Duc, sequere, aut de via decede!

The Uneasy Sleep

August 19th, 2006 . by Darin

An editorial about Yasukuni and all things relevant by George F. Will on the Washingon Post’s site. HT to Richard of TPD.

Leftist ideology causes South Korea’s regime to cultivate victimhood and resentment of a Japan imagined to have expansionism in its national DNA. The choice by China’s regime is more interesting. Marxism is bankrupt and causes cognitive dissonance as China pursues economic growth by markedly un-Marxist means. So China’s regime, needing a new source of legitimacy, seeks it in memories of resistance to Japanese imperialism.

Actually, most of China’s resistance was by Chiang Kai-shek’s forces, Mao’s enemies. And Mao, to whom there is a sort of secular shrine in Beijing, killed millions more Chinese than even Japan’s brutal occupiers did.

The museum adjacent to Yasukuni says “The Greater East Asian War” began because, when the New Deal failed to banish the Depression, “the only option open to Roosevelt . . . was to use embargoes to force resource-poor Japan into war. The U.S. economy made a complete recovery once the Americans entered the war.” That is disgracefully meretricious — and familiar. For years a small but vocal cadre of Americans — anti-FDR zealots — said approximately that. But neither Koizumi nor Abe includes the museum in his visits to the shrine.

Things are so bad that, speaking about the incessant incursions by Chinese submarines and military aircraft into Japanese sea and air spaces, a senior Japanese official casually made the startling suggestion that China’s regime, like Japan’s regime before the war, does not fully control its military.

The controversy about Yasukuni should not mystify Americans. With their comparatively minor but still acrimonious arguments about displays of Confederate flags, Americans know how contentious the politics of national memory can be, and they understand the problem of honoring war dead without necessarily honoring the cause for which they died.

Emphasis mine.

Huge faked photos scandal

August 8th, 2006 . by Matt

While I had just posted on the fake North Korean propaganda photo, it seems at the same time that news services (in particular Reuters) have been publishing fake pictures of Israeli attacks on Lebanon. This scandal promises to be absolutely huge.

This cartoon on Michele Malkins site gets right to the meat of the problem.

lebanon cartoon

I thought that Israel had some fairly powerful lobby groups, so I am surprised they are putting up with this kind of propaganda. Perhaps we will see some heads roll soon.

Best 2006 soccer article yet

June 26th, 2006 . by Matt

Ruminations in Korea

Jeff from Ruminations in Korea does the best write up yet of the controversy about the Korean teams loss to Switzerland. Here is a taster –

1. The average Korea is completely clueless about the technical rules of the game.
2. The average Korea doesn’t care about the rules and just expects to win at all costs.
3. If Korea loses, then it must be someone else’s fault.
4. Koreans don’t stop to consider that that one call (ultimately correct) did not affect their standing in the World Cup finals in any way, shape or form.
5. It is unfortunate when referees follow the rules if it means a call against Korea.

Read the rest of ‘The Dream is Dead! Let the Whining Begin!’ on Jeffs site.

Wife of terrorist gets $50,000 in welfare payments

May 31st, 2006 . by Matt

Abdul Nacer Benbrika
$50,000 a year for this terrorist shows the suicidal tendency of the Australian state

It is official – The government of Australia is as stupid as the government of Britain. The wife of a terrorist ‘suspect’ is recieving $50,000 a year in welfare payments while her terrorist husband is in jail charged with a terrorist plot.

AUSTRALIA’S 22 terror suspects and their families receive more than $1 million a year in taxpayer-funded welfare and legal aid.

And simply because the men were locked up, their families received a social security pay rise of as much as $1700 a year.

One of the jailed Melbourne men, Abdul Nacer Benbrika — leader of a radical group of Islamists — has been in Australia for 10 years and has never had a job.

So this ingrate comes to Australia, works not a single day and pays not a single cent of income tax, then feels free to preach Jihad? The nerve!

Taxpayers provide his wife with almost $50,000 a year in welfare.

I think the average yearly wage in Australia is around $30,000 to $35,000.

Mr Benbrika was among 13 Melbourne men charged with belonging to a terrorist organisation.

Of Algerian descent, he has a Lebanese-born wife and seven children.

Under Centrelink rules, she is entitled to almost $50,000 a year in welfare while her husband is in prison, awaiting trial.

I see it now. Come to a country where the foolish infidels will pay you to breed your own Jihad army.

His family is not the only one, either.

Ahmed Raad, another Melbourne suspect, has a child and his wife is entitled to about $21,500 a year, as are the wives of Ezzit Raad and Abdullah Merhi.

The wife of another suspect, Hany Taha, who has three children, is entitled to up to $30,000 a year.

Among nine Sydney suspects charged with conspiracy to carry out a terrorist attack was engineer Mohamed Ali Elomar, 40. He has five children and his wife is entitled to about $38,000 a year in taxpayer payments.

Omar Baladjam, a former actor on the ABC TV program Wildside, has two children.

Some people are angry about it but I doubt it will make a difference because they completely miss the point.

People Against Lenient Sentencing president Steve Medcraft said it was an insult to law-abiding battling families.

“Why would you get an increased benefit when you go to jail? That’s an insult to law and order,” Mr Medcraft said.

“It never ceases to amaze me the way the system always favours the accused.

“You go to jail, get three meals a day and free dental, medical and optical and your family gets an increased benefit.”

Crime Victims Support Association spokesman Noel McNamara described the payments as disgraceful and said welfare benefits should be suspended when someone was charged with terrorism offences.

“It is ludicrous that someone who is an alleged terrorist should receive benefits,” he said.

“It should be immediately suspended and if they are found not guilty, pay it out then.”

No, Mr McNamara. The existence of these kinds of welfare payments only encourages excessive breeding by the wrong kind of people. I dont think I have heard of a terrorist suspect that was not on welfare. Our foolish system of social welfare attracts the very people that are least likely to contribute to it.

Lets make no bones about it – this guy has been preaching Jihad against infidels (including Australians) for years before he got caught red handed in organising terrorist attacks. And we foolish Australians keep on encouraging more to come! I dont blame them for wanting to commit terrorist attacks because our policy of multiculturalism encourages them to maintain a medieval culture and hostility towards Australians and Australian culture.

No doubt Muslims in Australia question the right to exist of a country that refuses to fight. I do too. Australians need to learn that “Muslims do not bite the hand they cannot cut off

The Inexplicable Behavior of President George Walker Bush

May 31st, 2006 . by Matt

george bush
Can you explain the actions of this President?

Randall Parker from Parapundit has a great post about the puzzling behavior of President George Bush. I am not anti-American (criticism of George Bush is not anti-Americanism either, although some people try to dress up their anti-Americanism as criticism of him), and neither is Randall, but President Bush’s behavior in my opinion could not hurt American interests more than if that was his aim. The Parapundit post makes some far fetched but funny attempts to explain what President Bush is up to.

El Presidente Jorge W. Bush has become something of an enigma in American politics. However did he manage to become such an unrelentingly bad President of the United States? What motivates him to pursue so many policies harmful to the United States of America? I’ve made comments here asking why our elites hate us and want to replace us. Noted evolutionary theorist Greg Cochran, responding specifically about Bush, advances some hypotheses to explain the destruction derby that is the Bush Presidency. First he points to one of Bush’s quotes for a clue:

“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” – George W. Bush

Then Greg lists various possible explanations for Bush’s otherwise seemingly inexplicable behavior as President:

  • There could be other explanations than hating us. He might have some really important goal in mind, a goal that’s a lot more important than the fate of the United States—a goal so obviously more important that we’d cheer on our own destruction if we only understood. Or maybe Iraq is part of a subtle yet reasonable plan that just can’t be explained in public. — I mean, if everyone knew that we were searching for that buried spaceship and/or time machine in Ur of the Chaldees, if everyone knew we had fought our way into the Garden of Eden and were right now analyzing the DNA of the Tree of Life (along with that of some cherubim that couldn’t stand up to 6,000 rounds a minute of 30 millimeter DU), probably it’d ruin everything.
  • Even if he does hate us, well, maybe we deserve it. Ever think of that? He could be God’s judgment on us. Maybe it’s
    self-reinforcing. He pulls a little shit, we put up with it, and his disdain grows. Iterate that. =
    After a while, we look utterly contemptible and he figures that any country that would put up with this kind of crap must also deserve it. Christ, at this point, he’s probably planning self-nuking. Maybe he’s a broad-band telepath and can feel the ocean of evil around him in Washington. We bad.
  • Maybe the reasons are personal. That can happen: national destinies have been decided in the boudoir, or for that matter by a tumor growing at the base of some leader’s brain. So, maybe he was mad at Saddam for that supposed assassination attempt on the family in Kuwait. Maybe Wolfowitz’s Arab girl friend is the worm in the apple. Maybe Bush had that bad Lawrence-of-Arabia experience with some Ay-rab back in prep school. Maybe the twins were secretly dating Saddam and just couldn’t give up a real man. Maybe Laura yells out the wrong name.
  • Maybe he’s a Skoptsy. That could make a guy go sour. [
    Skoptsism was, however, not exterminated, and grave scandals constantly arose. The most remarkable feature of this extraordinary sect has always been the type of people who joined it. Nobles, military and naval officers, civil servants, priests and merchants were to be found in its ranks, and so rapidly did the numbers increase that 515 men and 240 women were transported to Siberia between 1847 and 1866 without seriously threatening its existence. In, 187? many trials of Skoptsi took place all over Russia. In 1874 the sect numbered at least 5444, including 1465 women. Of these 703 men and 100 women had mutilated themselves ]
  • Maybe he’s loaded. Of course it’s impossible to imagine a President who’s high as a kite half the time—impossible to imagine, but easy to remember [ JFK and Max Jacobson] Maybe the whole Administration is a cult centered around some really potent weed—naw, no one’s ever seen anything like that in the Middle East.
  • Maybe the aliens replaced his pineal gland with an AM radio receiver and he’s channeling Rush (who channels him. scary. ).
  • Maybe he’s dying and wants to see Armageddon before the end.
  • There’s always the possibility that he’s the high-intensity version of Bill Ayers—an SDS bomb-thrower who was the son of the CEO of Commonwealth Edison. You know, child of the power elite who turns against the system.. losers striking back at a hyper-competent father. Bush did it right – his way is slow, but is enormously more effective. Of course he had a few helpers – obviously Cheney and Rove are part of the cell.
  • Or, maybe he’s a mole, a loyal agent of some power that wants the US ruined – or that once did. Sometimes those sleeper agents don’t get the word, especially when the power in question doesn’t really exist any more. Such a left-behind mole must frequently ask himself – what would
    Andropov  do?
  • Maybe he’s trying – rather successfully, I might add – to discredit representative government and bring back the King over the Water. A Jacobite, rather than a Jacobin.
  • Maybe it’s all really the outward manifestation of a power struggle within the Masons.
  • You can’t forget impersonation, the old switcheroo. The real George W. Bush is choking on pretzels in the Château d’If right now.

Read the rest for yourself, it is very funny.

2008 – Star Wars live-action TV series!

April 27th, 2006 . by Matt

star wars

I am a big Star Wars fan, and although I have never gone as far as wearing a costume, I did own Star Wars figurines as a boy. I liked all the movies, but thought ‘The Phantom Menace’ was the weakest for its dull moments concerning Anakin, especially the Pod race. I even read some of the books from the ‘expanded universe’ (The Thrawn trilogy was especially good). So I am looking forward to the Star Wars live-action TV series to be released in 2008. From Wikipedia –

In Revenge of the Sith, Palpatine, the leader of the Galactic Republic, declared himself Emperor, and transformed the Republic into the Galactic Empire. In the process, he ordered the execution of Order 66, in which all members of the clone army of the Republic turned on their Jedi leaders and killed them. In a speech he delivered to the senate, however, he reported that there were remaining Jedi, and that these survivors would be “hunted down and defeated.”

Referred to as “the dark times” by Obi-Wan Kenobi in A New Hope, nineteen years will pass in this series, which is set between the years of 19 BBY and 0 BBY. It is during this period that the newly formed Galactic Empire will rise to ultimate power throughout the galaxy. It is during this time period that the first Death Star will be constructed, albeit with many problems along the way.

However, most of the stories will be told from the perspective of minor characters from the Star Wars galaxy. From Star Wars creator George Lucas’ own words, we may see the mysterious bounty hunter Boba Fett play a significant role in the series, with Daniel Logan reprising his role from Attack of the Clones. According to Lucas, several of the major characters from the films may have small appearances as well. Regardless, the issues involved in this particular era in the Star Wars history, it is said, will be quite clear, though the actual people involved may not necessarily be seen.

Over the course of the show, the Rebel Alliance, founded by Senator Mon Mothma and Senator Bail Organa in Revenge of the Sith, will gradually form into a full resistance against an Empire that holds the entire galaxy under its grip. The alliance, armed with its loyalist intentions to restore the Old Republic, will ultimately win its first battle against the Empire, setting up the events for A New Hope.

I hope they make the Star Wars live-action TV series for a mature audience, and not for kids.

On a related note, Wikipedia is quickly becoming a comprehensive resource on all aspects of pop culture, such as celebrities, movies, books, and computer games, often with a level of detail not found anywhere else. Once Wikipedia works out how to deal with trolls, they will be a ‘force‘ to be reckoned with (apologies for the pun!).

The Decline and Fall of the British Empire

April 22nd, 2006 . by Matt

‘Great’ Britain – It was probably better under the Romans

I took the name of this post from The History Of The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon. I am not saying that the ‘British Empire’ is falling, it already has, what I am referring to the the lack of moral compass in the British government (and presumably the people that are electing these demagogues). I have been following the progress of the British decline, and the outlook seems bleak. From the impossibility of a politically correct ‘war on terror’, to refusing to deport ‘refugees’ that express terrorist sentiments, to banning Winnie the Pooh because it is the subject of one of the taboos of a backward people, Britain can no longer tell right from wrong, let alone fight for what is right.

The self righteous politically correct moralizing of the British government is in direct contrast to its moral turpitude. Theodore Dalrymple writing in CITY journal describes a situation in which terrible crimes go almost unpunished, while a ‘homophobic’ joke is met by an army of police.

Returning briefly to England from France for a speaking engagement, I bought three of the major dailies to catch up on the latest developments in my native land. The impression they gave was of a country in the grip of a thoroughgoing moral frivolity. In a strange inversion of proper priorities, important matters are taken lightly and trivial ones taken seriously.

This is not the charming or uplifting frivolity of Feydeau’s farces or Oscar Wilde’s comedies; it is the frivolity of real decadence, bespeaking a profound failure of nerve bound to have disastrous consequences for the country’s quality of life. The newspapers portrayed frivolity without gaiety and earnestness without seriousness—a most unattractive combination.

Of the two instances of serious matters taken with levity, the first concerned a 42-year-old barrister, Peter Wareing, attacked in the street while walking home from a barbecue with two friends, a man and a woman. They passed a group of seven teenagers who had been drinking heavily, one of whom, a girl, complained that the barrister and his friends were “staring” at them. Nowadays, English youth of aggressive disposition and porcelain-fragile ego regard such alleged staring as a justified casus belli.

The girl attacked the woman in the other party. When Wareing and his male friend tried to separate them, two of the youths, aged 18 and 16, in turn attacked them. They hit the barrister’s friend into some bushes, injuring him slightly, and then knocked the barrister to the ground, knocking him down a second time after he had struggled to his feet. This second time, his head hit the ground, injuring his brain severely. He was unconscious and on life support for two months afterward. At first, his face was so disfigured that his three children were not allowed to see him.

The doctors told his wife, a nurse, that he was unlikely to survive, and she prepared the children for their father’s death. She wrote in a journal that she kept as she sat by his bed, “Very scary feeling that all his natural life is gone.” Nevertheless, he made an unexpected, though partial, recovery. His memory remains impaired, as does his speech; he may never be able to resume his legal career fully. It is possible that his income will be much lower for the rest of his life than it would otherwise have been, to the great disadvantage of his wife and children.

One of the two assailants, Daniel Hayward, demonstrated that he had learned nothing—at least, nothing of any comfort to the public—after he had ruined the barrister’s life. While awaiting trial on bail, he attacked the landlord of a pub and punched him in the face, for which he received a sentence of 21 days in prison.

Before passing sentence for the attack on Wareing, the judge was eloquent in his condemnation of the two youths. “You were looking for trouble and prepared to use any excuse to visit violence on anyone you came by. It is the callousness of this that is so chilling. . . . You do not seem to care that others have been blighted by your gratuitous violence.”

You might have thought that this was a prelude to the passing of a very long prison sentence on the two youths. If so, however, you would be entirely mistaken. Both received sentences of 18 months, with an automatic nine-month remission, more or less as of right. In other words, they would serve nine months in prison for having destroyed the health and career of a completely innocent man, caused his wife untold suffering, and deprived three young children of a normal father. One of the perpetrators, too, had shown a complete lack of remorse for what he had done and an inclination to repeat it.

Even at so young an age, nine months is not a very long time. Moreover, when I recall that for youths like these a prison sentence is likely to be a badge of honor rather than a disgrace, I cannot but conclude that the British state is either utterly indifferent to or incapable of the one task that inescapably belongs to it: preserving the peace and ensuring that its citizens may go about their lawful business in safety. It does not know how to deter, prevent, or punish. The remarks of the policeman in charge of the case were not encouraging. He said afterward that he hoped that “the sentences . . . send a clear warning to people who think it is acceptable to consume large quantities of alcohol, then assault members of the public in unprovoked attacks.” If the law supposes that, as Mr. Bumble said in Oliver Twist, “the law is a ass—a idiot.”

As for Peter Wareing, even in his brain-damaged state, he had a better appreciation of things. He was evidently a man of some spirit: having been a salesman, he decided to study for the law, supported himself at law school by a variety of manual jobs, and qualified at the bar at the age of 40. The extent of his recovery astounded his neurosurgeon, who attributed it to Wareing’s determination and “bloody-mindedness.” He is avid to get back to work, but the contrast between the nominal 18-month sentence for his attackers and his own “life sentence,” as he called it, of struggle against disability is not lost on him. “If there were real justice,” he said, “they would have gone to prison for life.” Could any compassionate person disagree?

Perhaps the final insult is that the state is paying for him to have psychotherapy to suppress his anger. “I have this rage inside me for the people who did this,” he said. “I truly hate them.” Having failed in its primary duty, the state then treats the rage naturally consequent upon this failure as pathological, in need of therapy. On reading Peter Wareing’s story, ordinary, decent citizens will themselves feel a sense of impotent rage, despair, betrayal, and abandonment similar to his. Do we all need psychotherapy?

A second case similarly illustrates the refusal of the British state to take the lives of its citizens seriously. An engineer—Philip Carroll, the father of four—was tinkering with his car outside his home. Four drunken youths sat on a wall on his property, and he asked them to leave. They argued with him, and one of them threw a stone at his car. He chased this youth and caught him, but between 20 and 40 more youths loitering drunkenly nearby rallied round, and one 15-year-old hit the engineer to the ground, where he too banged his head and received severe brain damage. Unconscious for 18 days, he needed three operations to survive; and now he too has an impaired memory and might never work again.

According to his parents, the culprit, Michael Kuba-Kuba, felt deeply ashamed of what he had done, but this did not in the least prevent him during the trial from claiming (unsuccessfully, in the event) that he had been acting in self-defense. This does not sound like genuine shame to me but rather an attempt to get away with it. Before passing sentence, the judge said: “I have to try to ensure that the courts will treat incidents like this with great severity, to send out a message to other young people that violence is not acceptable.”

Another prelude, you might think, to a stiff sentence—but again you would be wrong. The young man got 12 months, of which he will serve six. Six months for the active life of a man—for having caused 30 or 40 years of disability, as well as incalculable suffering to the disabled man’s family! It is not difficult to imagine Kuba-Kuba returning from prison to a hero’s welcome, because he had simultaneously gotten away with near-murder and survived the rite of passage that imprisonment now represents. The message the judge sent out to other young people, no doubt unintentionally, was that youths may destroy other people’s lives with virtual impunity, for the British state does not care in the least about protecting them or deterring such crimes.

Two aspects of the case went unexamined in the newspapers. The first was that Kuba-Kuba’s parents were the owners of a grocery store specializing in African foods, and were deeply religious. The young man doubtless did not grow up in abject poverty, then; nor would he have derived his readiness for violence from anything his parents might have taught him.

The second was that Kuba-Kuba was a talented athlete, apparently of Olympic standard. He was a promising soccer player, so promising that several major teams were seriously interested in recruiting him. If, as seemed likely, he had made the grade, he would have become a multimillionaire by his early twenties, earning more in a year than most people in a lifetime. Lack of economic prospects and the frustration it entails can hardly explain a propensity to violence in his case, therefore.

We must look elsewhere for the source of his violent conduct. Possibly he was born a sport of nature, a creature biologically destined to violence—no doubt there are such cases. But far more likely was that an aggressive popular culture that glorifies egotistical impulsivity and denigrates self-control influenced him. Although his parents presented him, in their statements, as a paragon of virtue, he already had a conviction for theft, and he clearly hung about with teenagers who drank a lot and made a nuisance of themselves. Carroll confronted the youth who threw the stone precisely because he was exasperated by the unruly behavior that prevailed in his neighborhood, undeterred and unpunished by the state. A senior policeman said after the attack, “We have gangs of young people hanging around on street corners being abusive, intimidating and causing trouble. . . . They don’t give a damn about the police or the criminal justice system.”

And who can blame them? What deterrent, punishment, vengeance, or protection for society is six months in prison for having injured a man so badly that he did not recognize his wife or children for several months afterward, that he now has poor eyesight, has lost his sense of smell and taste, has to wear a brace on one foot and a hard hat to protect his skull, and says of himself, “I just have no interest in anything or anyone”—having previously been a highly successful man?

Having seen how the British state takes the serious lightly, let us now see how it takes the trivial seriously.

The newspapers reported the case of an Oxford student who, slightly drunk after celebrating the end of his exams, approached a mounted policeman. “Excuse me,” said the young man to the policeman, “do you realize your horse is gay?”

This was not a very witty remark, but it was hardly filled with deep malice either. It was, perhaps, a manifestation of the youthful silliness of which most of us have been guilty in our time. And Oxford was once a city in which drunken students often played, and were even expected to play, pranks on the police, such as knocking off their helmets.

The policeman did not think the student’s remark was innocent, however. He called two squad cars to his aid, and, in a city in which it is notoriously difficult to interest the police in so trivial a matter as robbery or burglary, they arrived almost at once. Apparently, the mounted policeman thought—if thought is quite the word I seek—that the young man’s remark was likely to “cause harassment, alarm or distress.” He was arrested and charged under the Public Order Act for having made a “homophobic remark.”

Here is a lesson for us all – if you are ever in serious trouble or are being bashed in the dangerous streets of ‘Great’ Britian, call the police and tell them homophobes are making jokes and you will get the immediate assistance you require. If you are being assualted, dont even think about self defense because it is illegal in Britain, and is severely punished.

In other British news, the police arrested a 10 year old boy for schoolyard insults. The Crown Prosecution Service charged the boy with “racially abusing” another pupil. This was too much for this particular judge (who knows what would have happened if it was a different judge), who expressed disbelief at the charges.

Judge Finestein spoke out when the boy, from Irlam, Greater Manchester, appeared at Salford youth court accused of racially abusing a fellow pupil.

He called an 11-year-old boy “Paki”, allegedly referred to him as “bin Laden” and chanted: “He’s on the run, pull the trigger and shoot the nigger”. He is said to have made the comments in the school playground between July 1 last year and Jan 30 this year.

The 10-year-old denied the racially aggravated public order offence and said he was now friends with the boy.

He admitted calling him a “Paki” but said he did not use any other racist terms and claimed the complainant had called him “white trash”.

Judge Finestein said he thought prosecuting the youngster was “crazy” and urged the Crown Prosecution Service to reverse its decision. He said: “Have we really got to the stage where we are prosecuting 10-year-old boys because of political correctness? I was repeatedly called fat at school. Does this amount to a criminal offence?

“This is political correctness gone mad. It’s crazy. Nobody is more against racist abuse than me but these are boys in a playground. This is nonsense.”

You would think that the British police has better things to do. I will continue to monitor Britains slow ‘death by a thousand cuts‘, but lets hope the British people wake up and throw out the snake oil peddlers that are currently running the country.

South Park takes on the Mohammed cartoons II

April 14th, 2006 . by Matt

For the back story to this, read South Park takes on the Mohammed cartoons.

Comedy Central has refused to broadcast cartoon images of Mohammed out of fear for “public safety“, which means that the network bosses are afraid that terrorist followers of the ‘Religion of Peace‘ will kill them. We know this is true because Mohammed has actually already appeared in South Park, in a 2001 episode called ‘Super Best Friends‘. This is before the violence and protest about Mohammed cartoons that followed them being published in a European newspaper.

In the show, Kyle persuades the FOX network to run an uncensored episode of The Family Guy, with Mohammed in it. They then proceed to show us Mohammed… but instead we get a message saying that Comedy Central has refused to show an image of Mohammed.

South Park

After that it shows Jesus and President Bush defacating on an American flag, proving that it is purely terrorist pressure dictating that Islam is taboo subject for US television networks and newspapers.

I have taken the liberty of posting a couple of minutes from this episode of South Park. Watch it. I am sure you will be as sad as I am that superstitious savages are the ones to decide what we are allowed to watch.

We owe Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the creators of South Park, a debt of gratitude for so vividly demonstrating the cowardice of the Main Stream Media.

Update: See the missing footage here.

South Park takes on the Mohammed cartoons

April 10th, 2006 . by Matt

head in the sand
A professor from the university tells the citizens of South Park of a detailed plan to bury their heads in the sand to avoid offending muslims

South Park is proving again that it is willing to attack superstitious taboos when the American mass media is either unwilling, or too cowardly, to do it. This time South Park has taken on the issue of self censorship over the Mohammed cartoons. The name of the latest episode of South Park is ‘Cartoon Wars’, and it is the first part of a two episode story.

In the story, the people of South Park go hysterical with fear as muslim terrorists threaten death and destruction if the muslim Prophet Mohammed is depicted on an episode of The Family Guy (they are using The Family Guy to represent South Park, actually). The people of South Park go as far as to bury their heads in holes filled with sand to prove to muslims that they are not involved in the portrayal of Mohammed, and thus spare themselves from violent death.

In a town meeting Butters’ father makes a South Park style speech in which people normally repent their mistakes and see the light.

Freedom of speech is at stake here, don’t you all see? If anything, we should all make cartoons of Mohammed and show the terrorists and the extremists that we are all united in the belief that every person has a right to say what they want. Look people, it’s been really easy for us to stand up for free speech lately. For the past few decades, we haven’t had to risk anything to defend it. One of those times is right now. And if we aren’t willing to risk what we have now, then we just believe in free speech, but won’t defend it“.

But the people of South Park decide that burying their heads in the sand is a better idea.

Fortunately for the fearful citizens of South Park, the episode of family guy that the Prophet Mohammed was supposed to appear in was censored by the network so that Mohammed could not be seen. However, it is announced that Mohammed would be seen in the following episode. Cartman then convinces Kyle that the next episode of The Family Guy has to be pulled off the air because it is offensive to muslims (that is as far as I will go to avoid spoilers).

This episode is almost certainly related to the South Park episode about Scientology that was pulled off the air by Comedy Central, under pressure from Scientologists (view it here). Indeed, although Scientology is not mentioned in the episode, it is hinted at when Cartman says “Dont you see? If they censor a show about islam, then next time the show has something about catholics, then the catholics will want the show pulled. And then the Jews. Eventually Family Guy will get pulled off the air completely“. At the end of the Cartoon Wars episode, the voice over issues a challenge to Comedy Central to pull the following episode that will depict Mohammed, saying “Will the people of America be safe? Will Fox let the Family Guy air? Will they show Mohammed Uncensored? Find out next week to see if Comedy Central pusses out“.

The Political Pittbull has put up a taster of the show featuring the town meeting in which the citizens of South Park decide to bury their head in the sand. I have the entire episode but obviously I cannot post it as it is the property of the creators, and they deserve the income they are making from their show.

South Park is making an important statement about the media in America, as none of the major media organs would show the Mohammed cartoons, even when they were reporting about the violence and riots that were the muslim response to it. Will Comedy Central chicken out, proving that special interests, pressure groups, and threats of violence can effectively put an end to free speech in the land of the free? Lets see what happens next week.


March 3rd, 2006 . by Matt

David Irving
People in Europe can go to prison for expressing insulting opinions

David Irving, a denier of the holocaust, pleaded guilty of ‘holocaust denial’ and was sentenced to three years in an Austrian jail. Irving, who has expressed and opinion offensive to a great many people is being punished for it.

The problem with this is that Europe is now in the very embarrassing postion of defending the Mohammed cartoons as ‘non-negotiable free speech‘ while putting another man in jail for exercising his ‘non-negotiable free speech’.

This could not come at a worse time. In the muslim world, this is going to be seen as the ultimate hypocrisy, where in the west one is free to insult Muslims but go to prison for insulting Jews. It gets worse. Now Iran has decided to hold a competition with a prize for ‘holocaust cartoons’, and are daring European newspapers to publish them. The European papers will not, and thus the Iranians will win a propaganda victory.

The winner of a controversial Iranian contest for cartoons of the Holocaust will receive a handsome 12,000 dollars, organisers announced, AFP reported.

The competition was launched a week ago in a tit-for-tat move over caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed that have angered Muslims worldwide, with the selected cartoons posted on Irancartoons.com, a website run in association with Iran’s biggest selling newspaper Hamshahri.

“This is the biggest prize in caricature history,” the site boasted, explaining that the second best entry would get 8,000 dollars and the third best 5,000.

“Twelve other prizes are also to be given,” it added.

Organisers say they want to turn the tables on the assertion that newspapers can print offensive material in the name of freedom of expression.

The sentencing of David Irving led the Iranian foreign minister to observe that free speech in Europe is a ‘Western paradox’.

Tehran – Iran on Tuesday said the three-year jail sentence imposed by Austria on the British writer David Irving for denying the Holocaust clearly showed the ‘Western paradox’ on freedom of expression.

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said the West on the one hand claims freedom of expression but on the other, implements the opposite in practice.

He said that during his talks in Brussels on Monday in the European Parliament ‘the deputies were not even willing to open this discussion.’

‘We do not understand why the West so desperately insists on having committed this crime and killed exactly six million (Jews),’ Mottaki said.

It is impossible to rebuff the Muslims on principle in one case, while violating those same principles in another. Amazingly, it took a Jewish writer in the Jerusalem post to point out the obvious to the Europeans.

The timing of Austria’s conviction and imprisonment of David Irving for denying the Holocaust could not have been worse. Coming after the deaths of at least 30 people in Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Libya, Nigeria and other Islamic countries during protests against cartoons ridiculing Muhammad, the Irving verdict makes a mockery of the claim that in democratic countries freedom of expression is a basic right.

We cannot consistently hold that cartoonists have a right to mock religious figures but that it should be a criminal offense to deny the Holocaust. I believe that we should stand behind freedom of speech. And that means that David Irving should be freed.

Before you accuse me of failing to understand the sensitivities of victims of the Holocaust, or the nature of Austrian anti-Semitism, I should say that I am the son of Austrian Jews. My parents escaped Austria in time, but my grandparents did not.

The article continues –

So I have no sympathy for David Irving’s absurd denial of the Holocaust – which he now claims was a mistake. I support efforts to prevent any return to Nazism in Austria or anywhere else. But how is the cause of truth served by prohibiting Holocaust denial? If there are still people crazy enough to deny that the Holocaust occurred, will they be persuaded by imprisoning people who express that view? On the contrary, they will be more likely to think that people are being imprisoned for expressing views that cannot be refuted by evidence and argument alone.

In his classic defense of freedom of speech in On Liberty, John Stuart Mill wrote that if a view is not “fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed,” it will become “a dead dogma, not a living truth.” The existence of the Holocaust should remain a living truth, and those who are skeptical about the enormity of the Nazi atrocities should be confronted with the evidence for it.

IN THE aftermath of World War II, when the Austrian republic was struggling to establish itself as a democracy, it was reasonable, as a temporary emergency measure, for Austrian democrats to suppress Nazi ideas and propaganda. But that danger is long past. Austria is a democracy and a member of the EU. Despite the occasional resurgence of anti-immigrant and even racist views – an occurrence that is, lamentably, not limited to countries with a fascist past – there is no longer a serious threat of any return to Nazism in Austria.

By contrast, freedom of speech is essential to democratic regimes, and it must include the freedom to say what everyone else believes to be false, and even what many people find offensive. We must be free to deny the existence of God, and to criticize the teachings of Jesus, Moses, Muhammad and Buddha, as reported in texts that millions of people regard as sacred. Without that freedom, human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock.

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”

The article ends with this sensible observation.

Only when David Irving has been freed will it be possible for Europeans to turn to the Islamic protesters and say: “We apply the principle of freedom of expression evenhandedly, whether it offends Muslims, Christians, Jews or anyone else.”

Europe needs to get over its moral crisis, and start dealing with problems realistically. It can start by practicing what it preaches.

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »