Thursday, August 23, 2007

Calls for the Qur’an to be banned

Cranmer's communicant Mr Wrinkled Weasel has brought to his attention a report by Al Jazeera. Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch far-right Freedom Party, has called for the Qur’an to be banned because it is a ‘fascist book’ which ‘calls on Muslims to oppress, persecute or kill Christians, Jews, dissidents and non-believers, to beat and rape women and to establish an Islamic state by force’. In comparing the Muslim holy book to Mein Kampf, Mr Wilders insists that the Quran has ‘no place in our constitutional state’.

And if his message were not clear enough, he helpfully elucidates, declaring: ‘I am fed up with Islam in the Netherlands: no more Muslim immigrants allowed. I am fed up with the worship of Allah and Muhammad in the Netherlands: no more mosques’.

Cranmer is not in favour of banning books; they should conquered with the pen. It is possible to break down and deconstruct all manner of nonsense and falsehood in reasoned discourse, and banning things tends only to exacerbate the martyr complex. Persuasion, not force, is the guiding light of Christianity, and the hope of civilization. It is love and passion which produce literature and debate, and through the application of the intellectual mind and the spiritual heart may truth be sought and found. We have not spent centuries overcoming fascism and tyranny, shining a beacon of liberty to the world, only to render ourselves no better than the fascism and tyranny we conquered.

The principle of a list of forbidden books was adopted at the Fifth Lateran Council in 1515, and confirmed by the Council of Trent in 1546. The first edition of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum was dated 1557 and published by Pope Paul IV. Over the years, as it has been revised and updated, the Vatican has sought to ban inter alia Abelard, Erasmus, Machiavelli, Calvin, Milton, Locke, Hume, Kant, Mill, Montaigne, Descartes, Pascal, Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, Sade, Stendhal, Balzac, Hugo, Gide, Sartre…

And where has it got them?

And if one were to ban the Qur’an for its distaste and violence, the Old Testament would not be far behind. There are those who see in it pornography, smut, incest, gang rape, homosexual rape, voyeurism, fornication, adultery…

Self sexual-mutilation (Mt 19:12); exhibitionism/flashing (2Sam 6:20); sexual intercourse in public (2Sam 12:11f; 16:21f); sexual slavery (Judges 21:7, 12); incitement to beheading (1Sam 17:50f); glorified killing (1 Sam 29:5); occupation of land (Deut 4:38); and all manner of disgusting perversions, like scat (eating human faeces [Ezek 4:12f]) and water sports (drinking urine [2Kgs 18:27]).

No, indeed, there can be no end to the banning of books…

32 Comments:

Anonymous Voyager said...

Wilders

http://ajnorge.0catch.com/English/NoExcuse.htm

Wilders 2


Mr Wilders said an attack over the weekend by two Moroccans and a Somali on a young Iranian-born politician who heads a Dutch group for “ex-Muslims” had spurred him to write.

The attack on Ehsan Jami, 22, caused an outcry in the Netherlands, where the November 2004 murder of Theo Van Gogh, a filmmaker critical of Islam, by a Dutch-Moroccan Muslim militant led to an anti-Muslim backlash and exposed social tensions.


Wilders 3

Minister Vogelaar (PvdA = socialist party) created an outcry immediately after her appointment by stating ‘there is nothing wrong in wearing a burka’, refusing to proceed with a proposed law on banning the burka. She was utterly surprised at the nationwide criticism. Later she made the news by publicly stating that our society will be based on Jewish/Christian/Muslim values. Now she has made the news by having a member of the Muslim Brotherhood as an advisor. This person is wanted for terrorism in several countries, Muslim countries among them.

23 August 2007 at 11:37  
Anonymous Toasted Tony said...

His Grace nails it. The pale is defined. You're inside or you're outside.

If I may make an OT suggestion, though, would it be possible to hyperlink the references? At the moment the best way to find a reference like [2Kgs 18:27] on the web is to Google "2Kgs 18:27". You'll need the quotes.

You can then find your way to http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=12&chapter=18&version=31 but I feel sure that the proprietors would not mind a leech link.

And yes of course I have a Bible, but it's at home.

23 August 2007 at 11:37  
Anonymous M Burgess said...

While we are on the Old Testament, will you allow me to ‘cross-post’ this? I have not had a reply from Telegraph readers.

“The BCP says ‘We commend into thy mercy all other thy servants, which are departed hence from us with the sign of faith and now do rest in the sleep of peace: grant unto them, we beseech thee, thy mercy and everlasting peace.’ I’m sure it’s legitimate for Anglicans to pray for the departed (but as a Catholic, I’m not sure). Advice anyone? Cranmer?
Posted by M Burgess on August 22, 2007 2:08 PM”

This was in response to an article by Mr Howse yesterday.

23 August 2007 at 13:29  
Blogger dizzyfatplonka said...

The word should be in your heart not a book, thats where the trouble lays, the hatefull vengeful God of Muslims and Jews was the ego of the particular prophet speaking not the great mystery beyond time and space that the holy spirit is from.

23 August 2007 at 14:23  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Hmmm...

A little discursive, Mr Burgess, but His Grace shall allow it.

The Church of England has never formally condemned prayers for the dead, though public orisons are quite a different matter. There is a world of difference between 'High' and 'Low' Anglican, and each essentially dines à la carte.

Such prayers have always been associated with the doctrine of Purgatory, and the manifold means of extracting monies from the impoverished, which is expressly repudiated in Article XXXI. Further, Article XXII describes it as a fond thing vainly invented.

All Souls' Day, the traditional day for remembering the departed, was not recognised in His Grace's first Prayer Book, and the final version excluded from public services all explicit prayers for the departed. His Grace can see no point in praying for the repose of a spirit that has died scorning the face of the Lord. For those who have died in knowledge of Him, their salvation is a constantly-expressed hope and expectation.

23 August 2007 at 14:28  
Anonymous Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA said...

All holy books, without exception, including the beloved NT, have violent passages. It is interesting that the only one referred to though, seems to be the Hebrew Bible. This explains the 'war against the Jews' at present.

Regarding attitudes to the Qur'an, how many Jews do you know in Britain, or Holland, who go around advocating beheadings, amputation of limbs etc?

If extreme Muslims had not been allowed such leeway (due to post-colonial wimpishness), this state of affairs would never have happened.

It is like your Sikh posting yesterday: context is all as far as symbols are concerned.

Having said which, the front cover of this Saturday's Catholic Tablet might be of interest.

By the way, which bloodthirsty holy book contains the following description of God

'Behold: the voice of my beloved came skipping over the mountains, nimbly leaping over the hills. My beloved is like a gazelle or a young hart'

23 August 2007 at 14:39  
Anonymous Observer said...

I’m sure it’s legitimate for Anglicans to pray for the departed (but as a Catholic, I’m not sure)

I like that sentence - it has complexity - not to mention a certain juxtaposition of contradictions

23 August 2007 at 14:42  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Regarding attitudes to the Qur'an, how many Jews do you know in Britain, or Holland, who go around advocating beheadings, amputation of limbs etc?

None actually which is I suspect the issue. The ruling elites are cowards when it comes to physical violence and are so feminised that they engage in verbal attacks on Jews and Christians from the Gramscian redoubts, but dare not come out and fight.

Which incidentally is why Martha Kearney was so bemusing at lunchtime today with regard to gunplay in Croxteth - there is incredulity and incomprehension that physical violence takes place as if it should only occur in TV drama.

It is a detachment from reality that afflicts too many having grown up in an antiseptic nursery without regard to the real world of Life and Death - the very essence of Belief in God....that the transition from one state to the other is unexpected, sudden, and permanent.

23 August 2007 at 14:50  
Blogger Cranmer said...

It is interesting that the only one referred to though, seems to be the Hebrew Bible. This explains the 'war against the Jews' at present.

Surely Dr Lancaster is not suggesting...

23 August 2007 at 17:09  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

It is interesting that the only one referred to though, seems to be the Hebrew Bible. This explains the 'war against the Jews' at present.

Dr Lancaster -- You have the victim mentality so often and eloquently condemned by Melanie Phillips. Except in Jews, of course. The New Testament and Christianity are continually under attack, not least by Christophobic Jews. Just watch:

Persuasion, not force, is the guiding light of Christianity, and the hope of civilization.

If persuasion is the guiding light of Christianity, I shudder to think what it would be like if its guiding light were coercion.

It is love and passion which produce literature and debate, and through the application of the intellectual mind and the spiritual heart may truth be sought and found.

It's because there is no objective means of establishing truth in theology that force has so often been applied to resolve arguments.

23 August 2007 at 18:03  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

It is a detachment from reality that afflicts too many having grown up in an antiseptic nursery without regard to the real world of Life and Death - the very essence of Belief in God....that the transition from one state to the other is unexpected, sudden, and permanent.

It is detachment from ethnic vibrancy that insulates, rather than afflicts, liberals like Martha Kearney.

23 August 2007 at 18:07  
Anonymous Voyager said...


It is detachment from ethnic vibrancy that insulates, rather than afflicts, liberals like Martha Kearney.


There is truth in that.....it is remarkable just how ignorant people like her are - how naive and insulated. It is astounding just what a surreal existence some of these pontificators on screen really live

23 August 2007 at 18:52  
Anonymous Dr. Irene Lancaster said...

I seem to have touched a nerve. Oh dear.

I speak as someone who teaches all 6 main religions currently included in the RE syllabus at British schools, and am merely stating the obvious.

This is that Hindu scripture, Sikh scripture and even some Buddhist scripture contains violence.

The phrase 'war against the Jews' is not mine, it is actually 'the War against Britain's Jews' and was coined recently by Richard Littlejohn, who is not Jewish, but who received antisemitic literature in the course of, and after, making the programme of that title for Channel 4.

I really don't see how I can have a victim mentality, when I am no longer a victim.

Why don't you just open your eye and look around you.

It may well be that Christianity is often under attack, quite unfairly in my view, but the NT is usually left unassaulted for some reason, and is often (think 'Thought for the Day' on Radio 4) contrasted favourably with that awful, violent 'Old Testament'.

Cranmer, I am afraid I don't know what you mean .....

23 August 2007 at 19:15  
Blogger S said...

Wilders is certainly mistaken in his suggestion to ban the Koran, but he is right on target with his recommendation to ban Muslims. That would do much good in all Western countries. They have caused nothing but trouble, and indeed, this is their avowed intent. Eliminating the Muslims would be a big step toward restoring peace in the Western world.

23 August 2007 at 19:49  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

It is funny how most of your nearly banned authors are French. Is that your discretionary choices Your Grace? Or are they really mostly French?

23 August 2007 at 20:05  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Ms Snuffleupagus,

Philosophers of the Enlightenment, for whom successive popes have had a certain distaste, and at which the French have excelled in their production. Although some of the Continental waffle isn't a patch on the Anglo-Saxon genre...

23 August 2007 at 20:21  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

Dr Lancaster -- you haven't toouched a nerve, but it is irritating to watch Jews, the world's richest and most powerful group, continually harp on their 'victimhood'.

The phrase 'war against the Jews' is not mine,

But it's used by you as tho it's a serious term.

it is actually 'the War against Britain's Jews' and was coined recently by Richard Littlejohn, who is not Jewish, but who received antisemitic literature in the course of, and after, making the programme of that title for Channel 4.

And that proves what? That Littlejohn is a lickspittle? It is native British whites who suffer most from attacks by Muslims in the UK, not Jews.

I really don't see how I can have a victim mentality, when I am no longer a victim.

Then why use a fatuous term like 'war on Jews'?

Why don't you just open your eye and look around you.

I do open my eyes and I see Jews at the forefront of the liberalism that is destroying the UK, the US and Europe. I also see Jews pushing the US and UK into the Middle Eastern conflict for Israel's benefit.

It may well be that Christianity is often under attack, quite unfairly in my view, but the NT is usually left unassaulted for some reason, and is often (think 'Thought for the Day' on Radio 4) contrasted favourably with that awful, violent 'Old Testament'.

Well, it does contrast favourably with the OT. And with the Koran.

23 August 2007 at 20:59  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Jews, the world's richest and most powerful group

That is debatable...I think that Muslim guardians of oil wells are quite well off really when I think of Brunei, Saud etc.

Then again I suspect former members of the CPSU and KGB are quite wealthy on the back of Russian mineral deposits and forests are quite superbly rich - Gazprom is even getting its own Army with tanks

Then again the PLA is doing quite nicely in all those JVs where gweilo can only own 49%

I think the days of warburgs and Kuhn Loeb long ago gave way to Emirs in Dubai or Qatar or wherever the oil sludge is hiding

23 August 2007 at 21:12  
Blogger Wrinkled Weasel said...

Voyager said..

"...Martha Kearney was so bemusing at lunchtime today with regard to gunplay in Croxteth - there is incredulity and incomprehension that physical violence takes place as if it should only occur in TV drama.

It is a detachment from reality."

Martha Kearney is a journalist almost at the top of her profession (I say "almost" - she was apparently "incandescent" when Nick Robinson got the job of Political Editor). Kearney's job, as opposed to mine, is to educate and inform, by using her supposed intellectual skill. Putting the well-rehearsed BBC liberal bias argument to one side for the moment, how, I wonder, is Ms Kearney failing her public? Is she really "naive and insulated" as Voyager suggests, or is it something more akin to mass cognitive dissonance of which she is merely a single practitioner among many?

"The theory of cognitive dissonance (according to Wikipedia) states that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to reduce the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions"

In the world of the liberal humanist there is a constant tension between cynicism and sentimentality, nihilism and relativism or belief in nothingism and belief in everythingism. How surprising is it then that the seasonal tides of the turning world present themselves as a shock to its practitioners? For there are only the confines of personal experience, much of which are conducted in a confusing liberal utopia where noisy sub-cultures vie for hegemony and where Muslim culture is celebrated.. apart from the bit about Gays. And Women. And the Caliphate. Or where Jesus can be depicted in a nappy, but Muhammed cannot be depicted at all and where the oppressed play musical chairs with their oppressors as the decades come and go. Icons of the liberal left are held up as paradigms of enlightened modernity. The liberals are encouraged to believe in multiculturalism, in the moral equivalence of gay relationships, in the human rights of mass murders, in the desperation of a suicide bomber whose last TV role is that of a Martyr.

And now we have the revulsion at the death of another child, but the water will be muddied and subverted by the cry for the human rights of the perpetrator.

The widow of Philip Lawrence is a confused liberal.

His widow has succumbed to the dilemma of the liberal middle classes in that she cannot figure out who the bad guys are any more and is reported to have "blown a kiss" to William Njoh (the boy Lawrence tried to save) as he went down recently for four and a half years for gun crime – one of several crimes he has since been found guilty of).

As for Chindamo, Lawrence’s murderer, her moral compass spins wildy as ever:

"Forgiveness is such a complex issue or maybe such a simple one and I don't think I really understand it yet, and I'm not sure what it is that I'm meant to do.

"This is really difficult but I think I've probably always forgiven Chindamo but it's the dealing with it - that's so difficult."

Her attitude is that of a quintessential antinomian, even though she would probably be shocked to hear her self described so. She has vague notions. Nothing more. If she has a belief, it is one that obviates moral responsibility, which is antinomianism.

The perversity of all of this, and here at last is my point, is this: Liberals shun moral absolutes and the kind of belief that is so firmly held that it leads to martyrdom, but embrace those very attributes when they shown by suicide bombers and human rights activists.

If there is a reason for Ms Kearney’s shock, and that of her colleagues, it is that their innate capacity for belief is vested in the whited sepulchre of righteous nihilism which now lies broken and bleeding before them at the foot of the Twin Towers and downtown Baghdad…and in the hands of every knife-wielding punk in every city.

24 August 2007 at 01:26  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Is she really "naive and insulated" as Voyager suggests, or is it something more akin to mass cognitive dissonance of which she is merely a single practitioner among many?

I take your point...but elaborate on Kearney

educated at Brighton and Hove High School, a girls' independent school in Brighton, and at George Watson's College, a co-educational independent school in Edinburgh. She later read Classics at St Anne's College, Oxford (1976-80). After graduating, Kearney began her career with a variety of jobs at the London commercial radio station, LBC.

Martha Kearney is married to Chris Shaw, journalist and senior programme controller on Five television.


I remember my first day at St Joseph's Roman Catholic Primary vividly because there were so many small children crying for their mothers. I wasn't one of them, although I was four years old, newly arrived at Burgess Hill in Sussex from Dublin, with an Irish accent and without the brown uniform, so had to wear a brown dress instead. The worst part of the day was having to drink the school milk at break, which was horribly warm. But Sister Finbar, our form teacher, was a very kind nun. In our second year, Sister Stanislaus was much stricter; she used to pull down your socks and slap your calves with a ruler.

I don't remember learning very much; I could already read and found "A is for apple" very frustrating. I remember being terrified by arithmetic and fractions. My father, who was a reader in history at the University of Sussex, had a sabbatical at Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania and I went into the third grade at a private girls school there, Ellis Academy. It was a lovely school with imaginative teaching. On my last day there, I was sent on an errand and when I came back there was large cake, and presents, on my desk.

While I was away, St Joseph's became a state primary called St Wilfred's on different, modern premises instead of the rather gloomy, Gothic building with gory pictures of the Crucifixion. There was a brilliant teacher who taught maths so well that it became everybody's favourite subject. Almost everybody in her class passed the 11-plus.

Brighton & Hove Girls was a direct grant school in a big, Victorian building. I loved that school, apart from a really nasty woman who taught us needlework in a dark basement, but was there for just one year because my father was made professor of history at Edinburgh University. I went to George Watson's Ladies' College; it was very hard making the move to Scotland; being English was not very popular but I settled down eventually and made some friends. In my O Grades [O-levels], I got all As- including 90 per cent in maths - apart from a C in arithmetic. I do resent that I was forced to specialise too early and give up science in my second year; this is a huge grey area in my general knowledge, even though I hated it and was physically sick in biology when we dissected a rat.

In "Highers", I did Latin, Greek, English, history and French. I got As. I didn't work very hard at school; I'm very good at exams and last-minute effort. It helps in journalism: I can focus on a deadline.

I did Latin and Greek in the Oxford entrance and took "greats", a gruelling four-year course. I think the course was too academic for me; the enthusiasm was rather crushed out of us. I did love Homer - but having to read all of the Odyssey and Iliad... I found lectures on Greek metre and Roman inscriptions especially tedious.



Now look in her background - the conveyor-belt existence and see where she has actually seen the rubber meet the road ...isn't she really just a latterday debutante cloistered in education then media ?

24 August 2007 at 07:16  
Anonymous Voyager said...

In fact look at much of the politico-media class and see how many are progeny of civil servants - Patricia Hewitt, Charles Clarke, Ruth Kelly, or of academics - Kearney, Maitlis, Miliband, Blair, - or Stockbrokers - Cameron......

These are not areas where you have to associate with a cross-section of society or to provide leadership in any way, shape or form. They simply have no worldly experience. I did not mention lawyers since that brings the issue to full salience since most lawyers are simply performing clerical functions by filing documents which in an earlier age before University became so universal would have been undertaken by school-leaver articled clerks.

24 August 2007 at 08:50  
Blogger Wrinkled Weasel said...

Kearney and I crossed paths a long way back. Thinking about it now, I can see that Voyager is quite right in his implication that she is a lightweight. One gets the distinct impression she could only manage a 2:2 at Oxford, unless she is indulging in false modesty. But I maintain that it is a function of philosophical and professional constraints.

Certainly the journalistic experience is a conveyer belt expeience. Deadlines are very helpful in keeping the mind focussed, but only focussed on the minimum of information. This doesn't allow for a considered distillation of all the salient facts, it merely causes the journalist to follow a pre-set agenda, nod in the direction of the editorial line and get on with it.
Frequently, the question journalists ask their editor when given a job is "what's the story?"
Make the vox pops fit the line, get the talking heads into the studio from your much valued address book, (and you know exactly what they are going to say in advance). A journalist is a professional dilletante. One becomes an instant expert in every subject one covers.The result is comic book heuristics, completed with stereotypes and speech bubbles.

Its no wonder that journalists cannot deal with academics and experts. The Kelly scandal is as much an example of the academic's failure to communicate a complex concept to a journalist as it is an example of BBC bias. Academics equivocate. That was the sad subtext of the Kelly tragedy. If you are presenting a ten minute piece with an expert, that will be cut to a three minute piece, you are going to create a travesty of the truth.

So, I have tried to demonstrate that the philosophical and professional constraints of your average journalist tend to impair the heuristic value of their product. (The job is not a very grown up one is it?)

Kearney is accordingly insitutionalised just as much as a long term mental patient in hospital.

You are right. She should work in a call centre for a year selling insurance, or become a bus driver.

24 August 2007 at 11:36  
Anonymous Dr. Irene Lancaster said...

A few incorrect statements about Jews have been made on this posting, which need to be roundly refuted.

Firstly, Jews comprise 12 million of the world�s population. 6 million, i.e. about half of these, live in Israel.

At the present there are 250,000 Jews in Britain, out of a population of 60 million. That is, less than one half a percent.

Many of these Jews are emigrating to Israel because of the 6-year annual increase in violence against the Jewish population of Britain.

By contrast, there are over 1 billion Muslims world-wide. They constitute about 2-3 % of the population of Britain.

Jews came to Britain at the time of the Norman Conquest and were expelled by King Edward in 1290. They were actually forcibly drowned in the Channel.

Jews, mainly living in Holland (having been expelled from Catholic Spain by Ferdinand and Isabella in 1492) were allowed re-entry to England by Oliver Cromwell.

In 2005-6, the Jewish community of Britain celebrated its 350th anniversary of resettlement.

In Jewish law, written in about 3000 CE in Babylon (Iraq), the main place of their then exile from Israel, Jewish communities introduced a law which has held ever since.

This is the law for all Jews living in diaspora:

In cases where Jewish Law and the law of the land come into conflict, the law of the land must be obeyed, except in cases of murder, idolatry and sexual license.

So, for instance, if Britain banned circumcision, or kosher food, the Jewish community would just have to go along with it.

However, if they were asked to kill all red-heads or start worshipping Allah (not inconceivable the way things are going), they would have to desist, even on pain of death.

As for being �rich and powerful�, I can understand that this is the impression given by some of the media, but nothing could be further from the truth.

A very high proportion of Manchester Jews, for instance, are school teachers. There is quite high unemployment amongst Jews and much of the government was/is Scottish in origin, rather than Jewish.

But that is no reason for anti-Scots racism, is it?

Two Conservative Jews, Michael Howard and his Shadow Chancellor, Oliver Letwin were both lambasted as pigs during the last elections, held in May 2005.

This was done by means of defamatory cartoons produced on Labour-Party posters by Alistair Campbell, Tony Blair�s right-hand man.

Even the BBC called these posters �antisemitic� and they were no way in favour of the Tories, now, were they?

Finally, I can assure you that there is no such thing as the �Jewish vote�. Two Jews, three opinions! Jews vote for Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat.

As for 'liberal' Jewish tendencies, it is true that many Jews, remembering how Jews escaped pogroms in Russia 100 years ago, and were given a home in Britain, tend to side with refugees wherever they are from.

However, this is due to the compassion towards the �stranger� as outlined in the Hebrew Bible and not out of more sinister motives.

You will find these sentiments in the Book of Exodus, about Jews having to remember that they were 'strangers in Egypt' and 'strangers in a strange land', for instance.

I do know that everyone feels jittery and insecure as a result of Islamo-fascism and some of their more unsavoury immigrants to Britain.

I also know that the �white� population (most Jews are �white� in Britain, too, by the way!) feels insecure.

But this is not the fault of the Jews, who are currently having to protect homes, schools, synagogues and places of work from Islamofascist and attacks from both Right and Left for just existing.

I used to guard my own synagogue on the Day of Atonement and search all women who turned up. I nearly turned the rabbi�s daughter away once, because I had never met her before!!

Hope this is helpful.

24 August 2007 at 14:41  
Anonymous Voyager said...

were allowed re-entry to England by Oliver Cromwell.

Actually I think Parliament refused to agree but it was discovered that Edward had had no legal basis for expelling the Jews in 1290 so the matter was resolved to Cromwell's satisfaction.

Interestingly enough he also offered the Netherlands a Joint-Kingdom if they would merge with England....but they got cold feet sadly....

24 August 2007 at 16:38  
Anonymous Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA said...

Quite right, Voyager. There is no written agreement that Jews can stay in Britain, so that their position is extremely precarious, irrespective of Islamo-fascism and its non-Muslim adherents.

24 August 2007 at 17:15  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

Jews, the world's richest and most powerful group

That is debatable...I think that Muslim guardians of oil wells are quite well off really when I think of Brunei, Saud etc.


It's not really debatable when you look at the number of Jewish billionaires, media owners and political string-pullers. Saudi & Co opposed the invasion of Iraq; AIPAC supported it. Who got what they wanted it? Who funded Blair in the UK: Lord Levy or Lord Desai?

Two Jews, three opinions.

Yes, we often hear this. Can you tell me how many Jews support the right of whites or Christians to have their own nations in perpetuity?

As for 'liberal' Jewish tendencies, it is true that many Jews, remembering how Jews escaped pogroms in Russia 100 years ago, and were given a home in Britain, tend to side with refugees wherever they are from.

However, this is due to the compassion towards the �stranger� as outlined in the Hebrew Bible and not out of more sinister motives.


It's not compassion for the stranger, it's simple -- and perfectly understandable -- selfishness. Israel does not welcome 'strangers', i.e. non-Jews, from everywhere in the world because Jews are in the majority there and don't intend to have their power undermined. But wherever Jews are in the minority, they feel safer by reducing the power of the non-Jewish majority. Support for mass immigration is one means to this end.

24 August 2007 at 18:29  
Anonymous Voyager said...

It's not really debatable when you look at the number of Jewish billionaires, media owners and political string-pullers. Saudi & Co opposed the invasion of Iraq; AIPAC supported it. Who got what they wanted it? Who funded Blair in the UK: Lord Levy or Lord Desai?

I don't know Roman Abramovitch's take on Iraq....we never discuss it. But it is clear that Saudi Arabia DID persuade the US to stop Norman Schwarzkopf at the Iraq border in 1991 and that the Shia Rising which was crushed was the price paid because George H. W. Bush listened to the Saudis who saved Saddam Hussein.

George W. Bush did not let the Saudis block things but then again it was Saudis (not the Saudis)who were funding bin Laden and Al-Qaeda and who have been stirring the pot in Iraq.

The Arabs can spoil but they cannot build. The situation in Iraq should be spread into neighbouring countries like Syria and Iran - we too can benefit from destabilisation.

Too often it appears like a re-run of Detente in Europe. Kissinger did everything to keep the USSR from breaking up - it was insolvent by 1972 and had an extension after OPEC pushed up the price of oil - but it was moribund in the 1980s when Reagan pushed it off a cliff.

We are propping up structures in the Middle East because of rampant conservatism and fear of change. The ossified societies in the Middle East have bloated birth rates and no work - Saudi turns out graduates in Islamic Studies who are unemployable. They are seeing per capita incomes collapse - each twist of the oil price spiral keeps the show on the road - but the huge birth rate of young men is the powder keg under these societies and the cause of Islamic militancy

Demographics

oh...and if you check the ethnicity of Britain's rising birth rate.....you can hope the British Army does not recruit them....

25 August 2007 at 15:53  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

I don't know Roman Abramovitch's take on Iraq....we never discuss it. But it is clear that Saudi Arabia DID persuade the US to stop Norman Schwarzkopf at the Iraq border in 1991 and that the Shia Rising which was crushed was the price paid because George H. W. Bush listened to the Saudis who saved Saddam Hussein.

Occupying Iraq then was opposed by many more people than the Saudis, for reasons now all too obvious. But the neo-cons/Likudniks decided it was a mistake and began work to reverse the decision.

oh...and if you check the ethnicity of Britain's rising birth rate.....you can hope the British Army does not recruit them....

Yes, it's very worrying. British whites will become a minority in their own homeland thanks, inter alia, to Jewish 'compassion towards the stranger'.

Quite right, Voyager. There is no written agreement that Jews can stay in Britain, so that their position is extremely precarious, irrespective of Islamo-fascism and its non-Muslim adherents.

Are you not going to comment on this? It's hysterical hyperbole: British Jews are full British citizens. I'd be interested to know from Dr L: In what way do Jews require 'written agreement' to stay in Britain? In what way is their position 'extremely precarious'?

25 August 2007 at 17:53  
Anonymous Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA said...

All the points made about the precarious position of the Jewish community in Britain have been endorsed by the cross-party group of MPs on anti-semitism.

I am at a loss to know what is meant by British 'whites'?

Otherwise, much of the comment above could have come out of Germany in the 30s, and would need a psycho-analyst to deal with it.

As I am currently translating a work on Freud for Bar Ilan University, I'm afraid I don't have the time to deal with all the sad people who seem attracted to this blog.

Although the exceptions to this rule are a delight.

25 August 2007 at 20:40  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Dr Lancaster,

The is no compulsion at all to engage with the 'sad people' who are indeed attracted to His Grace's blog. Simply ignore them, and they might go away.

This blog is for intelligent and erudite discourse. It was hoped that the intelligent and erudite would be attracted to it like a moth to a flame, bees to honey, and many are. The others are simply flies, and need to settle upon fare more to their liking...

25 August 2007 at 21:46  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

All the points made about the precarious position of the Jewish community in Britain have been endorsed by the cross-party group of MPs on anti-semitism.

Cross-party? Gosh, that's impressive. But you previously said 'extremely precarious'. Why drop the adverb when 'everything' is endorsed by the report? And where does this entirely objective report address the question of 'no written agreement that Jews can stay in Britain'? I also seem to recall that it called for the downloading of 'racially and religiously hateful' material to be made illegal. Do you agree with that? Does Cranmer?

I am at a loss to know what is meant by British 'whites'?

Of course you're at a loss: there's no such thing as race, is there?

Otherwise, much of the comment above could have come out of Germany in the 30s, and would need a psycho-analyst to deal with it.

'Disagree with ME and you must be mentally ill.' In other words, you can't back up your hysterical hyperbole.

As I am currently translating a work on Freud for Bar Ilan University, I'm afraid I don't have the time to deal with all the sad people who seem attracted to this blog.

In other words, you can't back up your hysterical hyperbole.

Cranmer quoth:

This blog is for intelligent and erudite discourse.

No false humility for the Arch-B, I see.

It was hoped that the intelligent and erudite would be attracted to it like a moth to a flame, bees to honey, and many are. The others are simply flies, and need to settle upon fare more to their liking...

The good old trailing dots: sure sign of an immature and ineffective writer... Would you like me to start picking the grammar and semantics of your 'intelligent and erudite' postings to pieces, Arch-B? Believe me, it would be very easy to do so: they're good examples of today's Guardian-inf(l)ected Telegraphese.

26 August 2007 at 15:51  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

Dr Lancaster opines:

As for 'liberal' Jewish tendencies, it is true that many Jews, remembering how Jews escaped pogroms in Russia 100 years ago, and were given a home in Britain, tend to side with refugees wherever they are from. However, this is due to the compassion towards the �stranger� as outlined in the Hebrew Bible and not out of more sinister motives.

The New York Times reports:

Israel Returns Illegal African Migrants to Egypt

JERUSALEM, Aug. 19 — Israel sent approximately 50 African migrants, many reported to be Sudanese refugees from war-torn Darfur, back across the border to Egypt late Saturday night, a move that drew the condemnation of Israeli human rights advocates when it became known on Sunday. The migrants had illegally crossed the Israeli-Egyptian border earlier Saturday and were sent back the same day, as Israel instituted a new policy of instantly deporting such illegal migrants, regardless of their status, an Israeli government spokesman said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/world/middleeast/20mideast.html

N.B. I fully support Israel's right to control immigration in the interests of its Jewish majority.

26 August 2007 at 19:52  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older