Comments / Contact

Comments

All comments are moderated. This can be frustrating as it means that publication is delayed (although generally for less than 24 hours) — but on the other hand it also avoids my having to delete gross acts of stupidity. (My blog is subject to frequent trolling.)

Publication of a comment should not be read as an endorsement of its contents.

I sometimes edit comments for clarity (spelling/grammar) but sometimes do not, especially if mistakes are regular and systematic or in some way amusing. I also sometimes insert commentary: this is indicated by use of square brackets [like this].

I sometimes reject comments, usually if they fall into one of two categories: they are abusive or stoopid. Links to racist, fascist or otherwise objectionable sites are usually rejected.

Contact

I can be reached via email: chummyfleming[at]yahoo[dot]com[dot]au.

136 Responses to Comments / Contact

  1. Rashid says:

    @Pseudonymous

    >>This really will be my last communication as I’m beginning to repeat myself.

    Thanks for the heads up. I won’t in that case bother extensively interrogating or debunking your assertions/conclusions. Thanks also for the Maxim Gorky quote, but Gorky doesn’t trump or even negate what Twain said. Gorky is advocating that autonomous thought accompany reading. Twain is advocating some manner of critical selection in the choosing of that reading material. I’m sure it’s possible to do both.

    And by “good books”, I’m fairly certain Twain wasn’t referring to the bizarre ‘blog’ you’ve linked to as purported proof that the Muslim faith endorses the sodomy of young boys. Nor do I think he would have regarded the tired claims that Muhammad(sa) married Aisha(as) when she was 6 (or 9) as a ‘good reading’ of history, given that the claim has been many times and thoroughly, debunked.

    http://www.themuslimtimes.org/2012/09/asia/ayeshas-age-at-the-time-of-her-marriage-a-response-to-innocence-of-muslims

    Similarly, it’s doubtful that when referring to “good books”, Twain had the author of your other linked-to blog, non historian Harry Richardson, in mind. Richardson, whilst a welcome expert speaker at Reclaim Australia Gold Coast (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PnGEv1_KPJM), has no credentials at all in either Islam or history. In the forward of his book ‘The Story of Mohammed Islam Unveiled’, he acknowledges his work is built “on the shoulders of Bill Warner” – also very much a non historian, and director of a ‘for profit’ organisation dedicated to promoting his own uninformed views on Islam, and enriching himself in the process.

    http://archive.tennessean.com/article/20101024/NEWS01/10240374/Anti-Muslim-crusaders-make-millions-spreading-fear

    Richardson further claims that not only is “Bill..an intellectual giant”, but that his own work “could not have been written..without his [Bill’s] pioneering work”.

    Bill Warner (real name: Bill French) is amongst that special group of Americans who continue to insist that their President is actually and in fact, a secret Muslim.

    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/president-obama-face-islam-america

    It’s no wonder that the Southern Poverty Law Center – a ‘non profit’ organisation – regards Warner as a dangerous hatemonger.

    http://www.alternet.org/story/151738/10_of_america%27s_most_dangerous_hatemongers

    No I think Mark Twain, when referring to ‘good books’ in the context of learning history, probably meant books at least written by actual qualified and recognised historians. Perhaps historians like the Englishman Stanley Lane-Poole (1854-1931), who gives a very different account of the Battle of the Trench to the one eagerly promoted by the likes of Richardson, Shermon Burgess and yourself.

    https://archive.org/details/studiesinamosqu00poolgoog : page 68 – 70.

  2. Butt Darling says:

    For my 2c I have no problem with Jihad (or Hawala)

    However strong cases can be made against the sexism inherent in Sharia & the cruelty inherent in Halal slaughter.
    I urge Muslims & Jews to make those arguments in the interests of helping Islam modernise more as it has already in Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia & etc.
    It goes without saying that sexism & cruelty to animals are not particular to Islam – however they are a good wedge issue to split off the totalitarian true-believers. The later – especially ISIL – are so bad they’re beginning to resemble Marxists.

    Yours in atheist anarchism, professor rat

  3. ablokeimet says:

    Professor Rat: “However strong cases can be made against the sexism inherent in Sharia & the cruelty inherent in Halal slaughter.”

    It is interesting to see Professor Rat condemn the cruelty inherent in halal slaughter. It contrasts starkly to his attitude to the cruelty inherent in human slaughter. I refer, of course, to the Indonesian Genocide, commenced 50 years ago this month, where the Indonesian Army engaged in the murder of at least 500,000 people and quite possibly double that number. In this crime of world historic dimensions, it was aided by the mass Indonesian Muslim organisation Nahdatul Ulama and abetted by both the US and Australian Governments and security services.

    In a posting on Melbourne Indymedia in 2006*, Professor Rat endorsed the Indonesian Genocide, on the basis that it was directed at exterminating the Indonesian Communist Party, the PKI. On that basis, he disqualified himself from civilised discourse – and there is nothing I am aware of that he has said that constitutes a case for re-admittance.

    *I kept the URL, but unfortunately, Melbourne Indymedia is no longer online.

  4. Butt Darling says:

    On the subject of endorsing genocides I often bow to the experts.

    For example communist apologists for Holodomor, the Great Leap Forward, Cambodia Year Zero & Arduous March.
    Communists, in general, are also the *least trustworthy* guides to genocide advocacy (or denial).

    And on matters of Indymedia history I seem to recall “ablokeimet”, a self-described communist, endorsing the “National Question” views of the fascist butcher of the Ukraine Makhnovista & the democratic-socialist heroes of Kronstadt.

    This is the last person who should be whining about alleged advocates for genocide.

    I sometimes makes mistakes in comments, including my previous one here above, however I won’t take corrections from communists quietly. You might think anarcho-communists would be keeping a low profile at the moment in light of the Schmidt affair. Unfortunately some of them are as stupid as their democratic-centralist, neo-Marxist politics are.

    For Andy’s sake I won’t respond any further to this neo-Marxist piece of crap here; but I will engage him on my blog, or at Twitter or anywhere else this loser wants to take this polemic.

    Anytime, anywhere, anyhow.

    Yrs in anarchy – professor rat

  5. [Pseudonymous] says:

    Rashid – the blog link was one I found whilst writing my previous response. Yes, the link was bizarre, but genuine, as Islamists on several Q & A sites have discussed it. However, I did not include it to highlight Aisha’s age at the consummation of her marriage, but to point out that:

    1) The thighing of little boys had become “widespread” – so plenty of Islamists are perverts irrespective of whether it is sanctioned or not.
    2) A senior Islamic cleric sanctions sex acts with young children (the Islamists on one site said that it was because he is a Shia! Very amusing). Can you imagine any other spiritual leader coming out with a proclamation like that?
    3) It’s ok to give one of your new male in-laws one up the chuff as a welcome to the family. Priceless. In the West we generally prefer a handshake and perhaps a beer together.
    4) A Muslim actually felt the need to ask if sexual activity with small boys was ok. Personally, I would have thought that such a question should not need to be asked in the first place. But being a member of a brainwashing cult probably has that effect on Muslims.

    The Ayatollah has devoted his life to studying Islamic texts and by all accounts is a great scholar. But I guess he’s wrong in his interpretation of the texts, just like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

    I read the account you provided of the Battle of the Trench. What does it prove? I stated that the children were forced into Islam “… after first murdering the children’s fathers, enslaving their mothers and letting his troops rape the women (in fact instructing them on the “rules” of rape).” Nothing in the text disputes this statement. Unless I confused the raping with that at Khaybar – what a party Mohammed had there, huh? A little torture to spice things up:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenana_ibn_al-Rabi

    I love how you so casually dismiss both Harry Richardson and Bill Warner as hatemongers. Telling the truth as they see it, based on Islam’s own texts, can hardly count as hatemongering.

    Their analysis (and my own), of Islam seems to align with the views of all of those Islamic “extremists”, who are, as you well know, emulating Mohammed. Both men give references to the relevant Islamic texts – are you suggesting that more of the texts cannot be trusted (like Bukhari on Aisha’s age)?

    Whether Warner and Richardson are trained historians is immaterial. Anyone with a brain can perform historical research. Bill Warner in particular should be more than capable, given that he has a Ph.D in Physics, i.e. has proven research ability. It seems to me that you would just prefer me to read the work of Islamic scholars preaching the “Islam is a Religion of Peace” slogan. I’d need a lobotomy and heavy tranquillisation before that message could take hold.

    The Southern Poverty Law Centre has no real credibility in my opinion, given that it, “monitors and exposes the activities of the American radical RIGHT (my emphasis).” So only groups and individuals deemed to be on the right can be extreme, it would appear. Or more likely just anyone that opposes the Poverty Centre’s world-view.

    The thing I find most telling is that you don’t attempt to refute that Mohammed:

    1) Had people murdered out of spite or to further his goals
    2) Tortured people
    3) Took and kept slaves
    4) Was a rapist
    5) Was a brigand
    6) Was a misogynist

    … and was also possibly a paedophile, but we’ll give him the benefit of the doubt on that, because he was such a stand-up bloke. Is that because you can’t, by any chance?

    Are you a Muslim, Rashid? If so, don’t you feel just a little bit sick inside when you think about the fact that you believe that such a man could be a prophet of God? It definitely makes me feel ill. Again, I see no difference to following the ravings of Hitler.

    And given that I don’t even believe in a big sky fairy, I think that Mohammed might just conceivably have made up the whole revelation thing to suit his own ends. I mean, those revelations certainly helped him get what he wanted, i.e. power, money, and plenty of sex. Very… um… spiritual… “I am Mohammed – here to relate the words of Allah… but first I have to nip off and raid a caravan and rape that woman.”

    Give it up Rashid. If Islam looks like a turd and smells like a turd, it almost certainly is a turd. In my opinion…

  6. Rashid says:

    @Pseudonymous

    >>”Yes, the link was bizarre, but genuine, as Islamists on several Q & A sites have discussed it.”

    What makes the link bizarre and/or genuine or not, is not whether or not some ‘Islamists’ have discussed it, but the reasoning employed upon it.

    The site quotes the alleged pronouncements/opinions of a number of persons, some obscure and unknown, some familiar – e.g. Ayatollah Khomeini. So what? There are Sunni ‘Islamists’ who do not consider (Shia) Khomeini to be a Muslim and would disregard anything and everything he says. And there are Sunni ‘Islamists’ who are seeking the overthrow of the rulers of Saudi Arabia, including its Sunni clerics, some of whose opinions form the basis of your allegation. ‘Islamist’ scholars agree amongst themselves? Hardly.

    At the end of the day, ‘genuine Islamic sources’ are not the opinions of particular ‘Muslims’, based on their position or their title. There are only three sources of Islamic teaching recognised as authentic by most Muslims in the world. At the pinnacle of these is the Quran. Secondary to it is Sunnah (what the Prophet(sa) reportedly did), and then Hadith (what the Prophet reportedly (sa) said). And the vast majority of Muslims do not recognise any teachings from Hadith and Sunnah which contradict the Quran, as Hadith and Sunnah are regarded as potentially fallible. In fact there is a substantial minority of Muslims (Quranists) who only recognise the Quran.

    But my objection was not to what some cherry picked ‘Islamists’ may or may not believe to be true, it was to your false assertion that the practices you blog-linked to were ‘endorsed by the Muslim faith’. If you wish to hold that view that’s your prerogative, but you haven’t made the case at all from the primary sources. Just as if I were to list off clerics who disagree with the ones you’ve provided, they wouldn’t/couldn’t be regarded as ‘Islamic sources’ either. Rather, they too would simply be categorised as opinions.

    >>”I read the account you provided of the Battle of the Trench. What does it prove? I stated that the children were forced into Islam “… after first murdering the children’s fathers, enslaving their mothers and letting his troops rape the women (in fact instructing them on the “rules” of rape).” Nothing in the text disputes this statement.”

    Perhaps you need to read it again. The Muslims and Jews were allies at this time, as per the Charter of Medina, Articles 45 and 49:

    “There shall be mutual help between one another against those who engage in war with the allies of this document”
    http://www.academia.edu/2018309/The_Constitution_of_Medina_in_63_constitutional_articles

    Barricaded together with the Muslims in Medina (Yathrib), the three clans of the Banu Quraizah tribe sided with the attacking enemy Quraish in the heat of battle. This tribe (the Banu Quraizah) had acted similarly on a previous occasion and been banished, before later being forgiven and reentering the city.

    “Of the sentences on the three clans, that of exile, passed upon two of them, was clement enough. They were a turbulent set, always setting the people of Medina by the ears; and finally, a brawl followed by an insurrection resulted in the expulsion of one tribe; and insubordination, alliance with enemies and a suspicion of conspiracy against the Prophet’s life, ended similarly for the second. Both tribes had violated the original treaty, and had endeavored in every way to bring Muhammad and his religion to ridicule and destruction. The only question is whether their punishment was not too light. Of the third clan a fearful example was made, not by Muhammad, but by an arbiter appointed by themselves.”
    – Studies in a Mosque, 1883, Lane-Poole, p 69,70.

    The arbiter they themselves appointed was their ally Sa‘d bin Mu‘adh of Aus. It can be speculated that they chose an ally as arbiter, anticipating a lighter sentence. As it transpired, Sa’d bin Mu’adh delivered his judgement based on the punishment for treason that their own book, the Torah, prescribed:

    “When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.” Deuteronomy 20: 10-18

    “It was a harsh, bloody sentence; but it must be remembered that the crime of these men was high treason against the State, during a time of siege; and one need not be surprised at the summary execution of a traitorous clan.”
    – Studies in a Mosque, 1883, Lane-Poole, p 70.

    >>”I love how you so casually dismiss both Harry Richardson and Bill Warner as hatemongers…Both men give references to the relevant Islamic texts – are you suggesting that more of the texts cannot be trusted (like Bukhari on Aisha’s age)?”

    So Bukhari is but one of the collections of Hadith compiled a few hundred years after the death of the Prophet(sa). Hadith can be rightly described as an extensive game of ‘Chinese whispers’, i.e. they are accounts of what the Prophet(sa) reportedly said that were passed on orally from one narrator to the next and so forth. It’s simply not the case that all Hadith are considered equally valid. A Hadith with multiple independent chains of narration may be considered stronger than a Hadith with a single chain of narration with even one unreliable narrator, or one which is contradicted by other evidence, including other Hadith. This is the demonstrable problem with the Bukhari Hadith relating to Aisha’s purported age at marriage. The problems/contradictions with it are extensively explored in the link I gave you earlier.

    >>”Whether Warner and Richardson are trained historians is immaterial. Anyone with a brain can perform historical research. Bill Warner in particular should be more than capable, given that he has a Ph.D in Physics, i.e. has proven research ability.”

    So that would basically make any one of us equally valid as historians then?

    And by your logic, the self proclaimed leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who has a self proclaimed Ph.D in Islamic Studies, is a valid voice for the learning of physics?

    >>”The thing I find most telling is that you don’t attempt to refute that Mohammed:

    1) Had people murdered out of spite or to further his goals
    2) Tortured people
    3) Took and kept slaves
    4) Was a rapist
    5) Was a brigand
    6) Was a misogynist”

    Well I’m happy to ‘refute’ what I believe is incorrect, but you’d firstly have to make a credible case. Simply stating that it/he was so does not meet the definition of credibility.

    >>”Are you a Muslim, Rashid? If so, don’t you feel just a little bit sick inside when you think about the fact that you believe that such a man could be a prophet of God?”

    Yes. No.

    >>”Give it up Rashid. If Islam looks like a turd and smells like a turd, it almost certainly is a turd. In my opinion…”

    …or you’re wearing turd tinted glasses…just saying…anyway you’re welcome to your opinions.

  7. ablokeimet says:

    Professor Rat: “For Andy’s sake I won’t respond any further to this neo-Marxist piece of crap here; but I will engage him on my blog, or at Twitter or anywhere else this loser wants to take this polemic.”

    Rather than responding in kind to Professor Rat’s abusive language (it would be beneath me), and rather than rebutting his ridiculous arguments (he is outside the bounds of civilised conversation), I will simply point out that he has, once again, declined the opportunity to denounce the Indonesian Genocide which he has previously endorsed.

  8. Sossle says:

    Well I checked out Antifa online I have to say it’s rather pathetic, misdirected and as ridiculous as my first thoughts assumed. I have to ask Andy is your agenda the destruction of the west and all the ideals of modern civilisation[?] Because it seems that way. You seem to have a knack for making a pimple into a mountain but somehow miss thermonuclear explosions right next to you.

    “Look some dickhead is attending a protest!!! To the batmobile!!!” While europe is crumbling, the Schengen agreement is pretty much dead, the UK is being cleansed of English culture. Respect for Women’s rights is being eroded globally (try being a news reporter in [Tahrir] square). Muslims are murdering people everyday around the world for simply not being Muslim. (Secular author hacked to death in Pakistan.)

    And what are you doing [is] supporting the building of mosques in Australia.

    I use to think I wanted to be an anarchist, but if this is what being an anarchist is I’d rather be almost anything else. It seems Anarchism now stands for, cowardly, turning on your own and supporting one of the biggest threats we face in the modern world. (Unless of course you are a Muslim yourself?) And claiming “Oh I’m against Racism.” what a lol. It seems like you’re someone who would have supported the Nazis in the 40s, because you can’t seem to tell from which end of the gun the bullet comes out [of]. It doesn’t take a hero to out Nazis 70 years after the height of [their] power. It took courage to stand up to them when they were emerging as a monster. Or when they were smashing Europe and murdering innocents indiscriminately.

    Strangely, most never seen the rise of Nazism either, too busy believing propaganda from the wrong sources, such as this marvelous resource of misdirection you have constructed here.

    History will be your judge eventually, and from what I can see you’re working hard to be on the same level as a pre-war Nazi sympathiser. Which actually makes you no better than a Nazi yourself and possibly even worse.

  9. Sossle says:

    The more I read here, the more I believe that this website flys [sic] a false flag.

    Talks freedom but actively supports those that wish to oppress.

  10. ablokeimet says:

    Sossle: “I have to ask Andy is your agenda the destruction of the west and all the ideals of modern civilisation[?]”

    Sossle is directing their question to the wrong target. It is more properly posed to Blair Cottrell. To him, all the ideals of modern civilisation are either cunning subterfuges or foolish fancies, masking a world where the Law of the Jungle prevails, a war of each against all that only the strong can win.

    The defence of civilisation begins with the struggle against those who would destroy it in the name of defending it. It doesn’t end there – not by a long shot – but the extreme Right have to be wiped from the face of the Earth. It’s an elementary act of self defence.

  11. Sossle says:

    @ ablokeimet

    There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.

    Keep believing your 50 year old out of date ideologies.

    Maybe when 100s are murdered in Sydney you might wake up. But I doubt it.

  12. Sossle says:

    Oh quick, UPF are talking Patriotism again. To action!

    100s murdered in France… not important.

    Ask yourself what does it take for you to open your eyes to what really is happening in the world?

  13. ablokeimet says:

    Sossle: “Keep believing your 50 year old out of date ideologies.

    Maybe when 100s are murdered in Sydney you might wake up. But I doubt it.”

    My ideology is not 50 years out of date. When it emerged in the 1860s, it was 150 years ahead of its time. We now have the material possibility of a communist, and therefore stateless, society. Back in the days of the First International, Western Europe was about ready for it, as the United States were to become shortly and then Canada, Australia and New Zealand by the 1880s. Most of the world, however, wasn’t yet ready for libertarian communism.

    And Sossle seems to be making assumptions about my attitude to both Islam and to Islamist jihadis. I support freedom of conscience – and that necessarily entails recognition of the right of people to be Muslims if that is what they believe. As for the jihadis, my position can be stated quite briefly. The only good jihadi is a dead jihadi – but it makes a world of difference who kills them.

  14. @ndy says:

    New Islamic State Publication Touts Progress in Clash of Civilizations
    Murtaza Hussain
    The Intercept
    February 13, 2015

    In a new issue of its magazine Dabiq, the Islamic State boasts of the progress it’s made in polarizing the world into two sharply opposing camps—supporters on one side, and on the other, the West and all those Muslims who do not accept its newly declared “Caliphate.”

    “As the world progresses towards al-Malhamah al-Kubr (the “Great Battle”), the option to stand on the sidelines as a mere observer is being lost,” declares the cover story, titled “From Hypocrisy to Apostasy: The Extinction of the Grayzone.” The magazine also lauds “the withering of the grayzone,” and grimly warns Muslims in the West that they will soon be forced to make “one of two choices.”

    The new issue includes an article purportedly written by British hostage John Cantlie, a defense of recent Islamic State killings carried out against those accused of “sexual deviance,” and a piece about two Japanese hostages executed last month. It also features graphic images of a decapitated head, and the badly burned body of Jordanian pilot Moaz al-Kasasbeh, who was captured and killed by the group’s members.

    Such shocking and provocative attacks are a means of “dragging the masses into the battle,” the Islamic State explains in Dabiq, through actions meant to “inflame opposition” and “make the people enter into the battle … such that each individual will go to the side which he supports.”

    Dividing the world into opposing camps in this manner has long been a tactical objective of extremist ideologues.

    In an influential jihadist document, “The Management of Savagery,” first published online in 2004, the late Al Qaeda strategist Abu Bakr Naji cited the need to “transform societies into two opposing groups, igniting a violent battle between them whose end is either victory or martyrdom.”

    In recent interviews, Islamic State members have stated that “The Management of Savagery” remains a highly influential text within the organization, employed as part of the training curriculum for commanders, as well as for rank-and-file operatives.

    University of Michigan Professor Juan Cole has noted this divide-and-conquer strategy draws less from traditional Islamic theology than from the practice of 20th-century European radicals who sought to “sharpen the contradictions” between various groups as a means of violently reshaping society.

    Dabiq also cites recent attacks in France against Charlie Hebdo and in a kosher supermarket as undertaken in order to “further bring division to the world and destroy the grayzone everywhere.”

    The magazine even approvingly quotes the war-on-terror rhetoric of former U.S. President George W. Bush: “Bush spoke the truth when he said, ‘Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists,’” a passage reads. “‘Meaning, either you are with the crusade or you are with Islam.”

  15. Sossle says:

    @ ablokeimet

    Really thanks for the clarification…

  16. Sossle says:

    @ndy

    Seems you’re advocating turning the other cheek, while your house is being burnt down, your women are raped and your children are being murdered. Cause fighting back would just give them what they want.

    Sorry but I don’t come from the school of Job.

    Advocating complacency in the presence of a great danger, smacks of cowardice. No matter how it’s validated. So you really believe if we all just become that bit more Muslim friendly they will take [off] their suicide belts and lay down their machine guns and say: “We really do just want peace. Let’s all just live together in freedom and harmony.”

    If the best thing you have to validate your point is Islamic propaganda it’s a pretty weak argument IMO. So when Hitler declared war on Poland they should have just said: “Fighting back will just give be lowering ourselves to his level. Let’s just organise a protest rally!” Seems you need to add hypocrisy to that resume.

    There is only so much weight a reasonable man can be expected to bare before action becomes the only reasonable recourse left to him. Some things are worth fighting for as I’m sure you would agree.

  17. Sossle says:

    I say it again Andy you’re a coward, running around knocking down sand castles, while preaching complacency and active support to the greatest threat the modern world and those that love peace and freedom face in this age. Ignoring a problem very rarely makes it go away.

  18. @ndy says:

    Briefly:

    I obviously couldn’t care less if some random commentator thinks I’m a coward.
    The most effective opposition to IS/ISIL/ISIS/Da’esh in Syria + Iraq appears to be Kurdish forces largely organised by + thru the YPG + YPJ.
    The YPG/YPJ are leftist forces which have received some direct + some indirect support from anarchists + others, both from the immediate region (eg Turkey) + elsewhere.
    I’ve written a little about this — eg: http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?p=37355 — + broadly support their efforts.
    You and IS/ISIL/ISIS/Da’esh share some traits in common, esp the idea that IS/ISIL/ISIS/Da’esh embodies ‘real’ or ‘true’ Islam.
    People with less invested in the success of IS/ISIL/ISIS/Da’esh — esp Muslims, + esp their Muslim victims — refute this claim + also refuse to capitulate to the demonisation of Muslims you perpetuate. I join them.

  19. Sossle says:

    @ndy

    Well obviously you do care otherwise there would be no need for a response. So you’re being disingenuous from the start. But that doesn’t particularly surprise me taking into account the rest of your response.

    So inherently what you’re suggesting here is that anyone who can see a connection between IS and the underlying religious tenements of Islam is in fact an IS enabler and playing into their hands… Anyone that speaks out against Islam is just helping IS…

    While [you’re] right in one respect, the Kurds are having some impact in their region against IS. You’re however misinterpreting the issue in a big way I fear, despite the name ‘Islamic State’ is not in fact a state, as I’m sure you’re very aware. It’s an ideology that is founded in the religious tenements [sic] of Islam and the broken Iraqi regime. So it’s not a war for territory or assets in the traditional sense. This concept was quite vividly demonstrated in the Paris attacks as most participants were not Syrian or Iraqi, but were all Islamic combatants united by a common toxic ideology from numerous states including western nations.

    You’re just deflecting raising the Kurdish struggle for an independent state in the region and failing to mention the facts of their own involvement in numerous terrorist attacks in the region. From groups such as the PKK and TAK who have been known to utilise similar tactics to IS on multiple occasions for an almost identical agenda.

    So basically you are dispelling the idea that you’re a terrorist sympathiser by outlining how you support an ‘enemy of an enemy’ that also has a very strong history of violent terrorism to establish their own agenda… Lol, you guys just make the rules up as you go along don’t you.

    Ask yourself what do IS want? Islamic caliphate right? Is caliphate a Muslim ideal or a sectarian terrorist ideal? Ask yourself what defines a Nazi? Is it their individual acts of law breaking or a shared belief system that in [its] worst [?] manifests as unspeakable acts of systematic atrocities. Do you stop the man or confront the ideal head on? Which is it Andy? You seem to have one set of rules for one group and entirely different for another.

    Why do we see the rest of the world pouring resources into dealing with IS over the last few days[?] When we see the Australian Muslim community seeing this as the perfect time, just 2 days after Paris was brutally attacked by Islamic fighters, to launch a new [M]uslim political party here in Australia[?] No Fatwa issued against Daesh or against supporting Islamic fighters? Is this new party a sign of unity or of increasing division? Are they going to work for uniting Australia’s populace or work to fight for Muslim rights such as Sharia, Halal, etc? Only time will tell I guess. Personally I think that the separation between church and state is being eroded enough as it is without more religious based parties taking flight. But I guess most Muslims don’t share that sentiment.

    So keep telling yourself you’re fighting the good fight Andy, but really you are just pandering to your own ideals and if that means turning a blind eye to what’s really happening in the world it seems you have no issue with that whatsoever.

    Plus you’re the recognised expert at demonisation mate, just look at this entire blog. Pot–>Kettle?

  20. Sossle says:

    So to put it to you plain Andy.

    Do YOU support the use of terrorism or violent extremism as a means to reach change?

    Are you a terrorist sympathiser?

    Because judging from your blog you do and you are respectively.

  21. ablokeimet says:

    Sossle: “So inherently what you’re suggesting here is that anyone who can see a connection between IS and the underlying religious tenements of Islam is in fact an IS enabler and playing into their hands… Anyone that speaks out against Islam is just helping IS…”

    Sossle is eliding two different things here. There is, of course, “a connection” between Daesh and the underlying religious tenets (note: not “tenements”) of Islam. This is a long way short, however, of saying that Daesh has the correct interpretation of Islam. Just how short it is can be deduced when one realises that 97% of Muslims subscribe to competing (i.e. non-Salafist) interpretations – and that the vast majority of Salafists don’t support Daesh and its millenarian approach, either.

    Sossle again: “When we see the Australian Muslim community seeing this as the perfect time, just 2 days after Paris was brutally attacked by Islamic fighters, to launch a new [M]uslim political party here in Australia[?]”

    Sossle interprets the launch of a Muslim political party as being done by “the Australian Muslim community”. It should be seen as the initiative of a SECTION of the Australian Muslim community. Media discussion has been sufficiently superficial to ensure that we are not informed about the extent of community organisations involved in setting it up and their credibility in the eyes of Muslims in Australia. Using the example of the Unity Party from 1997, and some sensible political analysis, however, we can deduce a few things.

    The Unity Party was set up as a reaction to the rise of Pauline Hanson and the shift in the Liberal Party’s policies to the Right under John Howard – in particular, his opposition to multi-culturalism. Its leaders were socially conservative people, many of them with excellent small business credentials. They were exactly the sort of people one would expect to flock to the Liberal Party – except that they were of East Asian background. The Unity Party was made up of people who would have joined the Liberal Party if it wasn’t so racist. It should be noted that it didn’t attract many votes, even of people of East Asian extraction, because most of these people continued to vote Labor. The Unity Party’s how-to-vote cards definitely indicated their overall conservative perspective.

    The Australian Muslim Party looks, to me, like a re-run of the Unity Party, but for Muslims rather than East Asians. The rise of extreme Right, Islamophobic mass movements like Reclaim Australia and the supercharged Islamophobic rhetoric of Tony Abbott, have caused a critical mass of conservative Muslims to bail out from the Liberal Party. They don’t want to support Labor or the Greens, because these parties are too socially liberal for them (abortion, gay marriage, pornography, etc) so they’ve formed a party that can be a pressure group to get the Liberal Party to pull back from Islamophobia. They will struggle, however, to attract the votes of Muslims who are currently voting either Labor or Green.

  22. Sossle says:

    @ablokeimet

    Can I ask how you think you would fare with a pro libertarian communism view point in say Malaysia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia? Do you think that you could talk the same in those countries as you do here? Freely and openly to discuss argue debate different viewpoints and potential political structures? Why is there a difference between here and there? Could it be Islam maybe?

    You think I could start a Uzbekistan Christian Party? Yemen Christian Party, maybe? Maldives, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran maybe? So much for Islam being a religion of tolerance.

    You’re probably right, maybe there is only a few hundred million Muslims, that directly have issue with the west and our way of life in it. And would institute fundamental changes to our society if they had the opportunity. But I’m sure the rest are of no issue… And if that day ever arrives the communists will be one of the first groups rounded up I’m afraid. As we all know how well those two camps have gotten on over the years. What was it, around 500,000 killed in Indonesia in the ’60s?

  23. Sossle says:

    But then again the Communist regimes of the world have done their fair share of killing too. What is it about 100 million people in the last 100 years? Averages out to about a million a year…

    Seems to clear up why Andy sees 100 murdered Parisians as simply a political scoring point. If he can swallow tens of millions being slaughtered for Communism’s sake, but still spruik communist ideals as some font of hope.

    I’m seeing a trend here Good Communism vs Bad Communism, Good Islam vs Bad Islam. It’s funny how they always consider themselves as good. Until they start with the mass graves and the rest of the world starts seeing the results.

  24. ablokeimet says:

    Sossle: “Can I ask how you think you would fare with a pro libertarian communism view point in say Malaysia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia? Do you think that you could talk the same in those countries as you do here? Freely and openly to discuss argue debate different viewpoints and potential political structures? Why is there a difference between here and there? Could it be Islam maybe?”

    The three countries Sossle mentions are different from each other, so I have to give three different answers.

    1. Malaysia. My ideas would have to be advocated cautiously. It is possible that I would be persecuted for them and have to go underground. There is, however, a Socialist Party of Malaysia operating openly and it even has a seat in the Parliament.

    2. Indonesia. My ideas would have to be advocated in code when done publicly. There is a thriving working class Left movement, however, much practiced in speaking in code.

    3. Saudi Arabia. You’d have to be mad to advocate libertarian communism in Saudi Arabia. They sentenced a fellow to a thousand lashes just for advocating liberal democracy. I wouldn’t even bother going underground there, because the pack of ratbags who run the place have a massive treasury to buy off dissent and keep their pre-feudal social structure intact. Political agitation will only have a point once the House of Saud runs out of money – and that will only be when Ghawar, their biggest oil field, fails.

    Could the difference be Islam? This is a difference, but not the relevant difference. I’d have more freedom to advocate my ideas in both Malaysia and Indonesia, for example, than in Thailand – and probably a similar degree of freedom to that in South Korea. The fundamental difference is the degree of economic development and the historic conquests of the labour movement. Saudi Arabia is a special case, because its wealth has come from a resource rent rather than the exploitation of a local working class, and the State has had total control over that rent so as to use it to buttress its power rather than be undermined by the development of both a native bourgeoisie and a native proletariat.

    @Sossle: “So much for Islam being a religion of tolerance.”

    Where have I said Islam is a “religion of tolerance”? Christianity wasn’t exactly a tolerant beast, either, until the French Revolution forced tolerance upon it – and even then, there have been pretty substantial exceptions until recently (try getting into a discussion in Poland about abortion and see where that leads).

    Most majority-Muslim societies have been pre-modern until relatively recently. They have exhibited the same religious intolerance as feudal and pre-feudal class societies based on other religions (pre-class societies are not usually religiously intolerant – it is the relationship to the State that generates intolerance). What we are seeing now is the consequence of Islam meeting modernisation. Crucially, it involves not only meeting tolerant, secularised Christian societies, but it also involves meeting other intolerant Muslim societies – but practicing a form of Islam that they find intolerable.

    It is in this environment that some Muslims find Salafism attractive, because it explains that the myriad different forms of Islam are the result of “innovations” introduced at different times and in different places and appeals to a desire to return to the unity of an authentic, original Islam as the Prophet preached it. Salafism, however, has two features which are relevant to the current discussion. Firstly, it is just as intolerant as the traditional varieties of Islam and, secondly, its practices are radically incompatible with a developed capitalist society. While Salafist Islam is the official religion in both Saudi Arabia and Qatar, their prosperity is based on resource rents which allow the ruling families to square the circle and combine high living standards with traditional social structures. When their oil runs out, they’ll be cactus.

    There are two possible outcomes to this, depending on how far Salafism spreads (Saudi money has been crucial in its spread in recent decades).

    1. Salafism runs up against the limits of its natural constituency. The various mutually intolerant varieties of Islam eventually reach a “live and let live” approach, on principles similar to the Treaty of Westphalia, then evolving in a secular direction under the impact of modern society. This, of course, has benefits for all non-Muslims in societies where Muslims are numerous.

    2. Salafism spreads to absorb the vast majority of (Sunni) Muslims. This could have, in the medium term, bad and possibly very bad consequences for non-Muslims. In this scenario, a Caliphate would be established covering all or most Muslim-majority countries. Imagine it as a sort of huge Saudi Arabia, but without the same per capita income.

    The long term consequences, however, would be astounding. In the name of purifying Islam of “innovations”, they would purge Muslim societies of much pre-modern superstition and feudal social structures (Muhammad’s original message contains a radical egalitarianism, just as the early Christians’ did). It would need to do this to deal with the realities of modern capitalism, so the atavistic aspects of Salafism would have to be junked. Salafism would then have the same experience that Protestantism had – that a massive wave of secularisation would sweep through society and turn the religion on its head. While fetishes over dress and dietary codes would hang on and be the last features to fall, social practices would evolve in startling ways. This might come to pass well after everybody alive today is dead, but it will, nevertheless, be our revenge.

    Finally, it is necessary to make the distinction between Salafists and jihadis. Most jihadis are Salafists, but only a small minority of Salafists are jihadis. It needs to be kept in mind at all times that the Salafist jihadis hate the ruling families of the Gulf monarchies and, especially, the House of Saud. When Ghawar fails, expect the jihadis to step up operations on the Arabian Peninsula – big time.

  25. Sossle says:

    Thanks ablokeimet, it’s always good when someone collaborates your points.

    Comparing Christians doesn’t carry a whole lot of weight though, as you will get no argument from me about the blood on their own hands.

    I’m probably closest to an atheist these days or maybe an agnostic.

    Which would land me in quite a bit of trouble in Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. All majority Muslim countries all [of which] have legal penalties in place for blasphemy. Pakistan actually still practice[s] the death penalty for religious blasphemy. Bangladesh while not on the list prefers lynch mobs to deal with anyone who is outspoken about Islam.

    This blog prides itself on showing its opposition to racist thugs, yet when you look at many research studies, in general most Australians are very tolerant of other races and religions – far more so than the majority of Islamic countries. Wouldn’t a true fight against racism be against countries and religions where racism is endemic and in some of them actually part of their legal system[?]

    I’ve said over and over Andy is setting up a false ground to push his own political agenda. And I believe in many instances it’s being done in a way that’s cowardly and deflects from the real issues we are facing globally.

  26. AB says:

    A FEW REASONS WHY I HATE POLITICS

    One thing most of the Left and Right and their extremes have in common is antisemitism. This manifests in the Left’s rabid opposition to the “existence” of Israel, which they claim is a racist state (along with every other state in the world that is not a totalitarian or Islamic dictatorship); although, in the state of Israel, which is far from perfect, citizens of all races and cultures can serve in the army and the police force, run a business, vote, worship whatever god they like and sit in parliament. The introduction of gay marriage rights is supported by 70% of Israeli Jews alone and women in Israel enjoy equal rights. In how many Arab regimes in the region (many of whom are supported by the Left) do people of different races and diverse cultures enjoy such freedom? Where homosexuality is not considered a crime? I’ll tell ya how many – NONE.

    The reason for the Left’s antisemitism is the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians, which is deserving of criticism, but must be understood in relation to the proximity of Israel in a hostile Middle-East, the pressure applied by the US Administration, the radical Zionist (sectarian) lobby, and the thousands of terrorist attacks Israel has endured and endures on an almost daily basis, which the mainstream media seldom report. Perhaps those “totalitarian” Left-wing Trots-kites and their (Left-Liberal) running dogs should look at the list of atrocities committed by Leftist (Marxist) regimes (150 million slaughtered, many in the most horrific ways imaginable) which make even the Nazi atrocities, small by comparison. The Left also offer support to Hamas, who in their Charter openly call for the “obliteration of Israel”, every man, woman and child, have the same opinion of Jews as the Nazis and who consider the Protocols of Zion and Hitler’s Mein Kampf as true and accurate accounts of a Jewish “conspiracy” to rule the world.

    The Right, of course, believe, that the destruction of “Western Civilization” is also a Jewish conspiracy, notwithstanding the fact that Western Civilization, in every sphere of its culture, was co-constructed by Jewish scholars, philosophers, artists, poets, prophets, composers, scientists, engineers and so on (Einstein? Jesus?) In support of this conspiracy they cite redundant old religious texts and the ravings of racist Jews and non-Jews. Their solution is simple: put an end to the Jews, exterminate Israel. This solution is shared by both red-Fascists (Left-wing/Left Liberal) and blue-Fascists (Right-wing).

    What these fascists also share is a hatred for freedom of expression and individual liberty, their solutions are totalitarian and hostile to anyone who thinks differently. If these lunatics every come to complete power, then expect a repeat of Soviet/Nazi style mass murder, re-education camps and the suppression of individual freedom on a mass scale, something they are working very hard at right now to promote. Both of these fascisms, through their various mutations, are based on unrealizable, bizarre, Utopian ideals, in pursuit of which, the ends justify the means (remember Pol Pot?) which Marx makes very, very clear in his writings.

    Given that you can’t change history, how would you feel, dear reader, if you were the parents of a couple of Jewish kids living in Israel today, working to pay off your mortgage? Are these people and their children part of the grand conspiracies believed by the imbeciles on the Left and Right? Of course not! These Fascists offer no solutions, all they do is generate more hatred and ignorance.

    Lets say there is a conspiracy to rule the world (or whatever) and the majority of these conspirators are Jews. Does that mean ordinary Jewish men, women and children are part of the grand plan? No! So when you blame the Jews, or the Muslims, or the Christians, or the whites, or the blacks or what the fuck ever, you accuse an entire race or culture, in other words you are a fucking RACIST…not the politically correct variety – a REAL racist. If people commit a crime, they should be brought to justice “as individuals” and held accountable.

  27. ablokeimet says:

    @Sossle: “Wouldn’t a true fight against racism be against countries and religions where racism is endemic and in some of them actually part of their legal system[?]”

    It’s not a matter of either/or.

    1. Firstly, we have the responsibility to fight injustice where we are and the existence of injustice elsewhere, even where it is alleged to be worse, is no reason to stand down from the struggle.

    2. Secondly, our comrades are, in fact, fighting the people Sossle criticises. For example, you will find many Anarchist groups and individuals give strong support to the YPG-YPJ who are fighting Daesh. One such message is here:

    https://melbacg.wordpress.com/2015/08/06/drop-the-charges-against-jamie-williams/

    Our comrades, broadly defined, are active in a number of countries in North Africa and West Asia, including Egypt, Syria and Turkey, as well as Israel. I don’t note any support for them from Right wing sources, except in the case of the YPG-YPJ, whose Rightist supporters are ignorant of the YPG-YPJ’s Leftist nature.

  28. ablokeimet says:

    @AB: “One thing most of the Left and Right and their extremes have in common is antisemitism. This manifests in the Left’s rabid opposition to the “existence” of Israel, which they claim is a racist state (along with every other state in the world that is not a totalitarian or Islamic dictatorship); although, in the state of Israel, which is far from perfect, citizens of all races and cultures can serve in the army and the police force, run a business, vote, worship whatever god they like and sit in parliament.”

    @AB: “Perhaps those “totalitarian” Left-wing Trots-kites and their (Left-Liberal) running dogs should look at the list of atrocities committed by Leftist (Marxist) regimes (150 million slaughtered, many in the most horrific ways imaginable) which make even the Nazi atrocities, small by comparison.”

    @AB: “The Left also offer support to Hamas, who …”

    Firstly, it must be asked if AB has actually read and understood the political perspective of Slackbastard and the contributors who broadly agree with his approach. We are Anarchists and, as such, opposed to all States without exception. This even includes the self-identified “Marxist” regimes which AB denounces. Our comrades were being locked up and persecuted in Russia, for example, from April 1918 onwards and were key participants in the Kronstadt Uprising of 1921 and the Ukrainian Revolution of 1918-21, both of which were crushed by the Bolsheviks. So AB’s denunciation of “the Left’ on this blog displays a staggering ignorance. At a guess, I’d say that AB is coming from the perspective of a Labour Zionist.

    Secondly, AB offers no evidence for the Left’s supposed anti-Semitism. It is a profound mistake to equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. It’s why anti-Semites often, these days, attempt to phrase their anti-Semitism in the language of anti-Zionism. If there were no difference between the two, there’d be no point in anti-Semites trying this dodge.

    Israel IS a racist State, notwithstanding AB’s assertions (none of which I dispute). All you need to do to prove it is to advocate that Israel cease being a “Jewish State” and become a democratic secular one. Israel is an ethno-religious chauvinist State, based around the supremacy of the Jewish religion (my best Jewish friend, who is anti-Zionist, can expound at length on this topic). A Jewish State is, in fact, the moral and political equivalent of a White Australia or an Islamic Republic.

    Finally, AB alleges that the Left supports Hamas. Once again I won’t dispute what he says about that group. Hamas is a vile organisation – misogynistic, bigoted, socially retrograde and thuggish to boot. In fact, there is only one thing to be said in its favour – that it defends Gaza against the might of Israel. And even that, it does with very limited effectiveness. It certainly has no credible perspective for ending the oppression of the Palestinians, for this can only be done by splitting Israel along class lines and making a workers’ revolution against capitalism. The Left doesn’t support Hamas at all. What AB mistakes as support for Hamas is opposition to Israel’s regular wars on Gaza. If AB has evidence to support the allegation, I’d like to see it.

    In a society of interpenetrated peoples, both of which lay claim to the same land, national self determination for one people is necessarily at the expense of the other. This is the situation in Israel/Palestine. The only way out of it is, therefore, to abolish capitalism and therefore abolish the State over which the two nationalities are squabbling. The politics of the Palestine question revolve, for most people, around whether to support the Two State Solution or the One State solution. Anarchists, as might be guessed, support the No State Solution.

  29. Hi Professor Robert Sparrow.

  30. ablokeimet says:

    Tribal Creative: “Hi Professor Robert Sparrow.”

    There have been so many different people accused of being Slackbastard that accusing yet another random person of using this identity is, without supporting evidence, increasingly less credible. If those desperate types who are trying to unmask Slackbastard ever come up with the correct person behind the name, nobody is going to believe them. Ever heard the one about the little boy who cried “Wolf!”?

  31. Voidoid says:

    Dear slackbastard,

    Love your work. Come across this lot? Not sure to what degree they’re worth being aware of.

    http : // antiantifaaustralia . blogspot . com . au / 2014 / 03 / slackbastard – network – revealed . html

  32. @ndy says:

    Yeah: Brisbane bonehead Chris Smith (Volksfront) runs it.

  33. Another anon says:

    Combat 18 stickers spotted & binned at East Richmond station.

  34. A says:

    Hi Andy, were you able to identify who this man is? I spotted him in an altercation and recalled your post.
    http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/RAbonehead.jpg

  35. OneEyedKing says:

    I see Antifa held another rally last night (12th March) in Federation square. Oh wait, no, that’s not right. To be honest it was a little hard to spot the difference. 😉

Leave a Reply