical, medieval fortress; ossified, totalitarian and intolerant. Without this fundamental freedom, Islam will continue to stifle thought, human rights, individuality; originality and truth.

Unless, we show some solidarity, unashamed, noisy, public solidarity with the Danish cartoonists, then the forces that are trying to impose on the Free West a totalitarian ideology will have won; the Islamization of Europe will have begun in earnest. Do not apologize.

--side panel
IBN WARRAQ
Born in 1946 in India and raised in Pakistan, Ibn Warraq was educated in Koran schools in Pakistan and later in England. He currently lives in the United States and writes under the pseudonym Ibn Warraq, a pen name traditionally used by dissidents in Islam. He is the author of the best- seller "Why I am Not a Muslim" and the editor of "The Origins of the Koran" and "The Quest for the Historical Muhammad."
--end side panel

This raises another more general problem: the inability of the West to defend itself intellectually and culturally. Be proud, do not apologize. Do we have to go on apologizing for the sins our fathers? Do we still have to apologize, for example, for the British Empire, when, in fact, the British presence in India led to the Indian Renaissance, resulted in famine relief, railways, roads and irrigation schemes, eradication of cholera, the civil service, the establishment of a universal educational system where none existed before, the institution of elected parliamentary democracy and the rule of law? What of the British architecture of Bombay and Calcutta? The British even gave back to the Indians their own past: it was European scholarship, archaeology and research that uncovered the greatness that was India; it was British government that did its best to save and conserve the monuments that were a witness to that past glory. British Imperialism preserved where earlier Islamic Imperialism destroyed thousands of Hindu temples.

On the world stage, should we really apologize for Dante, Shakespeare, and Goethe? Mozart, Beethoven and Bach? Rembrandt, Vermeer, Van Gogh, Breughel, Ter Borch? Galileo, Huygens, Copernicus, Newton and Darwin? Penicillin and computers? The Olympic Games and Football? Human rights and parliamentary democracy? The west is the source of the liberating ideas of individual liberty, political democracy, the rule of law, human rights and cultural freedom. It is the west that has raised the status of women, fought against slavery, defended freedom of enquiry, expression and conscience. No, the west needs no lectures on the superior virtue of societies who keep their women in subjection, cut off their clitorises, stone them to death for alleged adultery, throw acid on their faces, or deny the human rights of those considered to belong to lower castes.

How can we expect immigrants to integrate into western society when they are at the same time being taught that the west is decadent, a den of iniquity, the source of all evil, racist, imperialist and to be despised? Why should they, in the words of the African-American writer James Baldwin, want to integrate into a sinking ship? Why do they all want to immigrate to the west and not Saudi Arabia? They should be taught about the centuries of struggle that resulted in the freedoms that they and everyone else for that matter, cherish, enjoy, and avail themselves of; of the individuals and groups who fought for these freedoms and who are despised and forgotten today; the freedoms that the much of the rest of world envies, admires and tries to emulate." When the Chinese students cried and died for democracy in Tiananmen Square (in 1989) , they brought with them not representations of Confucius or Buddha but a model of the Statue of Liberty."

Freedom of expression is our western heritage and we must defend it or it will die from totalitarian attacks. It is also much needed in the Islamic world. By defending our values, we are teaching the Islamic world a valuable lesson, we are helping them by submitting their cherished traditions to Enlightenment values.

[schmosef]

I already posted this pic but I had something else to say about it...

Something as innocuous as eating a McRib sandwich could be considered an insult to Islam.

Where do they draw the line? The Koran says that they don't. That they're not allowed to. That if they do they are apostates and that would make them the worst of the worst. All apostates are killed. The Koran has NOTHING good to say about them.

[schmosef]

Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose

A passage from Pierre-Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais' 1784 stage comedy Marriage of Figaro (adapted by Mozart for the great opera), from the famous Freedom of Speech monologue in Act V, Scene 3:

I cobble together a verse comedy about the customs of the harem, assuming that, as a Spanish writer, I can say what I like about Mohammed without drawing hostile fire. Next thing, some envoy from God knows where turns up and complains that in my play I have offended the Ottoman empire, Persia, a large slice of the Indian peninsula, the whole of Egypt, and the kingdoms of Barca {Ethiopia}, Tripoli, Tunisi, Algeria, and Morocco. And so my play sinks without trace, all to placate a bunch of Muslim princes, not one of whom, as far as I know, can read but who beat the living daylights out of us and say we are 'Christian dogs.' Since they can't stop a man thinking, they take it out on his hide instead...

[KvHagedorn]

US Supreme court contains sculpture of Mo:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf

Page 2, the North Wall frieze... right between Justinian and Charlemagne.

This is priceless, he's holding a Koran and a Sword!

When American Muslims get a hold of this they're gonna freak out.

This could be bad.

The State Department and Clinton are going to have to eat their words.

I wonder if the US will capitulate and chisel him out.

I hope they do.. just like the taliban blew up the ancient buddhas.

Actually, the caption reads (very PC like):

"The figure above is a well-intentioned attempt by the sculptor, Adolph Weinman, to honor Muhammed and it bears no resemblance to Muhammed. Muslims generally have a strong aversion to sculptured or pictured representations of their Prophet."

Honestly, we all know what is going on here.. some elements are stirring up hatred for Europeans.. it's a game to see who is pussy enough to grovel and apologize. Apologize for what? The government didn't draw or publish those cartoons, and neither did the general populace. If anyone expects me to apologize for something like that, they can kiss my ass.

[schmosef]

I saw that line too and it's a copout because no one knows what Mo looked like because no one was allowed to draw him while he lived.

Any and all artist renderings that say that they are Mo are bad.