It’s not the American’s fault

I’ve been watching the news reports of the rioting in Islamic lands over the release of a scurrilous film about the founder of Islam, Mohammed.

I happen to believe (as do many others) that it is a fundamental right in a free society to give offence, especially when what you are giving offence with has an element of truth in it. It’s right to make fun of dangerous and pompous people partially in order that they become less dangerous and pompous.

Mohammed was an unsavoury character. He did commit acts of paedophilia as we would see it today, he did order murders, he did commit robbery and so much more. Mohammed has a charge list as long as your arm. However, so did many English Monarchs, even those who were very spiritual and religious, but herein lies the big difference between how we view dodgy monarchs and how Muslims view Mohammed.

We can use logic to recognise that a particular king or religious leader didn’t live according to the same standards as today and although we know that we can also recognise their greatness or their achievements. But that doesn’t mean we want to emulate them in their more negative ways, we as a western society have moved on and grown up. Sadly much of the Islamic world has not only not grown up but hasn’t even started growing a teenage bumfluff moustache.

The Islamic world is exhorted to ‘be like Mohammed’, and to emulate him. Now if the historical or religious personage you are emulating or trying to emulate is mostly good or was an example of moral behaviour then this isn’t an issue. Their adherents may be a bit of a pain if they are doing door to door evangelism like the Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Pentacostalists.

However in general they are not an issue because they do essentially follow similar morals to the rest of us. Whether we are Christian, Jewish, Hindu or Sikh we all try mostly to stick to something approximating the Golden Rule which is treat others how you would wish to be treated yourself.

With Islam in control this Golden Rule is either missing or modified or ignored quite often as witnessed by the conditions for minorities in Islamicly dominated areas.

With Islam, because their prophet was such a bastard, people emulating him ARE an issue and makes for a volatile situation in places where Islam is either the dominant ideology (eg Middle East) or is not dominant but has been pandered to by the state and third sector such as charities (eg many places in Europe).

I heard someone say recently that ‘a Muslim will kick off just because you said ‘Good Morning’.’
Sadly that appears to be true to a large extent. Challenges to religion that we in the West accept as part of the price for living in free societies, and which Christian, Jewish and other groups sign up to and co exist with, are completely alien to the Muslim and Islamic mindset.

I got to thinking about whose fault these riots are?

My conclusion is that they are not the fault of the person or persons who made, financed, or appeared in the film. Yes I know that the ultimate organiser of the film is, shall we say, dubious to say the least but even the dubious have free speech or should have. (The blog Harry’s Place has background on the film’s creator which is interesting.)

It’s not the fault of the cinema that put the showing on

It’s not the fault of You Tube

It’s not the fault of the doctrine of free speech

It’s not the fault of the Americans

These riots, murders and disturbances are however the fault of Muslims and Islam itself. The inhabitants (or prisoners) of the Islamic world have an inability to reason and be reasonable. Islamic philosophy has created a culture that lives in a constant whirlwind of hatred of all that is not Muslim and where everything is measured against the standards of the 7th Century.  This is the fault of a dualistic view of the world that separates Muslim and non muslim to a far greater degree than other cultures and religions separate those who are inside and outside of their cultures do.

Keep saying it, because it’s the truth. It’s NOT the American’s fault that the Islamic world has kicked off, these disturbances are the fault of Islam and Islam alone.

And, in case you haven’t seen the trailer, it’s here for you to make up your own minds about

It’s pretty rubbish acting and the writers sound like they’d be sacked from the failed UK soap opera El Dorado, but it should NOT be censored.

21 Comments on "It’s not the American’s fault"

  1. Noggin the Nog | September 14, 2012 at 4:31 pm |

    These people should rounded up, placed in concentration camps and deported forthwith, and any fifth columnists that may wish to go with them.

    While there is still time.

    • I’m not sure I’d go so far as to say that concentration camps are the answer , but we could certainly do with rounding up deporting our fifth columnists and having some form of sanction against the Left who have imposed Islam on the UK.

      Unfortunately Labour imported a lot of people that we could well do without and that mess needs to be sorted out.

  2. Noggin the Nog | September 14, 2012 at 6:02 pm |

    As events currently going on in the middle east prove, these muppets cannot be reasoned with, and they absolutely will not integrate, whatever that means.

    Extreme measures are required. The ONLY thing these people respect is strength. Military strength.

    Camps are a good way of controlling this disease until it can be exised.

    We had no problem interring Japanese and Germans during WWII, and we are in far more danger from this dross than we were from them. Any that resist can be shown the barrel of a gun, up close.

    The British people have become such sheep, following ludicrous fashions and cheering vanity at every turn, that they could easily be convinced as to the necessity for such measures, if they see the traitors that have allowed the nation to placed in such danger swinging from a rope, and hear some clear, truthful leadership from people who genuinely care for this nation. 70 years of treachery will not be undone overnight, and it would be a shock to the masses that have been taught not to think, but once the immediate benefits of restoring the nation to the peoples that it has always belonged start to become clear, people would begin to wake up and understand the need for such drastic measures.

    • Now if you are talking about internment then that is a different matter in wartime humanely interning enemy aliens and supporters of hostile powers is acceptable. I don’t like the term concentration camps, this is not ‘final solution’ time and nor should it be. We do need to remove from society by imprisonment, internment and expulsion those members of the Islamic community who are following paths that are not compatible with western society.

      Less damaging and sometimes harmless but unpopular people have been expelled from the UK in the past, I don’t see what is morally wrong with expelling those who really are damaging and harmful.

  3. Noggin the Nog | September 14, 2012 at 8:24 pm |

    Bloodshed is inevitable. It should not be the purpose of the exercise, the internment and expulsion, but it would need to be recognised that lives would inevitably be lost.

    There is nothing about Islam that is compatible with western society, therefore there would be none of its followers that should be permitted to remain.

    There is no such thing as a moderate muslim.

    • Based solely upon your more extreme comments which I have read elsewhere, I was beginning to worry about you. However you are exceptionally normal, are you not?

    • Noggin, thank you for saying bloodshed should not be the purpose of the exercise. ‘Never Again’ must be kept in mind even when confronting a dangerous enemy. If there is bloodshed caused by confronting Islam in the West then I don’t think that those resisting Islam will start it. What may happen is the Islamofash will kick off then claim victimhood (which is a general pattern if you look around).

      The only sort of Islam in my mind that is fully compatible with free societies is Sufism. Sufi’s have been great friends of the Abrahamic Religions and there have been mutual influences between them. Many of the other sorts of Islam need to have their freedom of action severely curtailed and there may well need to be selective expulsions of those promoting Islamic expansion. Maybe it’s time to be not cruel but a bit more non welcoming to Islam, because of Islam’s undoubted socio-religious developmental problems are causing disturbance here in Europe and elsewhere.

      I’d like to think of expulsions and making people stateless as a last resort.

      A good start would be to actually enforce the laws against terrorism, funding and supporting terror, incitement to murder etc. These laws seem to be applied with the law enforcement agencies keeping one eye open for community cohesion issues. This sort of governmental behavior needs to stop.

      I’ll know when things are starting to change when Anjem Choudhry is prosecuted and convicted under the 2006 Race and Religious Hatred Act.

      I think there are moderate Muslims but they are only moderate when they either ignore the Qu’ran or re interpret it in a similar way to Christians and Jews have done to their holy books.

      The big problem with that is there just are not enough of them when compared to the Qu’ranic literalist psychos. When was the last time you saw a Muslim demonstration against Islamic terrorism for example?

  4. Noggin the Nog | September 15, 2012 at 10:10 am |


    You are wrong about Sufis. They were the ‘elite’ soldiers that are responsible for numerous pogroms down the years, the ‘special forces’ of Islam. They are currently at the bottom of the pile, and victimised by two of the larger sects, Sunni and Shi’ite (not Shia, another invention of Newspeak to attempt to prevent people from associating Muslims with shit, which, BTW, has not worked on me). If these 2 sects were removed by whatever means, the sufi would resume their historical habit of plunder, rape and murder.

    Islam, in whatever form, has such fundamentally, intrinsically inimical aims and beliefs to that of ordered civilisation that it should be banned as a terrorist organisation, and its centres of ‘learning’, ie. mosques, should be razed to the ground or converted to public toilets. The leaders of terror cells and the cells themselves should be shot for treason and all other followers given 5 days to leave or face arrest and deportation. Financial reparations should be made for loss of property, at market rates, and all infrastructure, shops, houses, businesses, etc compulsorily purchased. Those not willing to accept such offers can lump it, and those that physically resist can be dealt with appropriately.The time for equivocating about the so called benefits or even the benignity of different sects of a medieval, desert death-cult has passed; as with a tumour, the longer the time taken to remove it, the less the chance of the survival of the host.

    The phrase ‘Abrahamic faiths’ is also classic Newspeak. Abraham had one faith, which today is called Judaism. Christianity is directly related to Judaism, but most of its core teachings are not. They are entirely different. Islam is the bastard child, with absolutely no direct relationship to either Christianity, Judaism or Abraham. A sad attempt has been made to try to potray Islam as the latest extension of the other 2, and a cursory glance at either’s scriptures will suffice to prove otherwise.

    I am not sure whether Islam has retarded the races of its followers, as Churchill himself plainly stated, or whether these races were already retarded and hence their willingness to accept such a foul ideology, probably a bit of both.

    The last thing we need is for it to retard our own people.


    Are you talking to me, or Fahrenheit?

    • Noggin I cannot agree with you about the Sufi’s It is historical fact that there have been reasonable relations between the Abrahamic Religions (chrisitanity and judaism) and Sufi Islam. . If you read my words you will see that I do not include Islam amongst the Abrahamic faiths because Islam grew out of the pagan pantheon of the Arabian peninnsular. Islam might have one god but it is not the same as that of the christians and the jews.

      I do hope that your suggestions are only for ‘last resort ‘ action as I personally would prefer Islam to be dealt with in a mainstream manner by the application of law which has sadly been lacking in recent years. We can start by nicking and deporting those who call for the destruction of democracy and freedom.

  5. Noggin the Nog | September 15, 2012 at 11:40 am |


    They are indeed a last resort.

    That is why we need to implement them now.

    All attempts at integrating this cult have failed, miserably. They want world domination, quite literally, and will achieve it if they are not physically prevented from doing so.

    You are wrong about Sufism, as I have already said. Just look at the centuries of slaughter perpetrated against Hindus in India, by Sufis, for more evidence of the brutality of this cult. This is what ALWAYS happens when Islam, in whatever form, is the majority religion in any given area. Once Islam reaches about 10% representaion within a population, problems begin, cf. the UK. 25% the problems become more pronounced, cf. the Netherlands. 40% civil war is inevitable, cf. Kosovo in particular and the Balkans in general, Chechnya (predominantly Sufi, BTW). Anything over 40% results in a tipping point; what follows is either decades of grinding civil war or capitulation to the Muslim, resulting in the total loss of the country, cf. Egypt, Jordan, Libya, Tunisia, Syria etc, etc. These nations are simply basket cases of zero economic, scientific, artistic or cultural importance. Third world hell holes. When an alternative to oil is found, as long as it is not sand, Saudi Arabia and the oil sheikh nations will simply implode, as they have absolutely nothing else to contribute to civilisation.

    BTW, it appears to have escaped your notice, but we do not live in a democracy and have not for a very long time.

    • Noggin, you are entitled to your view but I still reckon that using law to deal with Islamic expansionism is a better way. I don’t think we need mass expulsions of Muslims, but I do think that we should stop making it so easy for Islam (including replacing multiculturalism and replacing it with assimilationism). That will need legislative changes and getting away from the European Court of Human Rights.

      I agree that there has been zero achievments of merit from the Islamic world, a brief look at the statistics for Nobel Prizes will show you that.

      Yeah I know about the sufi’s and the conquest of India but later (19th C on) almost alone of the islamic currents they encourage secular education and are possibly the only Islamic group that do seem to be ‘seeking the peace of the city’.

      I’m a little more hopeful about western democracy than you do. Part of the reason why there are problems with democracy is people either exercise their franchise with little care or not at all. This makes it very easy for anti democrats to enter the system and thrive. Once that happens the structure of the democratic system starts to crack (see Labour’s pushing of cheatable postal votes).

      Sadly there has not been the anger about what Labour did to the structure of democracy as there is about concern about the latest mentally damaged contestant on the X Factor.

      If you take no interest in your nation then someone else will have your say for you, and you may not like what they are saying.

  6. Noggin the Nog | September 15, 2012 at 12:49 pm |

    I do take an interest, but there are no parties which represent my views, so therefore I do not involve myself in the sham, the illusion of meaningless choice, to quote George Carlin.

    The problem with the sham democracy we have today is that the muzzies have infiltrated the system and will soon wield such power, legal power, that your appeals to the use of the law to prevent Islamic expansionism are more than a little ironic. They are writing the law, and sharia already has its own courts and will expand further and further until they subsume the system we currently have and replace it with their own barbaric insanity. The ‘Respect’ party will continue to grow.

    We would not pander to ‘moderate Nazis’, nor should we this particular brand of fascism known as Islam.

    • Look I agree with you about Islamic penetration of governmental entities. But the way to fight that is to vote for candidates who have a no cooperation with Islam or no Sharia policies. Only elected politicos can remove the mostly new labour islamic placemen in quangos, local government and elsewhere.

      Where I stand is that if people peacefully want to believe that some 7th century warlord was a prophet or messenger then that is no skin of my nose. Where I do have a problem is were the said believers in 7th century warlord start to frighten the horses, and we are definitely into the scaring the horses zone.

      You’ve got to balance the real need for a fight back against Islam the ideology and a persons inalienable right to believe in whatever sort of sky pixie they choose.

      I cherish the British custom of freedom of religion and that must be defended but that doesn’t mean that action shouldn’t be taken when beliefs become threats.

      We could start by nicking some Islamic preachers who are giving sermons calling for the death of Christians and Jews, surely if threat to kill is an arrestable offence then what about threat to commit genocide?

  7. Noggin the Nog | September 15, 2012 at 2:14 pm |

    You do not agree with me concerning Islam. I would have every last vestige of it permantly purged from the nation and its followers held in the same contempt as Nazis.

    Britain does not have a history of freedom of religion. It is a modern concept, foisted on us by liberal, cultural Marxists, to allow the destruction of the status quo which built an empire. Where the phrase ‘freedom of religion’ has been used historically, it signified that a person could be catholic or protestant, not muslim or sikh. These cults were rightly considered idolatry until fairly recently, when moral relativity kicked in and dragged the civilising and beneficial aspects of Christianity down to the same level, in most people’s minds, as these pseudo religions. That would include you, if your ‘sky pixie’ comment is anything to go by.

    You appear to have fallen for the idea that Islam is a problem due to a few extremists, and most muzzies are great. Utter rot, as proven by a stroll around Alum Rock or Sparkhill in Brum. Exercise freedom of religion there, if you dare.

    These politicians you speak of, the ones that will free us from this tyranny, the ones you vote for and exhort me to do the same; names, please.

    • Noggin. Freedom of religion in the uk goes back a lot further than the cultural marxists of the 60’s onwards. OK not all the impediments to minority religions were removed til the 19th century but the religious wars we had have culmimnated in the idea that you can believe what you want. It’s why educated and useful religiously oppressed French, Germans, Jews and others fled here.

      Coo! I’ve never been called a moral relativist before, I’m far from it BTW. Although I joke about all religious paths including my own, I can certainly recognise the contribution to world culture of the judeao/christian foundations of the modern world.

      Re Islam I haven’t ‘fallen for’ anything. I’m very much aware of the 2006 report with the quite high numbers coming up for such things as support for sharia law and the use of violence. I thnk it was one of the Pew reports I’ll try to find it. The first thing to do is for the law to go after those who are agitating by threat of violence for islamic advantage and calling for people’s deaths.

      I have no idea who the best politicians to vote for, voters should question their own candidates when they come up for election. My own view is don’t vote fascist but dont vote mainstream.

  8. Noggin the Nog | September 15, 2012 at 4:38 pm |

    So I was right, there are no politicians worth voting for. You cannot name one.

    Religious wars in Europe were exclusively fought between Christians, with the exception of those fought between Christians and, you guessed it, muslims. They were NEVER about allowing foreign religions to practice idolatry in Christian lands. Quite the reverse, actually.

    The first mosque in England was built in the 1880’s, the first in London was built in 1920’s, so you can see this is a modern phenomenon.

    The UK does not have a history of ‘religious tolerance’ and it should not start now.

    • I don’t recommend any particular politiicians because voters have to make up their own mind. Personally I’d say don’t vote mainstream. Vote for the Monster Raving Loony Party if you wish but don’t vote mainstream as they’ve shown themselves untrustworthy.

      Yes I know who the religious wars were fought against and why they were fought but the outcome of those wars has been that in the UK we developed by the late 19th century a system where what one peacefully believed was a matter for ones own consience. This meant that a Jew or a Catholic or someone of no religion could stand for parliament without penalty. As I said a long process leading up to religious tolerance.

      Now what we are faced with regarding Islam is a religious politicial movement that demands tolerance but which itself is not tolerant. There is no recipirocity there as there has been with other minority religious groups in the UK. Islam makes demands, it doesn’t request favours.

      The Elizabethans I believed tolerated Islamic traders and emissaries (so must have worshipped somewhere in the England) but you are correct that the first purpose built mosque was in the 1880’s

      I have similar issues Islam as you do but where we differ is how to deal with the problem.

      Sometimes it’s better to try the Jaw Jaw of the legislative route first and keep the war-war in reserve.

  9. Noggin the Nog | September 15, 2012 at 5:23 pm |

    I agree, talk first, then if no resolution can be found, war is inevitable.

    The time for talk is over. People are dying.

    Action is required, not paper-wafting like Chamberlain.

    Incidentally, I cannot think of any European wars that were fought to allow Foreign religions and their followers to set up bridgeheads prior to full scale invasion, which is what we have today with these morons.

    Funny you should claim the Elizabethans to be ‘tolerant’. In 1596 Elizabeth I issued a decree to the Lord Mayor of London to begin deporting muslims (the blackamoors) as there were far too many of them in London and she rightly recognised the concomitant problems that always follow the muslim.
    She had absolutely no compunction in ridding the realm of this scourge and was not shackled by PC sensibilities, unlike her modern day namesake.

    I have witnessed the foul spectacle of HM QE II actually removing her footwear and veiling her head prior to entering a mosque. William and Kate did the exact same thing yesterday.

    Defenders of the Faith? Absolutely disgraceful.

    • Noggin talk and law must be tried first. There is a problem with Islam and how so much of it is not compatible with free societies but these problems need to be dealt with by the use of Law and Parliament not angry mobs led by a lot of cut price Spodes.

      The Monarch also has to wear black when visiting the Roman Catholic Pontiff in Rome, it’s a case of When In Rome with the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on the tour.

      It’s not paper wafting to want a mainstream way rather than an extremist way to deal with the undoubted problems that there are in the west with Islam.

  10. Noggin the Nog | September 15, 2012 at 8:34 pm |

    Last one.

    The royal family should set an example, particularly to Christians, what with the monarch being the Supreme Govenor of the Church of England, and refuse to enter such places, be they muslim, catholic or whatever else is contrary to their coronation oath to defend the faith, that faith being the reformed protestant variety of Christianity. They really should know better.

    If you advocate the ‘when in Rome’ strategy, surely we should expect muslims to remove their headresses, eat non halal food, attend church, have only one wife at a time, etc, etc, when in England? If you expect the highest in the land to suck up to muslims, instead of telling them to take a running jump, why should not Abdul get with program, as they say in Judeo Christian America?

    Talk has been tried. It failed. We see ever increasing levels of savagery, including paedophilia, organised rape gangs, FGM, the perversely named honour killings, which used to be called simply common or garden murder, election rigging, drug dealing, bigamy, misogyny, victimhood and intolerance from these people. Buses have been bombed, along with trains and attempts have been made at airports. This is not an extreme minority, this is par for the course, standard muslim behaviour.

    Muslims need to be shown a firm hand.

    Your way has been tried. It has been weighed in the scales and found wanting.

    How long until our nation is taken from us and divided?

    • Noggin, do I detect a hint of ‘orange’ about you LOL.

      It’s good manners that when even a monarch enters someones home then they should to abide by the customs of that home.

      I wouldn’t expect a muslim the UK to eat non halal food or attend church but I would certainly expect them to obey the laws of the land, not disturb the peace, have only one wife, and to show loyalty to the UK.

      Noggin, I know all about the bad side of Islam I’ve been researching it for bloody ages. There’s no need for a list.

      My way has not been properly tried. Here’s why.

      Back in the 1990’s when there was an influx of radical islamic activists to London (Melanie Phillips – Londonistan has good background to this era) they were left free to foment terror and radicalise others.

      The Thatcher and Major Governments got caught on the hop over the Satanic Verses incident and the growth of Islamism in the UK. The Blair govt got embroiled in Islamist ‘grievances’ over the Iraq war and for short term gain did deals with and flattered representatives of Islamic groups.

      This ended up with jihadist entryism into the civil service etc. There is copious evidence out there that places such as the Home Office were hoodwinked into accepting islamic radicals as anti radicalisation experts, in a blind panic to be seen to be a) doing something and b) look as if they know what they are talking about.

      All this cock up meant that where there should have been a focus on dealing legally with Islamic hate speech and incitement to kill there was a paralysis which meant that islamic hate speech and radicalisation continued, and has got worse.

      If the state starts nicking islamic radicals, lots of them, especially those who pose as moderates, trying them, jailing them and deporting them where necessary then we will move forward. There will be reaction to this though which will need to be faced down.

      The problem is although we have laws against incitement they have not been applied with enough vigor.

Comments are closed.