What do you think?

Is it about Islamofascism – or is it about Judeofascism, Zionofascism, Neofascism, Christofascism, et. al.?

Here is an old essay that was published on this very website which looked into this question a while back:

http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2008/05/28/islamofascism-zionofascism-judeofascism-christofascism-neofascism-etc/

And here is a link to Zbigniew Brzezinski’s book which examines what is “imperial mobilization”, and how it requires a sustained exercise of “doctrinal motivation, intellectual commitment and patriotic gratification”.

sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119973.pdf

If you read only one book on political science in your life, before you go to Machiavelli’s The Prince, run towards Zbigniew Brzezinski’s exposition on statecraft. While he isn’t original, he is the most pertinent for understanding why two-bit shills across the board continually endeavor to introduce “beneficial cognitive diversity” (those aren’t Brzezinksi’s words – but President Obama’s Harvardian Chief Information Officer’s).

Zahir Ebrahim
Project Humanbeingsfirst.org

But the point is the following: in the EU, you may perfectly well write that Israel and Zionists are behaving like assassins. You may also criticize Israel, write that Judaism is a retarded religion (or any other religion for that matter), and say that Israel is an obstacle to a peaceful Middle-East. Obviously, you may write any caricature you want about Islam or Muhammad, and comment about these in the most negative way. However, you may not call for the physical harm of any community or group of people, religion and so on. You may not call for physical harm of the Jews, Muslims, Christians, Arabs and so on.

The only double standard that I can see is about Holocaust denial. It is illegal in most Western countries and I think this is wrong. While I think Holocaust deniers are dangerous disgusting morons with no historical knowledge, I believe that forbidding them by law to express themselves (at the risk of huge fines) is the wrong way to go. I much prefer to fight on the academic and paper ground than in court. And if we begin to forbid revisionism on one topic, why not for any other sensitive topic, for another community? It makes no sense and it is unfair.

But to go back to the article, I would conclude by saying that it confuses hate crime and hate speech (against living people) definition in the West with free negative speech (about ideas). Two completely different things. As another commenter have written, it also fails to see the other hypocrisy: the one of the Muslim world which constantly seeks responsibility for its problems in the West while never addressing its own intolerance and absence of freedom. When I will be able to have this conversation freely in the street of an Arab or Muslim country, I think we will be able to have a balanced discussion.

Now, deprived of an icon to distract their focus away from what really matters, some have chosen to use the ban of the use of an icon as the vehicle for that very same distraction Muhammed was warning against. They have completely lost sight of the intent and are lost in the land of dogma… just like people do around the world.

If you don’t wear a flag pin, you hate america.
If you don’t go to christian church on sunday, you’re a sinner.

It’s the curse of all human organizations. Eventually the original spirit of a movement is padded with rituals to give honor to those who took part in the creation of that movement. Those rituals eventually turn into rules and laws that people’s loyalty is judged from–and not from how they live their lives based on that original spirit of the movement.

Muhammed understood this. Many of his followers completely missed the point–as do many in every religion and nation.