Saturday, January 17, 2015 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

There is nothing extreme about anti-Islam groups

When the Western societies became secular, religion was largely downgraded to a personal spiritual issue of every individual that only affects his or her own decisions and not the lives of others, at least not directly. Christianity turned out to be capable of this transformation.

This is not the case of Islam which keeps its very strong "political Islam" branch and wants to dictate how people should live, what they cannot do, what they cannot say or draw, what they learn about everything, who cannot win in the court, and who has to be stoned to death.

That's why all citizens must have the right to reject Islam as a short-term political proposal as well as a long-term political proposal.

Germany has seen the rise of PEGIDA, the Patriotic Europeans Against [Gegen] the Islamization of [Des] Occident [Abendland: the West]. These folks will show some courage if they participate at the rallies again because the Islamic terrorists are threatening terrorist attacks against those rallies – and against the train stations in Berlin and Dresden.

In Czechia, such official rallies are most likely to be organized by IVČRN.CZ (We don't want Islam in the Czech Republic) movement. Yesterday, Prague saw about 1,000 attending their rally near the gates of the Prague Castle. About 5,000 registered to "attend" via Facebook etc. but I guess that most of those only meant the registration as a "like".

IVČ is very similar to PEGIDA but there is no formal relationship between the two. The official head (well, the "administrator") of IVČ is Dr Martin Konvička who has some amusing lectures and interviews on YouTube. Perhaps, his most creative talk is his talk Islam as a psychosexual pathology which offers some provoking comparisons between Femdom and Islam. Sometimes I am not sure whether he's joking because I can't imagine how someone could connect his or her sexuality to Islam in any way but he probably knows more than I do. (Most of his claims must be right... He says that Maledom and Femdom couples bring the same increase to the average number of children. He points out how polygamy creates lots of aggressive horny men outside, and so on.)

Next to the ordered 1,000 citizens, there were about 25 anti-demonstrators, largely from a fringe non-parliamentary group called the Green Party. Yes, it surely helps that "green" is the traditional color of Islam.

The rally was attended by some members of the Parliament and mayors of parts of Prague, and so on. Some of the most prominent folks who participated may impress you with their racially clean Czech names such as Tomio Okamura, Marc Nigger, and Jane Nigger (the latter two are not relatives). ;-)

Some of the banners contained eye-catching slogans such as "Nazis 1942, Muslims 2014" (below a picture of some mass murders), "Open your eyes, Islam must be stopped", "Halík + Šabachová are traitors". The femdom theorist Dr Konvička pointed out that Mohammed's life resembles a collection of psychiatric diagnoses and his acts would be enough for a medium-size prison. For example, that loser was proud that he mangled his 9-year-old wife, the participants were reminded. The historically Islamic countries have been weakened by the Islamic stupidity.

Only 10,000 Muslims – 0.1% – and almost certainly less than 20,000 people live in Czechia. (IVČ claims approximately the same number of members.) Still, the speakers agreed that the country can't ignore the problem or behave as "sunny people" who have reconciled themselves with Islam. The anti-Islamic movement must be supported and become mainstream. Well, lots of recent data show that the views of IVČ surely are mainstream here. Among similar numbers, 87% of Czechs want tougher immigration rules for Islamic applicants.

Another member of the Parliament, Olga Havlová, talked about the halal policies. See her blog post here. The animals are losing their blood for minutes while conscious. Maybe it's not so terrible for the animals themselves but I just find it horrifying. I don't want the cruel education of children shown by the video above to spread in my country. Since a very low age, children are being reeducated from little angels to insensitive killers.

Some speakers complained that the Kurds who are fighting the Islamic State receive very little support and virtually no space in the media.

You may imagine which of these things were making the 25 greens (plus overdressed ladies in Persia's official TV station) upset. But my main point is that such an open discussion about Islam – and open and staunch disagreement with Islam – must be allowed as long as the belief in Islam itself is legal. They are just two sides of a rather important political and/or spiritual confrontation and to say the least, a free and democratic country simply can't put the interests or special rights of the Muslim believers above those who despise Islam.

I think it's great – so far? – that Czechia enjoys genuine freedom in these matters. Not quite like his predecessor but "almost" in the same way, the current president Zeman is also a powerful wall against the incorporation of various parts of degenerative group think. He is a vocal critic of the Islamic Anticivilization, of course.

But even when it comes to different topics, he fights against the establishment of new taboos. For example, a few days ago, he said that it was wrong to integrate handicapped children to normal schools and among healthy children in general – because such co-existence is a tragedy for both sides. I have mixed opinions about this sensitive matter so I am not sure whether I agree with his opinion. And be sure that he was instantly criticized by some of the usual suspects, NGOs, the PC crusaders. However, I surely do feel bullied by the dogma spread by a certain kind of people (along with hundreds of similar dogmas) that segregation is always a cruel criminal act. I surely think that segregation often has rather good reasons to be introduced – reasons that are often beneficial for both sides – and these reasons can't be overlooked. So I am grateful to Zeman that he makes it possible for a true debate about these and other issues to continue instead of everyone's being bullied by the "only politically correct opinion a decent person is allowed to have".

There are lots of random social and political questions like that which aren't directly linked to the most standard political topics but where Zeman consistently pushes the discourse in the right direction that I have no doubt it was right that we elected him as Klaus' successor.

Add to Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (54) :

reader Uncle Al said...

Muslim exclusion from Europe dates back before Vlad Tepes to Serbs and Croats cleansing Bosniaks. Idiot (Corrupt) President Bill Clinton took the Muslim side in the Bosnian War, sweetening the pot by loosing a stealth plane to the Russians. Slobodan Milošević, though no petunia, had the right and the power. Clinton installed diversity. The fuse was lit.

Josip Broz Tito was a working model: Play well with others, or I will kill you. Conflict does not equilibrate unless both sides respect the same rules.

The solution to Muslims proselytizing with violence is peripheral vigorous ethnic cleansing until they learn manners. Civilization has no problem accommodating Roman Catholic clergy laying waste to little boys' fundaments. Participation is voluntary

reader Lana said...

Muslims community is widely infiltrated by sabotaging individuals, who deal under their psychopatic visions that islam is treat. Yes !! Islam is a treat under their rule.. Konvičkas teories are ridiculous. Dominance or submissivity is inborn, and could not be trained by muslim society.

reader Lana said...

Actually they feed and support antislamic groups to create a lond lasting war not just mujaheds comes and Czechs instantly loves and accept them as they loved russians and americans before.

reader dreamfeed said...

"Christianity turned out to be capable of this transformation."

In Europe perhaps. Here in the USA we've got plenty of old fashioned christians trying to tell everybody else what to do.

reader Gene Day said...

I have experienced the effects of segregation in several different ways over the past eight decades. It has many forms and many results and cannot be treated as a single phenomenon.
My formative years were lived in the segregated south where segregation was a total and cruel reality and it was not limited to blacks (niggers). “Mexicans” were treated in the same way.
Much later, Los Angeles had huge “barrios” that were populated entirely by Spanish speaking latinos. The segregation was far from total but the housing markets were closed to them and this perpetuated the barrios. The “Watts” riots and police brutality were a stark reality of those days but the situation has improved to the point where almost everyone now trusts the police and the danger of riots is gone forever. Integration is proceeding rapidly and LA can easily elect a latino mayor and, in fact, has done so.
I have yet to see any situation where segregation is beneficial and do take issue with our host’s view.
Regarding muslim cartoons, I would like to see a billion copies printed and scattered by air over every muslim land. The airwaves and the internet should also be flooded with these cartoons. If you cannot laugh at yourself and your religion you are in deep trouble.

reader dreamfeed said...

"The solution to Muslims proselytizing with violence is peripheral vigorous ethnic cleansing until they learn manners."

It's a good thing we have free thinkers like you who have the courage to call for the death of innocents in an anonymous comment.

reader Tony said...

Clearly, however, the principal difference between the blacks, the latinos and the muslims is the religion. Latinos are, more often than not, deeply religious Roman Catholics, for one example. Blacks are as Christian as whites.

I am not saying anything that you don't already know, of course, but it must be stressed IMHO, that European homogeneous culture nations experiences with Muslims from ME and Africa, can't be easily compared with what we have in the US.

reader Tony said...

Additionally, some people apparently assume that industrial, developed nation with majority muslims is not possible, a contradiction in terms. What about Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore?

Did you (plural) know that there is a respected Jewish minority in Iran?

What I am trying to say is that a poor, uneducated latino is as prone to become a gang member/drug dealer in the US, as is a poor,uneducated muslim immigrant from North Africa in France prone to become a terrorist.

reader physicsnut said...

It is a multicultural mess - like wondering what Tomonaga would do if he knew what Feynman was working on during the war. Anyone want to take bets that your average politicians can cope with such things ? If people can not cope with each other then stay out of each other's hair , but population pressure makes a mess of that idea. Oh well. The usual commie websites like alternet just accuse everybody of raaaacism and islamophobia - hard to imagine how anyone can live in that bubble.

reader Rehbock said...

The segregation due race and class may not work segregation of violent criminals does.
These are criminals that hate and invade using the guise of religion. Immigrants can mix or keep to self and teach their ways but when they demand, threaten or coerce they are not entitled to integration but worthy of disintegration.

reader Pavel Krapivsky said...

Dear Tony, there is no contradiction, but among the three countries you mentioned only Singapore is truly advanced, and if you look at religion in Singapore you find (I get it from a wiki article) that 14% are Muslim.

reader Tony said...

Thus, you agree that, if France had 14% Muslims like those in Singapore, instead of 10% poor ditchdiggers from North Africa, they would be better off?

reader Tony said...

What does it take for an average white person to start thinking like: why should I trust something written by a bunch of Jewish shepherds, about 2000 years ago, as an absolute truth? It looks to me they were quite prone to rape their own daughter, so why did Yahweh speak directly to them and is silent ever since? Because all these people around me say so? Well, 50% of them are adulterers, 25% would sell grandma for a buck, so why should I listen to them?

If a Jesuit theology scholar, who dedicates his whole life to study God's creation, doesn't take Bible literally, why should Jane Doe, who thinks God is involved in her lipstick purchase, be treated as a normal adult, while babbling that God created Universe in 6 days? And we are supposed to respectfully tolerate that crap?

Clearly, there are religious people and there are extremely stupid,arrogant religious people.

reader Pavel Krapivsky said...

Dear Tony, I don't have an informed opinion as I've never visited Singapore, and I don't know Muslims in France. It is of course plausible that Muslims are better integrated in Singapore. Indeed, most of them probably come from Malaysia which is just nearby. I also have an impression that Muslims in Indonesia and Malaysia are less radical. (This impression is based not on polls or other objective measures, it's just what I've got from a couple of books by Naipaul, e.g. Among the Believers.)

reader John Archer said...

"It's a good thing we have free thinkers like you who have the courage to call for the death of innocents in an anonymous comment."

Not so fast! It may well come to it, but where did he "call for the death of innocents"?

reader BMWA1 said...

Historical origins of Islam are important here. Although Byzantium and Sassanid Persia also used religions (Christianity and Zoroastrianism or 'Dualism') as important if not over-riding mechanisms of expansive state integration (above even the ethnicity),the doctrines themselves originated several centuries prior to this capacity, and are thus intrinsically 'innocent' politically speaking, esp. Jesus and Zarathustra personally, at least according to the mythology.

Islam is different and is explicitly political haven arisen in an era when integrating religions were used to hold empires together, thus its structure in terms of doctrine follows the political line much more closely in its 'ideological core'.

reader John F. Hultquist said...


I interpreted Lumo's
comment to be about how best to deal with children with special needs
(he used the word handicapped). I did not take his comment to be
about race or religion.

If one is to teach
algebra, chemistry, or physics to 12 – 15 year olds is it a good
idea to have 5% of the students incapable of learning such things?
From the other side, why have every teacher well trained in dealing
with dosens of different learning disabilities. Isn't the idea to
have teachers well versed in algebra or whatever? From what I've
seen, when there is no selection, the teacher can end up spending 90%
of his or her interactions with students with those that will never
grasp the basics of the subject.

reader John Archer said...

In what follows I'll confine myself in particulars to those that relate purely to the UK. But I'm sure the story is exactly the same across the West.

Much that is said or written in these types of discussion on the presence of muslimes, and on immigration to the West in general—both pro and con, but especially pro (indeed egregiously so in that case)—is, to put it mildly, the equivalent of building castles on sand, because almost without exception none of it pays any attention whatsoever to the prior question of its bedrock, namely its legitimacy, which of course is non-existent. [To anticipate a dumbarse objection: the 'legality' of such immigration is entirely irrelevant, and indeed a complete red herring, since these 'laws' themselves have no legitimacy, as will be seen.]

One can bang on about the rights and responsibilities of immigrants and their host nations and other irrelevancies like that until the cows come home, but if there is no democratic legitimacy to their admittance in the first place and no recognition of that fact, then it's all baseless chattering. So, this prior question needs to be specifically addressed each time these matters are discussed— it cannot simply be left to be (tacitly) assumed that the presence of these alien intruders here is legitimate. [Because it isn't.]

The only thing that could have conferred the required legitimacy is prior democratic consent. But I know of no case in which that has been given. Quite the contrary: the requirement has been deliberately evaded.

Now, nothing is more fundamental to democracy than the demos itself — it constitutes the 'we'-ness of our fellow countrymen, the sole source of the resulting assent to be governed by—and ONLY by—those we recognise as ourselves.

And specifically in that context, mass* immigration has always been a hot topic and the subject of very heated 'debate', when not actually suppressed in one way or another. It is quite clear that there are very strong feelings AGAINST it and that there always have been. It is also quite clear that everyone knows this and has always known it.

So how did we come to this pass, to be on the receiving end of thoroughly unwanted mass alien immigration?

The answer to that is very simple. The political class CONSPIRED AGAINST THE PEOPLE to have it so. They shut off all avenues that would allow people to have any say on the matter and thus prevented the people's will from prevailing. The political class thereby committed HIGH TREASON, and in FULL KNOWLEDGE of what they were doing. There is no other explanation.

All this mass immigration is therefore the result of the greatest criminal act that can be committed in a so-called democratic state.

I challenge anyone who takes a contrary view to rebut this key point. Otherwise as far as I'm concerned he can STFU about anything else he might have to say.

* A trifling trickle of the odd compatible immigrant, refugee or two can be left to government officials and administrators on a de minimis basis.

reader Gene Day said...

I largely agree with you, Tony, but I do think that a poor, uneducated latino is less likely to become a gang member or drug dealer here than a similar muslim in Europe. I am amazed at the effort our latinos are making to blend in and at their general acceptance by the dominant, non-latino whites like me.
My wife and I have extensive associations with Iranians, including the Persian family that my daughter joined. I am fully aware of the reduced antisemitism in Iran relative to other muslim lands. This has little to do with the anti-Israel rants of their clerics.

reader Gene Day said...

Yes, but the most populous Muslim land, Indonesia, is making rapid progress toward modernity and their is reasonable hope for Malaysia, which is also moving forward.

reader Gene Day said...

Since we have about 15 million latinos just in California I know a whole bunch of them. Most of them are not allthatdeeply religious as compared to most Muslims. They are continuously

reader mesocyclone said...

@Dreamfeed - and we have lots of secularists telling Christians what to do.

We have freedom of speech. Christians even have it. Your criticism is outside the realm of discussion, which is coercion.

Christianity has a fundamental direction away from the state: "Render under Ceasar." It didn't always follow it, but when secularization happened, Christianity indeed did transform and become private.

reader Tony said...

How do you argue with these articles then?

reader Shannon said...

The identitaires are telling everybody to take names, to right them down and keep them until the day when these politicians who are responsible for this situation will lose their power. They will pay for what they have done, they say.

reader John Archer said...

German police ban anti-Islamic Pegida rally in Dresden citing terror threat: "Anti-Islamic Pegida march cancelled in Dresden after "concrete threat" from Islamic State"


Is there anything Merkel and the rest of europe's 'leaders' won't do to appease pisslam, that they won't do to fuck European civilisation?

They're spooked. But not by pisslam. They're spooked by their own people.

The war is on two fronts, with the muslimes on one flank and state traitors on the other.

reader Tony said...

A State can't guarantee a safety of it's citizens during peaceful protests? Hello!

reader Tony said...

Your taxes at work, heh, heh. What's few more billions on green initiatives?

And BTW, they are spending more money on following you and checking what you are saying around, than on following terrorists.

reader John Archer said...


Just think on that a while and take in its enormity. Unbelievable.

reader Luboš Motl said...

BTW I found Marine Le Pen's op-ed in the New York Times yesterday

totally reasonable - and probably more pro-Islamic than what an average Czech citizen would write.

reader John Archer said...

"“To misname things is to add to the world’s unhappiness.” ... these words ... are an astonishingly apt description of the situation in which the French government now finds itself."

Fine. But as we can see the French government is not alone:

"... Islamic fundamentalism. ... Let us call things by their rightful name ... They need the distinction between Islamist terrorism and their faith to be made clearly. ... Islamist terrorism is a cancer on Islam..."

A distinction without a difference! Mon Dieu! A cancer on a cancer! Fucking hell!

Oh well. She herself has now just added to "the world’s unhappiness". Marvellous.

They all lose their bottle in the end. None of them can call a spade a spade.

OK, to be a little less caustic I'd say she's getting there. Just give it a while.

Actually, to be fair to her since she isn't stupid, I'm sure she's there already. She's just doing the standard politico-bullshit thing here allowing her to spread the message and has simply yet to announce her astonishing upcoming discovery that there is no difference, the 'upcoming' having happened years ago but about which she'll remain silent diplomatiquement. But one day it will all be in her memoirs. Maybe. :)

reader Admiral Tact said...

In light of the latest story on the matter ( ) is anyone's mind changed?

reader Luboš Motl said...

I can only speak on behalf of the people who are rational and who are not queefing vaginas.

The answer to your question is obviously No. It's been known since the beginning that the terror against Professor Emeritus Walter Lewin was justified by some vague links to sexually explicit language and/or nudity on his computer and the text of yours doesn't say anything beyond these vague accusations.

There is nothing immediately wrong about someone's having nudity or using sexually explicit words.

reader K. OBrien said...

Lewin engaged in a sexual relationship with a student. It is not illegal under US Law if they are consenting adults and over the age of 18. However it is a very well known and understood that a student professor sexual relationship is not an ethical relationship. You may want to look at the link I provided to confirm that this went well beyond a couple of jokes or bad language. He did this and under US law ignoring claims of sexual harassment at a school or university would result an end of federal funding to that School or University. As a MIT alumni I approve of MIT's decision and the courage that this woman and the others who brought this to the attention of MIT's administration.

reader Luboš Motl said...

What's the evidence that he had a sexual relationship?

And what's the basis for your audaciously general and blanket claim that "a" student-professor sexual relationship is not ethical?

reader Socialist Worker said...

I guess you don't know what a sexual relationship is. Don't feel bad neither did Bill Clinton. Argue with inside higher education if you like. If I had my way MIT would end all DOD contracts.

reader Socialist Worker said...

Look he isn't being accused of having playboy on his desk or keeping porn on his laptop. He used his position as a professor to engage in a long distance sexual harassment of his student.
He can stay home and keep his presumption of innocence if he likes but so far he has said nothing in his defense. And yes I have a clear conscience after reading the inside higher ed article.

reader Socialist Worker said...

Belly dancing may be stretching the limits. I had a course 5 prof who showed us how to synthesize LSD on the blackboard. If you were taking his course and went for help during his office hours would you be Ok with posing for a his nude photograph collection? Or taking a nude selfie for him?

reader Socialist Worker said...

If I had my way MIT would have repurposed all it labs from DOD use to develop things necessary for human needs even it that meant students had live in tents.

reader Luboš Motl said...

Long-distance sexual harassment is pretty much an oxymoron.

Even if it were sexual i.e. short-distance and if his being an accomplished professor helped him, there's nothing wrong about it.

It surely makes more sense to have such a relationship with an accomplished professor of physics than e.g. with an anonymous jealous socialist worker.

reader Dilaton said...

What a nonsense, a sexual relationship with both potential participiants spacelike separated blatantly violates causality.

But I dont expect you to even understand what I am talking about, as you are obviously just one of the bystanders or spectators who give a damn about physics or what it means for millions of people interested in learning about physics, if such well known good video online lectures get removed for no reason.

reader Dilaton said...

I am happy that you are just a pompous bigmouth without any real power to enforce your way.

And it is obviously you who has no clue about what a sexual relationship is, if you seriously believe it can in a spooky way work over large distances by internet connections ...

BTW a hint concerning your screen name:

You obviously havent realized that socialism of the kind you allude to by your avatar is out ;-)

reader Socialist Worker said...

A sexual relationship between a professor and his student implies a possible grades for sex relationship.

reader Socialist Worker said...

Obviously you don't understand American labor law. 85% of the workforce are employees at will with no written contract. Lewin, as a tenured professor enjoys academic freedom. Unlike the 85% he can only be fired for cause. The rest of us can be fired at will.
If your boss says you are fired you leave the premises or he will have the police arrest you. It is then up to you to show you have been wrongfully terminated in court or bring some sort of political or economic pressure to reverse his decision.

reader Socialist Worker said...

What would you suspend him from? A retired professor is not required to do anything to begin with.

reader Socialist Worker said...

I along with Comrade Trotsky would have to disagree.

reader Socialist Worker said...

In Czech Universities it's OK for Physics Professors such as yourself to sleep with their students? "A decent society encourages girls to have relationships with the likes of me." If you really believe that would you post it on your office door?

reader John McVirgo said...

Lubos, have a look at the link K O'Brien posted:

"Harbi last October sent MIT a packet of more than 100 chat logs, emails, pictures, recordings and screenshots to document the harassment against her and other women. She gave Inside Higher Ed permission to view the contents on condition that they not be published and that names of the other women not be disclosed. The various pieces of evidence include nudity and sexually explicit language."

I didn't realize it ran this deep; I thought it was all over a single tweeter tweet.

reader Rehbock said...

Prof Lewin retired years ago. I do understand American Law. I hope that those in other countries know that the conduct of MIT is not supported by this evidence or law. In spite the power and hysterics of the feminazis and in spite at will employment, people who are libeled and against whole campaign like thos are carried out can sue and win.
Dilaton said it well. Local causality cannot support sex over the to harrassment and consent in general the delete key is a defense. Finally, because she sent him nude pics, she set up the site and she did not report it until after she had sent pics and been consenting! MIT is really screwed for having listened to her if he brings action.
Of course the problem is worse in that he is acting like he might be senile. That we can't sue to fix.

reader Rehbock said...

This was an Internet on line course without grades. It was impossible to trade sex for grade. He was retired so he was not in any position to affect her grades or her career.
I don't believe that any Implication arises though even if a professor is having sex with his student. He or she may be more demanding or less. The tests may be highly subjective or purely objective.

reader Rehbock said...

Locality is violated. So is rationality. This woman sent him naked pictures of herself. No rational mind can avoid noticing that.

reader Luboš Motl said...

OK, I don't know what to do with this kind of data. A physics instructor obviously exchanges a lot of information with students, and if the teaching process is remote, it's remote exchange.

I would have to see what materials we are talking about to have any idea about the "beef" - there is none here. If he sent them his own nude pictures 100 times, I guess that they must have liked it 99 times, right? What I read combined with the idea that he was harassing them just doesn't make much sense.

reader K. OBrien said...

Actually you are wrong. It was a MIT edX course not MIT OCW. Students may receive a certificate of achievement or other acknowledgement for MIT edX.

reader K. OBrien said...

Birds have rational minds. The cannot have long distance sex. Thanks to technology human sex and sexuality is no longer limited by time or distance they way it is for most other animals. Locality may be intuitive but it is wrong.

reader K. OBrien said...

When a women is raped does that mean she liked it?