The Left against the Jews

Ten "blogs" were published simultaneously on Saturday 15 June 2013, regardless of what date Google "Blogger" gives them.  Google indiscriminately changed dates on some, but not others, when they were edited for minor corrections. And, as I required all of these blogs to appear in a certain order I "re-edited" all of them so that they would appear in the order I wanted… though Blogger re-dated some, but not others.

Since September 11 2001, an atheist who would previously have been described as "leftist" (or "liberal" if they were American) found that they were suddenly cast as "right-wing" or "far-right" and "racist" if their criticism of religion included criticism of Islam.

This essay is written because I am impelled, whether I like it or not, to demonstrate how those who uncritically support the "Palestinian" cause against Israel unavoidably come to expose their own racism and augment the historical racism which continues to call for the genocide of Jews. Hitler called for such a genocide in the name of Christianity, and the contemporary (political) left support the same call being made in the name of the religion of Islam.

In 2009 in an art exhibition Humanist Transhumanist I criticised religion-derived values and quoted from religious doctrine - the New Testament, Old Testament, Koran - arguing that we must arrive at our human values by the application of reason. I was called "racist" because I quoted the Koran, apparently because it is insensitive to the cause of "Palestinians" where "Palestine", Israel, or the conflict in the Levant was never mentioned. The gallery owner who called me "racist", Robert Cripps, subsequently decided to sue me for defamation because I wrote about what he did to myself and co-exhibitor, and the actions that he used against us based on his claim of "racism" that were used as an excuse for a rescission of the contract I had with his gallery.

Robert Cripps above, who ran the failed GLG, realised and accepted he was racist to hate Jews ("self-confessed racist" means just that). He preferred to call me "racist" in my critique of Islamic doctrine (the Koran) because he preferred to blame "the Jews and their state in Palestine" for a conflict that was not mentioned in my criticism of religions. Supporters of the "Palestinian cause" call "racist" any critic of Islam - as they did recently in Melbourne, Australia, when they organised pro-"Palestine" protests against a critic of Islamic doctrine.

The Students for Palestine champion the cause of "Palestinians", a people who are defined as Arab by race and Muslim by religion. 

In support of a Muslim Arab cause, "Palestine", it becomes a corollary to condemn any critic of Islam, even where "Palestine" is not mentioned.

Islamic doctrine guides the actions of "Palestinians". Hamas states this categorically in the 1988 Covenant, and still acts according to its Covenant. Islamic doctrine promises the land from Yemen to Syria to Muslims (hadith). Islam's goal is that the entire world is to one day be Muslim (Koran + hadith). Islamic doctrine demands the genocide of the Jews (hadith). Genocide, a quest aspired by Islam is criminal.

Since 1951 Genocide has been recognised as crime against humanity.

"The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948 as General Assembly Resolution 260. The Convention entered into force on 12 January 1951."

 (Wikipedia quote. The 1948 resolution is available on the UN website).

Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects freedom of religion.

This poses an obvious conundrum: 

- unhindered right to observe one's religion which includes the committing of genocide guaranteed by the UN? 

- or the right not to be exterminated, also guaranteed by the UN? 

To prevent the "conundrum" it is far easier to call critics of Islam racist so that you do not have to be called to adjudicate, or be compelled to have to legislate and impose a restriction to religious worship, which includes the right to commit genocide, since this is part of the religion. 

When hadith calling for genocide against the Jews are referred to it is apparently not Islam that is racist, but who-ever brings Islam to the attention of another!

Hadith demanding genocide of Jews:

Sahih Muslim Book 041, Hadith Number 6985."The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him."

Groups such as Students for Palestine would rather you were unaware of this hadith. This hadith guides Muslim actions against Jews, is part of the Hamas Covenant, and was lauded as the goal of Islam by Australia's current Mufti in December 2012. 

Islam is the basis of a religious hatred of all Jews, and Islam is the basis of a unilaterally declared war  against Israel. Knowledge of Islam has to be excised from the context of any debate regarding “Palestine”, in order to blame Israel. Even critics who do not refer to "Palestine" are called "racist" for criticising doctrine because such criticism affects perceptions of which party is in the wrong regarding conflict in "Palestine".

By this means those who support the cause of "Palestinians" - which is to commit the genocide of the Jews - can blame the Jews for their own genocide. This method was used by Hitler who claimed that his war (WW2) was a defence against Jews. The Arab Muslim Nazi al Husseini, associate of Hitler, too blamed the Jews for their being exterminated:

"In 1954, Husseini wrote that 'our battle' was 'with World Jewery' and its colonialist allies. … In postwar Cairo, Husseini wrote...: '[the Jews] did whatever they could to lead to its [Germany's] destruction. This is the main reason for Hitler's war against Jews and for his strong antipathy toward them. They brought disaster upon Germany and led to its defeat, although Germany was the most powerful nation, from a military point of view. Germany's revenge against the Jews was harsh, and it annihilated millions of them during the Second World War. In this way, the Jew's aspirations in Palestine and their acts against Germany during the First World War aimed at achieving the Balfour Declaration, became the main reason for the disaster that befell them during the Second World War.'" p. xiv, Herf

Palestinian Muslim Arab Nazi, al Husseini, blamed the holocaust as a reaction by Germans to the actions of Jews. Contemporary Muslims likewise blame "the Jews". In 2009, Muslims protesting in Melbourne repeated the claims made the Nazi al Husseini in 1954 (Above, a 2011 article from Melbourne newspaper the Herald Sun. The article included a photograph of Muslim child holding a placard during a 2009 pro-Palestine rally in Melbourne. No arrests were ever made.)

Condemning critics of Islam is a necessity for those who support "Palestinians". Supporters of "Palestinians" seek to prevent knowledge of Islam's call for the genocide of Jews so that they can blame Jews. And any critic of Islam is, by this necessity, denigrated in order to silence them.

Any mention of the Koran or the hadith, that show unambiguously the Islamic intentions behind what is a unilaterally declared Muslim religious war against Jews, is suppressed. Anyone who supports the Palestinian cause is a racist, because the cause they support is racist. And any of the few Jews who might believe they are doing some good by supporting the “Palestinian” cause because they uncritically accept the argument that only the Jews can be blamed, are simply useful idiots. 

Supporters of "Palestine" criticise critics of Islam because such a critic can demonstrate incontrovertibly that the calls for genocide are an inexorable component of Islam, and central to what it is to be Muslim. 

After-all, for Islam, the dead will be raised only after the complete genocide of the Jews. However, to justify their racism against Jews knowledge of Islam has to be suppressed so that war in "Palestine" can then be blamed on the victims of the violence, the Jews.

That is: Islam's objective is predicated on, and can only be achieved by, the total extermination of Jews. This is immediately obvious in Islamic doctrine. So any criticism of Islam has to be suppressed in order to blame the victims of Islam's war against them, the Jews.

The Koran is no mere holy book, it, along with the hadith is law; religious obligations required of all Muslims to submit to. Islam means submission. Proof of submission takes the form of acting on the demands made, whether they be calls to beat a disobedient wife, or calls for the genocide of the Jews. 

Screenshot of Melbourne University law course;  study of the hadith is a subject of law, not religion. This page has been altered since I took this screenshot in January 2013. Melbourne University now teach the hadith as "Indonesian Law".

Students for Palestine advocate, as do those whose cause they champion, the "Palestinians", the elimination of Jews. By what means? expulsion? or extermination? or are they to simply vanish?

(About) a month prior to our exhibiting at Cripps failed GLG in 2009, the Students for Palestine marched, in a protest organised at RMIT, an institution with which Cripps' gallery had extensive dealings. In 2009 Students for Palestine made the same call as did Hamas, the elimination of Israel. The call made was "Palestine from the river to the sea". Where to the Jews? This call, like Hitler's, leaves nothing to speculation, their call is to make "Palestine" Judenfrei.

Students for Palestine organised an "Free Palestine" protest just prior to our exhibition at GLG in 2009. Organised at RMIT the protest called for the elimination of Israel.

The Students for Palestine RMIT page, months before our GLG exhibition in 2009 organising for a pro-Palestine protest. Their logo eliminates Israel and shows "Palestine" in its place.

Liam Ward, an academic from RMIT, posts that he is going to a protest organised by Students for Palestine against Geert Wilders a critic of Islamic doctrine, in 2013.

Above, Liam Ward's RMIT page. Robert Cripps, who is suing myself and Lee-Anne Raymond, associated our (my) criticism of Islam with "Palestine". Robert Cripps' brother is Peter Cripps who is an academic at RMIT. Peter Cripps may or may not have had contact with Liam Ward. Liam Ward however has worked on "Muslim issues" at RMIT for a while. In March 2009, 2-3 months prior to our exhibiting at GLG Ward was involved in protests at RMIT regarding Muslim prayer rooms ( http://www.theage.com.au/national/protest-a-matter-of-faith-20090323-97hw.html)
Ward co-authored a report on Muslim prayer rooms at RMIT ("mi2wardwood.pdf " found at  http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/mi/2/mi2wardwood.pdf  ) In that report Ward et al claim:

 "[Muslims are] vilified and oppressed groups in contemporary Australia, and were essentially fighting for the very right to be Muslims…In the context... of … the anti-Muslim bigotry of the ‘war on terror’ …  The campaign [for prayer rooms] also highlighted dangerous weaknesses in much of the left’s understanding of anti-Muslim racism. … Islamophobia justifies Western imperialism and creates domestic scapegoats for capitalism’s problems… Islamophobia can turn even self-identified Marxists into apologists for the anti-Muslim vitriol that is today a mainstay of Western ruling class propaganda." 

Liam Ward, pictured above, claims it is "Islamophobic" (a fear without rational basis) that RMIT had not provided Muslims with adequate prayer rooms; claims that any view critical of Islam is "anti-Muslim racism"; and supports a protest against Israel, in order to defend "Palestine" when Islamic doctrine - which has nothing to do with Israel - is criticised. 

Ward et al condemn secularism as the "catch-cry" that aids in "recognising racism":

"Recognising racism 

When the campaign’s demands were debated in online forums such as Leftwrites  and the

The Religious Write,  the catch-cry of ‘secularism’ was raised…Typical of comments on the liberal blog The Religious Write were statements such as

these:

A university such as RMIT is a secular institution and as such should not

be obliged to provide any religious facilities at all. For anyone." 

Liam Ward is a member of the (Victorian) Facebook group Students for Palestine. Above, the Facebook profile of Swaybah Javed who organised a protest in Melbourne against what she declared as being "racist" and "Islamophobic" (a fear without rational basis) police arrests of violent Muslim demonstrators in Sydney. Both Swaybah Javed and Liam Ward are members of this group which associates criticism of Islam to be "Zionist" and racist.

University academics of pre-Nazi Germany made the hatred of Jews respectable; it was these hatreds that Hitler expressed in Mein Kampf; and it is these hatreds expressed by Hitler in Mein Kampf that motivate the left today. And it is university academics and students who make an irrational racist hatred of Jews "respectable".

There were an extraordinary number of exhibitions held at GLG run by Robert Cripps that were official RMIT functions - RMIT being where Peter Cripps, brother of Robert Cripps, works. The link between RMIT & GLG was not noticed by us alone as the above article illustrates (I am compiling a page on the many RMIT links to GLG - the links between both are overwhelmingly extensive). Both Peter Cripps and Robert Cripps have worked together in the past, as was communicated to James Gleeson by Peter Cripps in a past interview for the ANG (transcript of the interview available from ANG as a pdf). Wether Liam Ward and the Cripps brothers ever communicated with one-another is not known. RMIT includes among its academics those who act for Palestinian causes and who actively campaign against critics of Islam. That Robert Cripps expressed a view identical to this could be purely coincidental!

Early 2013. The Students for Palestine continue with the same logo used in 2009: their Facebook page includes a map of "Palestine"; a map of the British mandate of Palestine. There is no Israel. It is a map showing, to use the Nazi term, a "Palestine" that is Judenrein, cleansed of Jews, where only "Palestinians" remain.

The objective of "eliminating" the Jews from "Palestine" symbolised by maps showing it and no Israel is not isolated to Australia. In 2012 a British history book included a map of the levant in which "Occupied Palestine" is shown in place of Israel.

On 18/6/2009 Robert Cripps complained about the Jews creation of their state in Palestine, not "occupied territories"  (there is a distinction). The map in the British school-book sums up what Cripps meant and how I and Lee-Anne understood it. It was never a claim of the "Occupied territories".

Screenshot of one of the articles excoriating the British government funded racism. The British Council funded the book that included the map showing "Occupied Palestine". Disingenuously, the British Council came out with typical Anglo-speak - to distance themselves from that they endorse.

The map showing only "Palestine" was roundly condemned as racist. Even the publishers apologised, sort-of, but somehow absolved themselves of blame and claimed that it was because of some "miracle" (an inexplicable happening, possibly by the will of Allah?). 

The UK "Palestine Solidarity Campaign", strives to achieve, as its map shows, that "Palestine" be made Judenrein (below)

And in Palestinian territories, there is no attempt to hide what is advocated for "Palestine", which is to be the first world state to declare itself Judenfrei, a state that is free of Jews, the first state to officially prohibit Jews and other faiths:

Students for Palestine, at the time of my writing this piece (March-June 2013), posted entries on Facebook (above). In a meeting between a Hamas spokesperson and Ahmadinejad, both advocate a of war of annihilation against "the Zionists", Israel, and concede that this war is a religious war. The proclamation that this is a war waged on religious grounds - Islam - is consistent with Islamic doctrine (Koran and hadith) and the Hamas Covenant. Despite this, it is the Jews, vicitms of Islam's war, who are blamed for the conflict because criticism of Islam is being deemed "racist". Some years earlier, Kevin Rudd, then Prime Minister of Australia, was seeking to have Ahmadinejad charged for inciting war crimes, genocide.

Students for Palestine, at the time of my writing this piece (March-June 2013), posted entries on Facebook (above). In a meeting between a Hamas spokesperson and Ahmadinejad, both advocate a of war of annihilation against "the Zionists", Israel, and concede that this war is a religious war. The proclamation that this is a war waged on religious grounds - Islam - is consistent with Islamic doctrine (Koran and hadith) and the Hamas Covenant. Despite this, it is the Jews, vicitms of Islam's war, who are blamed for the conflict because criticism of Islam is being deemed "racist". Some years earlier, Kevin Rudd, then Prime Minister of Australia, was seeking to have Ahmadinejad charged for inciting war crimes, genocide.

So, what's the excuse for the Students for Palestine? who make the same call for a Jew-free "Palestine" with impunity, and support their demand by using the same map where a "Palestine" exists in place of Israel? but who then claim that they are not advocating the elimination of Jews, just the rights of Palestinians? But the rights of "Palestinians" to do what? expel the Jews? exterminate the Jews? make the land Judenfrei? and all the while they can blame it all on Jews by keeping suppressed that the "Palestinian" motive is Islam, (in the same way that HItler's motive was Christian)? which demands as a compulsory religious obligation that one commit genocide of the Jews? And this they achieve by calling critics of Islam "racist", even critics who do not reference the conflict in "Palestine". Suppressing criticism of Islam is intended to achieve one thing: maintain racism against Jews.

In 2013, the Students for Palestine organised a protest against Geert Wilders. Wilders criticised Islamic doctrine. To justify their own racist hatred of Jews, the Students for Palestine called racist anyone who criticises Islam. It is a necessity for those who support the "Palestinian" cause to prevent assessment of Islamic doctrine, because Islamic doctrine - the Koran and hadith- expose a war waged unilaterally against Jews. If they fail to restrict references to the Koran or the hadith, groups such as Students for Palestine will be exposed for what they are; dupes, racists, propagandists for hatred. 

email author ophion at internode.on.net

No comments allowed? If you are passionate and want to comment, there is nothing that prevents you from writing your own blog. I have a disdain for the kind of commentary made by those who hide behind an avatar. 

Racist to criticise Islam - blame Israel and US Baptists

Ten "blogs" were published simultaneously on Saturday 15 June 2013, regardless of what date Google "Blogger" gives them.  Google indiscriminately changed dates on some, but not others, when they were edited for minor corrections. And, as I required all of these blogs to appear in a certain order I "re-edited" all of them so that they would appear in the order I wanted… though Blogger re-dated some, but not others.

In the UK, and its colonies such as Australia, criticism of the doctrinal elements of Islam, such as the Koran or hadith, or even the presentation of quotes from those doctrinal sources is denounced as "racist".

To mitigate the accusation of "racism" in England (the UK) a number of ploys are used.  If criticism of Islam is made, this criticism has to be accompanied by a concomitant and unnecessary criticism of Jews as well, ostensibly as a demonstration of the author being even-handed in their criticism which is applied to all are de rigueur.

Such is the example of the author, Polly Toynbee,  who in 2004 complained:

"We must be free to criticise without being called racist" 

and

"Atheists, feminists and anti-racists are paralysed by Islam."

and adds

"Muslims must also accept the right of others to criticise religions without smearing any critic as a racist."

( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/aug/18/religion.politics )

To avoid being criticised as "racist" and accused of "vilifying" Islam, British (& Australian) critics of Islam launch into unsupported vitriol that vilifies targets that Muslims vilify, such as Jews. By vilifying Jews as well as Islam, such critics intend to show that they're critics of more than just Islam.

Thus, to criticise Islamic doctrine, Toynbee condemns what she claims is the religious motivation behind what she claims is:

"the dread power of southern Baptists in US politics endangers world peace, as do extreme Jewish sects holding power in Israel"

This is frankly bizarre. There is nothing in Jewish religion, or in Christian doctrine that calls for war against Islam. The Koran though demands a war of annihilation; and it is to be waged against non-Muslims until we are all Muslim and submit.

"Fight against such of those to whom Scriptures were given as believe neither Allah nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what Allah and His apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued."  Koran, Repentance, 9 :29 Dawood translation

The hadith call for the complete genocide of the Jews as a mandatory prerequisite for Judgement Day.

Islam, being the Koran and the hadith, is genocidally anti-Jewish, and by appealing  to Muslims' hatreds such "critics", who include criticism of Jews for example, expose that they too hold a racist hatred for Jews.

The raison d' etre of Islam is to commit complete genocide of Jews. The Koran blames Jews for corrupting the word of god and that they have therefore forfeited any rights previously given to them by god. A number of hadith call for the Jews' complete extermination as a necessary precursor for “Judgement Day”.

Thus, if an author does not want to be criticised by Muslims because they have criticised Islamic doctrine, then the author has to, in England (and Australia), include criticism of Jews.

Islam is a religion that calls for what are internationally recognised hate crimes (refer genocide hadith).

UN Resolution 260 of 9 December 1948 for the "Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" makes such calls a criminal offence. 

The various hadith that praise the rock and tree calling for the extermination of Jews hiding behind them cited by Muslims (such as the Mufti of Australia in 

2012) are in violation of Article III (c) of the above resolution which makes it illegal to make:

"Dircet and public incitement to 

commit genocide."

Other authors, such as Maryam Namazie have used similar ploys against other critics of Islam such Robert Spencer to mitigate any criticism being made about their own criticism of Islam.

email author ophion at internode.on.net

No comments allowed? If you are passionate and want to comment, there is nothing that prevents you from writing your own blog. I have a disdain for the kind of commentary made by those who hide behind an avatar. 

Sue Bolton at anti-Wilders protest

Ten "blogs" were published simultaneously on Saturday 15 June 2013, regardless of what date Google "Blogger" gives them.  Google indiscriminately changed dates on some, but not others, when they were edited for minor corrections. And, as I required all of these blogs to appear in a certain order I "re-edited" all of them so that they would appear in the order I wanted… though Blogger re-dated some, but not others.


The Left and pro-"Palestine" groups combine to condemn criticism of Islamic doctrine and the critic of doctrine to be motivated by "racism". Criticism of Islam is equated, bizarrely, with "pro-Zionism".

In early 2013 Geert Wilders visited Australia to lecture on Islam. As a result protests were organised by the Students for Palestine. Protesters equated criticism of Islam with Palestinians; with the claim being made that criticism of Islam is racist. Sue Bolton, a socialist councillor, joined in the protest.

In a video posted on Youtube made by the Green Left, Socialist Councillor Sue Bolton is protesting outside the venue where Geert Wilders was due to speak about Islam.

Bolton bundles together a number of unrelated issues and protests over them; she equates the "working class" with a protest that is meant to be about racism because criticism of the religious doctrine of Islam, a religion, is claimed to constitute criticism of "race".

The video includes placards that proclaim that criticism of Islam is racist. 

Very near the end Bolton starts the chant "Racism no way, we're gonna fight it all the way".

This chant is taken up by another of the protestors on a megaphone and the crowd then chants the same message. The camera pans past former Yarra councillors/candidates Anthony Main and Mel Gregson, as well as past Alex Sproule.

This point is relevant in our situation:

Wilders criticises Islam by quoting Islamic doctrine, the Koran, and for this, over a document that is of no race he is called "racist".

The Koran is not brown or white or black, it is a book, not a race. And followers of the precepts prescribed by the Koran are not prevented from either believing them or following them on condition that they have to satisfy some criterion of needing to be brown or white or black. That is, race is not a criterion for selection to be Muslim; the Koran is not a race. 

The protest against Wilders was organised by Students for Palestine organisation. That is, in a lecture in which the doctrinal elements of Islam are discussed, the issue of Palestine and Israel and "occupation" become the catalyst for the protest over Wilders. 

This happened to us during our exhibition Humanist Transhumanist in 2009 where the gallery owner, Robert Cripps, objected to criticism of Islam. He declared that criticism of Islam unfairly portrayed Muslims as the perpetrators of violence in Palestine, a topic that was not mentioned anywhere in the exhibition. Cripps' claim was that quotes from the Koran would cause a reader to blame Muslims for conflict in Palestine and not Jews (admitting that he hated Jews and that this was racist, and that he was a racist). And, to reiterate, the context of the criticism I made was with regards to religion and religious values versus values we arrive at by the application of our reason. My criticism was of Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, as well as Islam, and not just Islam. But only criticism of Islam was claimed to constitute "racism".

The objective of those who turn criticism of Islam into an issue of racism turns out to always be the same; such criticism intends to prevent knowledge of what the Koran (and the hadith) urge followers to do, which in Islam is a legal obligation, Sharia. If knowledge of the Koran or the hadith is suppressed, and the only religious text one is familiar with is the Bible, then, the source of violence will be sought in the Bible, specifically, the Old Testament. The objective to not having Islam criticised is to allow for only the Jews to be criticised. This is racist: such people hate Jews and only want to blame Jews and call for the suppression of information that would expose the racism behind their stance.

With regards to Sue Bolton's protest in this instance, she champions her (her party's) stance against a Nazi bookshop that had opened in the electorate (or neighbouring electorate?) some time in the past. This she equates to her stand against Geert Wilders. 

However, the Nazis allied themselves to Islam and among the Nazis was al Husseini, an Arab Muslim. Arab-language Nazi radio used the passages of the Koran to incite hatred against the Jews, in the way that Hitler used biblical passages in his Mein Kampf, and in his speeches against Jews. Geert Wilders criticises the passages that I too criticise, and both he and I are deemed “racist”, even though my criticising the Biblical basis of Hitler’s actions and beliefs is considered a deserved criticism of Judaism and Christianity.

Muslims and Nazi have a shared objective

Sue Bolton supports Muslims. However, Islam's cause is to commit genocide of the Jews. Bolton also campaigns against Nazis (in the form of a Nazi bookshop). However, the Nazis, like her, supported Muslims and their objectives.

Arab Muslim Nazi al Husseini, left, facing German Christian Nazi Hitler, right. Sue Bolton supports Muslims (followers of the doctrines of Islam), but at the same time does not support Nazis? 

Arab Muslim Nazi al Husseini, left, shaking hands with German Christian Nazi Himmler, right. Sue Bolton supports Muslims (followers of the doctrines of Islam), but at the same time does not support Nazis?

Sue Bolton supports Muslims (followers of the doctrines of Islam), but agitates against Nazis. The headline to the article above: "Nazism, Islam shared common enemies - the Jews".

Islam and Nazism share a common goal

"NEW YORK – A newly released report by the US National Archives details the close collaborative relationship between Nazi leaders and the grand mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, indicating that Nazi authorities planned to use Husseini as their leader after their conquest of Palestine." ( http://www.jpost.com/International/Nazism-Islam-shared-common-enemies-the-Jews ) 

Al Husseini is a Nazi war criminal who evaded prosecution at Nuremberg.

"The report, Hitler’s Shadow: Nazi War Criminals, US Intelligence and the Cold War, was prepared on the basis of thousands of documents declassified under the 1998 Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act." (The US report is free as a pdf. It is compelling reading. Yes, I printed it, saved a copy, and have read it.)

Sue Bolton was acting in concert with Students for Palestine (she is friends on Facebook with others associated with Students for Palestine). She supports the cause of “Palestinians”, but so too did Hitler, a Nazi… and she condemns Nazis. Hitler praised "Palestinians" for fighting "World Jewry"before the existence of Israel.

In 2009 I, an atheist critiquing Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Zoroastrianism was declared "racist" for critiquing Islam. The person who made this accusation claimed that it was "insensitive to Palestinians" and that it would make the Jews victims of Muslims, and he would rather believe it was otherwise. To date we have encountered various levels of incredulity to the notion that a critique of religion, in which Islam is but one of a number of religions critiqued, could de-evolve into a discussion about Jews in Palestine. After-all we don't mention this conflict anywhere. So, how, or for what purpose, and on what grounds could "Palestine" enter into any debate?

email author ophion at internode.on.net

No comments allowed? If you are passionate and want to comment, there is nothing that prevents you from writing your own blog. I have a disdain for the kind of commentary made by those who hide behind an avatar. 

Socialist councillor candidate assaults Wilders audience

Ten "blogs" were published simultaneously on Saturday 15 June 2013, regardless of what date Google "Blogger" gives them.  Google indiscriminately changed dates on some, but not others, when they were edited for minor corrections. And, as I required all of these blogs to appear in a certain order I "re-edited" all of them so that they would appear in the order I wanted… though Blogger re-dated some, but not others.

Socialist councillor candidate assaults Wilders audience

In Australia criticism of Islam is equated to "pro-Israel" as if one is a corollary of the other. Criticising intolerance is claimed as being intolerant oneself; and criticism of the calls for doctrinal violence is turned into an accusation that the critic is advocating the violence that they condemn. 

Adolf Hitler used a similar ploy in Mein Kampf in which he decried a "Jewish plot" to take over the world - when the Jews had no such "plot" - but at the same time declaring that  territorial expansion of Germany was a German right that Germans would pursue by force-of-arms. 

Obviously the tactic of condemning your adversary for pursuing a line of action that you, and not they, pursue, still works!

In early 2013 Geert Wilders came to lecture in Melbourne Australia. His criticism of Islam drew protests from the political left and Pro-Palestinian groups who associated criticism of Islam to being "pro-Zionist" and "racist". The pro-Palestinian left protestors physically attacked those who came to hear Geert Wilders speak. 

Above. Still from Australia's ABC TV video. One of the anti-Wilders protestors, Anthony Main, former City of Yarra councillor and Yarra Socialist candidate grabs an attendee who is attempting to enter the Wilders lecture. This attendee is thrown to the ground by Anthony Main.

Protests were organised against Wilders' criticism of Islam. The claim made was that he is racist to criticise Islam and that it is racist to criticise the deeds done by Muslims who follow those doctrines that are criticised. The group who organised the protest against Wilders were a pro-Palestinian group. This pro-Palestinian group claim that criticism of Islam equates to being pro Israel, and that this is racist. 

At my exhibition opening in 2009 part of my exhibition included criticism of religious values. Criticism was made of the doctrinal elements of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Zoroastrianism. This was publicly and loudly declared "racist" by the gallery owner Robert Cripps because my criticism included criticism of Islam. Cripps claimed that criticism of Islam was racist because it affects who an observer would perceive to be the victim and who they would perceive to be the aggressor in "Palestine", even though "Palestine" was not referenced anywhere in the exhibition. Cripps claimed that Muslims were the victims of Jews. 

By exposing Islam's doctrinal sources it could be shown that the conflict in "Palestine" is a religious war declared unilaterally by Islam and waged by Muslims based on hatreds which are integral to Islamic doctrine. These doctrinal elements are fundamental to the charters of the PLO and the Hamas Covenant which cite them and, in the instance of Hamas, which cites doctrine (the Koran) as their constitution. "Palestinians" can be allowed to wage a religious war with impunity only for as long as the doctrinal basis for this war is off limits for discussion and analysis.

Why "Palestine" would arise in the absence of mention of the conflict in "Palestine" in the exhibition has caused me an apparent difficulty, even though the necessity by Muslims to keep doctrine from becoming known is itself self-evident. I apparently have to explain this.

Reference to Islamic doctrine can be limited in a number of ways, including calling the critic "racist". This state's notorious Religious Vilification Act, or "defamation of religion" laws, have in the past been used to achieve this aim.

The protest against Wilders was set up on Facebook. One of the associates of the protest proclaimed that the intention of protest was so that Wilders would only be comfortable to lecture in Israel. The claim: Israel is racist and is the only country that would have no problem with criticism of Islam.

Above a Miriyam Asfar. Screenshot of the discussions on Facebook organising a protest against Wilders. Asfar associates Wilders' criticism of Islamic doctrine with something that Israel alone would support. Though criticising Islam has no relationship with Israel, critics of Islam are attacked as "pro-Israel" by pro-Palestinian groups ( http://www.facebook.com/events/444325985640116/?ref=3 ). 

Sawsan Hassan, above, commenting on the organising of the meeting to protest Wilders' lecture critical of Islam. Here criticism of Islam is claimed to be “Pro Zionist”, and “racist”. According to this Zionism is racism and only Zionists critique Islam, and anyone who critiques Islam is therfore a Zionist and racist ( http://www.facebook.com/events/444325985640116/?ref=3 ).  

When organising an earlier anti-Geert Wilders protest in Melbourne, Wilders was associated with Israel; his profile is juxtaposed against an Israeli flag in the background. 

The protest against Wilders included calls to "end the blockade" and to "free Palestine". On what rational grounds is criticism of Islam a corollary to supporting a blockade? and what has it to do with the “Palestine” issue?

Leftists: the New Left

The protest against Wilders was organised by Students for Palestine and supported by Leftist organisation such as the Socialist Alternative. 

Those who protested against Wilders were “left-wing”, and anti-Israel. Below, a screenshot of those confirming their intention to protest on Facebook. Confirming her attendance is Mel Gregson, Yarra Socialist candidate. The page organising the protest is made public by Sue Bolton (which can be seen in the earlier screenshot) who is a socialist councillor and is listed as “maybe” attending. Also listed is Azlan ( Az ) McLennan who has previously campaigned against Israel.

Above, Mel Gregson and Anthony Main, both from the Yarra Socialists. 

Below, the Yarra Socialists how-to-vote card for the council election 4 months earlier.

In the ABC (Australia) video (former) City of Yarra councillor, Anthony Main can be seen at the 32 sec. mark manhandling an attendee; and at the 1:06 - 1:16 mark Anthony Main physically throws an attendee to the ground! Beside Main is Alex Sproule who assists Main in throwing an attendee to the Wilders lecture to the ground. It is Sproule who is place in a headlock by police and removed. However, it was not these protestors who were accused of violence, but the people against whom violence was meted!

Beside Anthony Main is another Yarra Council candidate (no.2 on the Yarra socialist's election ticket)  Mel Gregson. According to Mel Gregson, criticising Islam is to "racially vilify people". Somehow, to criticise religion, to criticise a doctrine that is without colour, and without race, is to have criticised a race.

Comment 1 on Mel Gregson claim: "To Racially Vilify People"

Gregson's accusation that the criticism of a doctrine that has no race constitutes the vilification of those who hold the tenets of doctrine to be true, is a common one. As was the finding in the 2006 Appeal to the Supreme Court of Victoria in the "Catch the Fire" case, judges Nettle et al concluded that the concept of claiming to be vilified because an idea they hold is criticised by another, would end in the shutting down of the ability to criticise any idea at all. There would in effect be no right to the criticism of any ideas, or the expression of any ideas lest they cause any person holding a contradictory idea offence or embarrassment. To use an example; had Charles Darwin been subject to such a rule he would have been guilty of vilifying Christians; evolution demonstrated that the Christians were not made in the image of God and they may have been insulted by being reduced to being mere animals, and this would have caused them offence; or they may have been embarrassed for being suggestible enough to have accepted the Biblical account as true.

Comment 2 on Mel Gregson claim: "To Racially Vilify People"

I suspect that Gregson is not Muslim, so it makes it surprising  that she would proclaim the Islamic mantra that all people are born Muslim which makes it a "racial" characteristic of theirs to be Muslim; meaning that religion is claimed to be something  that we are all born with. 

Islam's position is contrary to the long-running Christian debate on whether an unbaptised baby dies a sinner if it dies unbaptised as we are born with no faith. 

Gregson must have been availed some insight regarding the hereditary "religion characteristic" and the mechanism by which this hereditary trait can be passed on and inherited (without it needing to be introduced or taught to the child by the parent or guardian). Hopefully she can one day enlighten us on this.

In Islam every individual is born Muslim (hadith). And according to Islam we cannot be "compelled" to another religion (Koran & hadith). According to Islam being baptised constitutes "compulsion", that is: a third party (parent/priest) has declared us to be of a religion that we are not. Above, one of the hadith that proclaim we are all born Muslim. This particular hadith is “tafsir”, a gloss to a Koranic verse that explains its meaning.

The hadith claiming that we are all born Muslim appears on the Wikpedia definition for “fitra”; being our uncorrupted state/condition that we are all born with. As Islam claims this is a characteristic that we are born with, the corollary becomes a claim that it is racist to criticise a biological component which like the colour of our eyes, or hair, or skin, we have no say. I do wonder though; why, despite being born Muslim, do Muslims have to learn the Koran? shouldn't they be born with it?

(NOTE:  Muslim propagandists use this “no compulsion” claim to proclaim that Islam is tolerant of those not Muslim, and that it means that Islam recognises that a religion cannot be forcibly imposed.  This claim is false, and its falsity is made incontrovertible with regard to Islam’s stance on apostasy which is punishable by death. Killing those who convert from, or abandon Islam is not tolerance; remaining Muslim out of fear of being killed is compulsion.)

Who was there?

Azlan McLennan. Az McLennan confirmed on Facebook that he was going (earlier screenshot). Az McLennan has previously campaigned against Israel using principles on how to conduct a successful propaganda campaign as was articulated in Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler (nazi melbourne  http://www.vakras.com/nazi-melbourne.html  :"The function of propaganda... [is] that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc." "All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower the purely intellectual level will have to be."(3) "Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth... its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly."p. 166, Mein Kampf.

Azlan McLennan's anti-Israel propaganda piece as photographed by myself in 2004 before it was closed down.

Sue Bolton. Sue Bolton making her speech which is posted on Youtube.

Below, Sue Bolton and Alex Sproule listed as "maybe" on Facebook

Mel Gregson, Anthony Main, Alex Sproule, Yasemin Shamsili

Mel Gregson, Anthony Main, Darren Roso, Yasemin Shamsili

Darren Roso, Alex Sproule, above.

Below, Darren Roso invited, but did not confirm attendance on Facebook.

The question recurs: why does criticism of Islam bring out those who promote “Palestine” as an Israeli atrocity ?

Why does criticism of Islam mean that "Palestine" has to be raised?

email author ophion at internode.on.net

No comments allowed? If you are passionate and want to comment, there is nothing that prevents you from writing your own blog. I have a disdain for the kind of commentary made by those who hide behind an avatar.