In anticipation of all the car-burnings that “youths” traditionally engage in at New Year’s, the French government has decided to… limit sales of gasoline. Now, that’s bold action!In other news, the new Islamist government of Tunisia is being careful not to drive away Western tourists, who are a mainstay of the country’s economy. Rachid Ghannouchi, the leader of Ennahda, assures foreigners that there will be no restrictions on bathing costumes at the beaches, and foreign women will not be compelled to wear veils.
To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.
Thanks to C. Cantoni, Caroline Glick, Fausta, Fjordman, Gaia, Insubria, JP, KGS, Mary Abdelmassih, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.
Notice to tipsters: Please don’t submit extensive excerpts from articles that have been posted behind a subscription firewall, or are otherwise under copyright protection.
Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.
Caveat: Articles in the news feed are posted “as is”. Gates of Vienna cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of the contents of any individual item posted here. We check each entry to make sure it is relatively interesting, not patently offensive, and at least superficially plausible. The link to the original is included with each item’s title. Further research and verification are left to the reader.
6 comments:
If anybody wonders about the difference between Israel and other "normal" democratic countries, then the case of the Bersheva "grand mosque" is a beautiful example. The situation is an allmost exact mirrorimage of the one found in ex-christian europe where former churches are turned into mosques routinely : The former mosque , now on jewish-demografic territory ,is being turned into museum documenting the way a modern israeli town was build close to an arab village composed of a few mud-huts.
The only difference from the mirrorimage is that the local muslims were given a generous offer of coopreation before this happened . They are probably not going to get too many more of those.
Ole Burde , Zikim
Satan’s Trinity
By Louis Palme
Dec 16, 2011
“Satan’s Trinity - Hitler, Stalin and Muhammad” by C. “H” Martel
Reviewed by Louis Palme
This must-read book has a simple premise – compare the lives of the three most evil people in history. Why did it take so long for this idea to be put in print? Probably because most people consider Muhammad a religious “prophet,” and they wouldn’t think of juxtaposing his life that those of two 20th Century tyrants. But Islam is, at the core, a political ideology, just like Nazism and Communism, with a goal of world domination. The main reason Islam has endured is that its promised pay-off for followers is in the unverifiable afterlife, whereas the other ideologies promised near-term successes which failed to materialize.
The similarities of these three historical figures are amazing. They were all narcissist tyrants who had the accidental good fortune of impeccable timing. They were the ‘strong horses’ of their day, and people fell into step by the millions. But they all had fatal character flaws – Hitler over-reached, Stalin was a clumsy strategist, and Muhammad‘s revelations from on high are contradictory and indefensible.
Author Martel assembles an amazing collection of facts, anecdotes, and insights in this 187 page book. It is hard to put down because it traces the short careers of these men through some of the most calamitous times in history. While Hitler and Nazism were responsible for about 60 million deaths, and Stalin and Communism about 80 million, Islam’s legacy (albeit over a longer time-span) approaches 300 million lives. Only malaria and influenza have killed more people than Islam.
Martel believes that ultimately Islam will be subdued – not by force of arms, but rather by the truth. “The only sane way to defeat Islam is to attack the ideology with the truth such [as] has been done in this book.”
“Satan’s Trinity” is available in Kindle format at www.amazon.com and in book form via www.satanstrinity.com. This is one of the best books I’ve read this year.
Celebrating New Year's Eve with SOS Racisme this year?
It costs the humble sum of 300 euros pr person.
SOS racism really knows a thing or two about multicultural enrichment, and are not shy of spending other people's money
I have to make a comment on copyright restrictions. Everybody is entitled to quote anything that was ever written. Period!
Nothing more and nothing less. I am not talking about making money out of somebody else's writings, neither am I talking about taking somebody else's writings and claiming it to be ones own.
Since we have human rights we can command-C and command-V as much as we like. (For the poor people with Windows TM: CTRL-C and CTRL-V) But we must not forget to name the person who wrote it originally. That is his (copy-) right!
Three New Year's Eve fires in Oslo
One kindergarten in the early morning
Two schools in the evening
I think that the progress of technology may be fairly considered in making arguments about the viability and utility of copyright laws. But of themselves they do not comprise the entirety of the argument. I believe that it is valuable for people to be able to have a private sphere of communications which others which are "priviledged" in the sense that there is a binding agreement that the author's words will not be broadcast to everyone else (even, perhaps especially, with attribution).
I wouldn't attempt a defense of such a "right" to control of one's own words as an absolute principle anymore than I would posit a "right" to delicious chocolates. It is something that might make life a little more bearable for some people...but I hesitate to demand that it be created or maintained for anyone unable to produce anything of value in exchange for it.
Still, it is worth considering whether we have a "right" to do something simply because technology has made it easy. Technology has made it possible to annihilate entire cities with the push of a button...whether this is thus a "right" is, I feel, rather debatable.
I am overall inclined to the position that, while we may have a right to say or publish anything, we might not have a right to commit whatever other crimes (whether fraud or murder) might be involved in gaining access to the material we publish or the ability to publish it. On the other hand, it is commonplace now to see NDAs which defy the most basic principles of informed consent and legal accountability. There is definitely room for correcting the tendency of some to try and enforce contracts that bind signatories into being accomplices to criminal behavior.
This is much how the laws against criticizing Islam have been used, if you do not willingly abet acts of terrorism and sexual assault, then you are held guilty of violating the "rights" of Muslims to control all information about themselves and their beliefs. At the same time, while there can hardly be a "right" to enforce complicity in a criminal agenda, perhaps there can be accommodation of the human need for a measure of privacy in their more intimate associations.
Chiu Chun-Ling.
Post a Comment