An American Cartoon

I was reading Breitbart.com a story about protest against the "Follow the Prophet" conference in Texas.  The gathering of Islamists also brought out about 1.000 pro-free speech protestors. led by Pamela Geller, against the Islamic meeting.  On Breitbart, among the comments, I saw the following cartoon.  I have no idea who did it, so I cannot give credit.  But, in this case, a picture is certainly worth 1,000 words.---Hugh Murray

Ever creeping in ways you don't even notice.......

• 

SLOGAN - AND STRATEGY FOR THE WEST

     France has 751 Islamic NO GO zones, wherein French police and French firemen are not supposed to enter.  These are areas of France where French law does not preside; these are areas of France where sharia law is the law.  Of course, these are terror zones.  A young woman who might want to date or marry someone whom her parents disapprove, might be murdered by parents or relatives in an "honor killing."  If she survives, she might be forced to endure genital mutilation.  If she exposes herself in public (like revealing her forearms, or not wearing a veil) she can be whipped.  Adulteresses might be stoned.  Gays killed.  Someone who drinks whisky beaten.  And a bacon eater?)  My point is that the Islamic NO GO zones of France are in reality terror zones, where those who reside there lose there rights as French men and women.  The Muslim militants then enforce sharia law terrorizing those who disobey.
     But Charlie Hebdo demonstrates that the terrorists are willing to move beyond their zones to impose terror on all.  Either France will begin to enforce French law in France, and protect the rights of all French citizens in France, or France will submit to the demands of Muslim terrorists.  Islam, indeed, MEANS submission.
    Choice for the West - Western law OR Sharia law.  
    Policy for the West - NO SUBMISSION!  No Islam!
    Hugh Murray
 

PARIS - THE SHORT MARCH TO FEEL GOOD, - BEFORE THE NEXT MUSLIM ATTACK!

Below is a provocative article about the Muslim attacks in Paris.  I had never heard of the Michigan Standard or Sean Gabb.  His analysis forces me to think, and I hope you find it thought-stimulating also.  Hugh Murray

Hot Air and the Paris Atrocities

9 January, 2015

17 Votes

Hot Air and the Paris AtrocitiesBy Sean Gabb
(The Michigan Standard, 10th January 2015)

For the avoidance of doubt, I will begin by saying that the murders this week at Charlie Hebdowere a barbarous crime, and deserve the strongest punishment allowed by law. This being said, the smug chanting of the politicians and media people is getting on my nerves. Here, without further introduction, are the more objectionable mantras:

Je suis Charlie

I will repeat that this was a barbarous crime. But there seem to be barbarous crimes and barbarous crimes. Suppose the attack had not been on a cultural leftist magazine, but on the headquarters of the Front National, and the victims had been Francine le Pen and the party leadership. Would all those city squares have filled with people reciting Je suis le Front National? I hardly think so. Nor would the media have given blanket and uncritical coverage.

Indeed, we had our answer before the gunmen had opened fire. When Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh  [two Dutch men murdered when the spoke up against intolerant Islam in the Netherlands] and Lee Rigby [a 26-year-old British soldier murdered on a London street by two Moslem terrorists]were murdered no less barbarously, we were all urged to moderate our response. In the first two cases, we were told, with more than the occasional nod and wink, that the victims had brought things on themselves. As for the third, the protest demonstrations were broken up by the police.

Cultural leftists have the same right not to be murdered as the rest of us. So far as the present lamentations indicate, they are seen by the directors of public opinion as having a greater right.

We will Never Give up Our Right to Freedom of Speech

The continuing hymn of praise to freedom of speech would sound better if it were seriously meant. I believe that the writers and cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo had the moral right to say whatever they pleased about Islam, or anything else. But I also believe that Luke O’Farrell and Garron Helm should not have been sent to prison for being rude to or about Jews. Nick Griffin should not have been prosecuted for saying less against Islam than was published inCharlie Hebdo. The Reverend Alan Clifford should not have been threatened with prosecution in 2013, when he handed out leaflets at a gay pride march in Norwich. Almost every day, in England alone, someone gets into trouble for opening his mouth. Where for them are the defenders of freedom of speech, now more fashionably than bravely holding up pencils or waving candles?

I and my colleagues at the Libertarian Alliance can praise freedom of speech, because we arethere for the people mentioned above. Just about everyone else I have seen on the television is a hypocrite. In general, we are free to say only what the authorities want to hear. Even when the law does not cover dissent, there are administrative or economic punishments. See, for example, the UKIP members who were denied the right to foster children, or the difficulty that dissident writers have to find paid work.

These were Cowardly Crimes

The men who shot up the Charlie Hebdo offices are not cowards. They took a considerable risk, and it is generally believed that they will not let themselves be taken alive. This is part of what makes them and their like so dangerous. The Sinn Fein/IRA terrorists were cowards. Their speciality was to plant time bombs in shop toilets, and then run away before they went off. These killers seem to regard themselves as already half way to the company of the seventy two virgins they were promised. There is nowhere they will not go, and nothing they will not do – they and those like them. To call them cowards is a comforting falsehood.

These were Senseless Crimes

The only senseless crime is one that has no evident purpose, or is unlikely to achieve it. The purpose of the Charlie Hebdo killings was to punish outrages against Moslem sensibilities, and to deter their repetition. Can anyone say they failed, or will fail? Some outlets of the mainstream media have republished some of the less offensive cartoons. But it was difficult not to, and there is safety in numbers. From now on, Moslems abroad and in Europe can expect a still more delicate handing of their sensibilities than is already the case. No one wants to be murdered, and one of the surest ways to avoid being murdered will be not to say anything untoward about Mohammed or his alleged teachings.

I now feel obliged to comment on mass-immigration from the Third World. Anyone who said this would be other than a disaster must have been a fool or a villain. It has forced down working class incomes. It has raised housing costs for everyone. It has increased crime and welfare dependency. It has Balkanised politics and administration and law. It has been the excuse for a police state. I am not a violent or an uncharitable man. I am committed to an abstract and universalist ideology. I do not object to a certain porosity of borders. But, like most Jews in Israel, or most Chinese in China – or like most people in all times and places – I regard every square inch of my country as the birthright of my people, and do not look favourably on levels of immigration that seem likely, within the next few generations, to dispossess us of that birthright. Yet this is where we now are, in England, in France, and in many other European and European-settled countries. I have no convincing answers to the problem we face. All I can do is predict one of two outcomes:

First, present trends will continue, and growing weight of numbers, and a greater willingness to resort to violence, will bring about the transformation of our societies in the image of the newcomers;

Second, there will be a nativist reaction, attended by expulsion and the removal of citizenship rights for those allowed to stay, and an authoritarian political settlement.

I do not look forward to either outcome. But, thanks to the conscious or negligent treason of our rulers, it seems likely to be one or the other of these. Anyone who can suggest a less unpleasant outcome that is other than wishful thinking will have at least my gratitude.

The question now outstanding is whether these killings will only contribute to the breakdown of the multicultural illusion, or whether they will be seen, by future historians, as one of its key events. Are they in the same dividing category as the defenestrations in Prague [in 14190s and again in 1919, men were thrown from windows in Prague, precipitating wars between Roman Catholic and Hussite or Protestant elements; and in 1948 Jan Masyrk was probably killed by Soviet intelligent agents below a bathroom window.]  or the Oath in the Tennis Court [when in 1789 almost every member of the Third Estate decided to defy the King of France and continue to meet, becoming the National Assembly, an early step on the road to the French Revolution]? Or will the continued chanting of the mantras discussed above keep everything under control? Does the continuing uproar in France mean that something has begun there of wider significance than the murder of a dozen cultural leftists?

MUSLIM TERRORISM IN FRANCE - BUT DON'T BLAME ISLAM!

Breitbart News carried a story by John Hayward headlined that French Pres. Francois Hollande refused to blame Islam for the recent terror attacks in France.  I made a comment on the site, which I post below.

humura • a few seconds ago

Socialist Pres. Hollande called for national unity in France. He does not want to blame Islam for the many Muslim terror attacks in France. So, apparently Islam is part of Hollande's French national unity. However, when he called for a march to demonstrate such unity, he wanted to ban what may be the largest party in France from the march - the National Front! Le Pen's National Front has for years warned of the dangers to France from Muslim immigration and the rejection of French culture by the Muslims. Under Socialist and rhino conservative leadership in France, there are now, inside France, hundreds of 'no go' zones, where Muslim Sharia law rules, where French law is not enforced, where French police do not go. The French National Front is needed to save France and Western Civ. from the horrors of Muslim law and the hatred of equality and justice written in the Koran. Hollande is a leader comparable to Obama - that bad!

When I wrote this, Hollande had not identified Islamic terrorists as the problem.  The next day or so he did so.  Hugh Murray

Why White Organizations Are "Racists"

The Left-wing site, Salon, posted an article presenting five reasons why any pro-white organization is necessarily racist.  I tried to post a reply, but was unable to sign in.  So I present my reply here.  
Hugh Murray

 Five reasons a white group is racist:

 1) La Raza (the Hispanic racist group) says it is true;

2 the New Black Panther Party and the NAACP (two groups demanding ever more privileges for Blacks) say it is true;

 3) Some Amerindian groups may say it so (from inside casinos that whites are not permitted to run in many states, and in the one of the few nations in the world where, though I and my parents and grandparents were born here, I cannot identify myself as a native American on hostile, government forms);

4) pro-invader groups who want amnesty for millions of illegal aliens do not want anyone to question the affirmative action privileges these criminal invaders will receive over law-abiding American citizens;

5) academic Left-wingers who will contort law and reason to justify discrimination against poor and middle-class whites in order to promote their pets, who will vote for Left-wing parties.

White groups do well in prison because whites commit fewer crimes, percentage wise, than minorities.  So whites are often minorities in prison.  And consequently, they are often raped by minorities.  More men are raped each year than women, but the women's movement ignores that.  And interracial rape is overwhelmingly minority on white.  But never mention that as the Left would be offended.

So long as whites are victims of crime and discrimination, there is strong need for Euro rights organizations.

BANNING FREE SPEECH AND FREE INQUIRY AT AN AMERICAN UNIVERSITY

I have had many computer problems in November and December, causing me to spend considerable time before the screen but accomplishing less.  One story close to home deserves a comment.  I reside a block from Marquette University in Milwaukee.  I am not affiliated with Marquette, I just live in the neighborhood.
A teaching assistant at Marquette, teaching ethics, cut off discussion of a topic, contending that if it were debated, it might offend some students.  A professor in the Political Science Dept. heard of the incident, heard what the squelched student recorded on tape, and the professor then commented about the incident on his blog.  As a result, at the moment, the professor, John McAdams is barred from the Marquette U. campus.  I am now able to include a comment I wrote for Breitbart.com about the banning of McAdams.  Hugh Murray

humura • 10 days ago

McAdams has taught at Marquette for 37 years. The name of his blog is a snipe at the politically correct Marquette U. administrators who some years ago changed the mascot from The Warriors to the Golden Eagles, because of fear of offending some Amerindians. McAdams also runs a major site on the assassination of Pres. JFK. McAdams is an authority, a tenured professor, and one with courage to speak out when he learnt that a student was bullied by a TA who teaches ethics and decrees that even to debate gay marriage is homophobic. From her action in this matter, I would conclude that she is a dreadful teacher, unwilling to discuss basic issues of ethics. She should be criticized for her authoritarian approach.
I do not agree with Prof. McAdams on the JFK assassination, and probably disagree with him on gay marriage. But he is RIGHT to defend the role of a university in permitting differing views to be discussed in classes, especially an ethics class. The TA is the bully, and the tyrant in this matter. And the university administration is worse. It is seeking to destroy free inquiry in the classrooms and promote politically correct conformity. And its banning of McAdams from campus and teaching is scandalous.
Banning McAdams is a loss to McAdams, a loss to Marquette, and a loss to freedom of inquiry throughout American academies.