13/08/07
by

Death to Islamofascism, Pt 2

I note that apologists for Islamofascism have gotten their tea-towels in a twist over my article, “Death to Islamofascism”.

Shanim Homayun, Cultural Officer for Muslim Students, concludes from what I wrote that I can’t possibly have known any Muslims in my life and invites me to join him for a cup of tea in order that I might discover firsthand how polite and decent a Muslim can be. As it happens, I have been on the receiving end of that kind of forced genteelness, and had the same urge that I get on those rare occasions when I attend a Christian church service—to fart loudly. I see the flip side of the same murderous savagery of which I wrote. Some good, robust sodomy as the Muslims bend towards Mecca would go some way towards attenuating both their anal-retentiveness and their murderous savagery—though as things stand, of course, I risk decapitation for merely proffering such helpful advice. Nonetheless, I’m prepared to take Shamim up on his invitation, on two conditions—that he keep in check any urge to slice my head off, and that it be a glass of wine rather than a cup of tea.

Wine is an excellent aid in the acquisition of a sense of humour, which Muslims uniformly lack. I’m sure Allah will forgive him this one indulgence in a holy cause.

I don’t think I’ll risk a date with Arnaz Amir, though. With him, the murderous savagery is barely disguised. “Have you not learnt that Muslims do not take very kindly to deliberately injurious and unfair representations of their religion?

How do you think they would react to Islam being reduced to a stinking, stupid superstition? It is counterproductive to allow for such uneducated, hateful discourse.” Whoa! Can’t you just hear the scimitars being sharpened? Can’t you just see the writing on the placards, same as in London: “To hell with freedom of speech!” “Death to those who insult Islam!” And note the unmistakable subtext to Salient—“close Perigo down!”

Not once does either of the apologists even pretend to address the substance of my article. Not once do any even pretend to defend the tenets of stinking, stupid superstition, or Sharia, or Jihad. Most tellingly, not once doe they even pretend to condemn the beheaders, the car-bombers, the suicide pilots or any other variant of stupid, stinking, superstitious terrorist in his ranks. There are well over a billion people in the world now in thrall to this barbarous superstition, and, as noted previously, it is the world’s fastest-growing throwback to the theological ooze.

Just imagine if all these folk were committed to enlightened secularism, reason and freedom! What a different world it would be! Instead, they genuflect five times a day to a non-existent god and a pedophile prophet, and surrender their independent judgement to the dictates of bloodthirsty, lice-ridden old mullahs for whom soap and toothpaste are western bourgeois decadences.

What, I wonder, would Shamim and Arnaz have to say to Ayaan Kirsi, the Somali woman who fled to the west in retreat from the daily atrocities of Islam? Excerpts from her most recent article, “My View of Islam”:

On the issues of holy war (jihad), apostasy and the treatment of women, the Koran and Sunna are clear. It is the obligation of every Muslim to spread Islam to unbelievers first through dawa, or proselytizing, then through jihad, if the unbelievers refuse to convert. … As for the treatment of women, in the Koran and more elaborately in the Sunna, Islam assigns to girls a position in the family that requires them to be docile, makes them dependent on their male relatives for money and gives dominion over their bodies to these same male kin. …The goal of education given to girls under Islam is the achievement of control over female sexuality. The result of this indoctrination is that Muslim girls believe legitimate and often vocally defend their position of subordination.

The lengths a Muslim society will go to in the pursuit of sexual control often cross into the territory of the absurd and, by western standards, criminal. In Islam the minimum age of marriage for a girl is after her first menstruation. Muhammad was engaged to his wife Aisha when she was six years old, and he married her (had intercourse with her) when she turned nine. Millions of Muslim men across the world follow Muhammad in this deed, one of the most prominent examples being the late Ayatollah Khomeini.

Under Sharia law (Islamic law), such as governs in Saudi Arabia, Iran and parts of Nigeria, the civil rights of women are dramatically reduced. Threat of violent punishment in the form of whipping and stoning makes the prospect of financial independence and sexual freedom for women all but impossible … [T]he western world would be wise to recognize the realities of Islam, a religion laid down in writing over a millennium ago with violence and oppression at its heart.

Shamim and Arnaz couldn’t possibly suggest Ms. Kirsi has had no experience of Islam or Muslims—she was raised one, and, these days, regularly receives death threats from them.

I’ll make one concession only. I routinely refer to “Islamofascist filth.” I take it back. The term “filth” is redundant.

About the Author ()

Comments (113)

Trackback URL / Comments RSS Feed

  1. John B says:

    A lot of people are going to be offended by Perigo’s rant here, but they should take a deep breath and realise a fundamental truth of life: It’s okay for libertarians to spread insults and sweeping generalisations about entire groups of people, because they’re “objective”, don’t you know. Ayn Rand told them so.

    However, it’s not okay for others to call them up on their hateful language, because that would be censorship and irrational.

    Got that? Good. Now you know why the Libertarianz are polling so low that Gallop doesn’t even put them on the graph.

  2. I burn tea towels says:

    Who is that Arnaz Amir fellow anyway? Sounds like a terrorist to me.

  3. Peruser says:

    From Salient’s Internet Policy on comments:

    1. We discourage obscenity and mindless abuse. Personal attacks on other users have no place in an intelligent discussion.
    2. We will not tolerate racism, sexism or homophobia.
    3. We will remove any content that may put us in legal jeopardy, such as potentially libellous or defamatory postings, or which is posted in potential breach of copyright.
    4. While we encourage a wide range of views, we will consider removing any content that other users might find extremely offensive or threatening.

    Odd that op-ed writers appear to be held to looser standards than commenters…

  4. Ricky says:

    Perigo’s column is consistently the funniest one in Salient for all the wrong reasons.

  5. CC says:

    It’s a shame important concepts such as freedom for speech have to be championed by such a dogmatic bunch of faux intellectuals like the Libertarianz. Anybody who likes a bit of light entertainment should go over to Perigo’s blog and witness the giant self congratulatory circle jerk which follows these articles being posted. Pergio bitches & moans that all anybody does is attack Perigo instead of the points which he makes, he mistakes for some type of indirect validation of the correctness of his views, where as what it actually validates is that people would gather hacksaw off their own fingers than argue with a Objectivist bore.

  6. DenMT says:

    No point counter-arguing with Perigo as his diatribe effectively buries itself, but it says a lot for his ‘objectivity’ that a polite, fairly worded invitation to debate is met with the desire to ‘fart loudly’. This may actually be the correct response, as it’s likely the emissions of his bowels contain far richer intellectual content than those of his brain.

  7. Luke H says:

    Perigo is much more involved with a group called SOLO these days, and has left Libertarianz to their own devices.

  8. Glenn says:

    CC: “It’s a shame important concepts such as freedom for speech have to be championed by such a dogmatic bunch of faux intellectuals… Pergio bitches & moans that all anybody does is attack Perigo instead of the points which he makes…”

    Quod erat demonstrandum, dumbass…

  9. Bryan says:

    Perigo is an attention seeker- ignore him and his plants on this board.

    None of his opinion and ‘analysis’ can be defended with a straight face, At least not by anyone with an IQ that exceeds 35.

  10. CC says:

    Hey Glenn, you sound just like Pergio!
    The combination of Wikipedia Latin & personal insults is classic Pergio, let me guess…do you have a huge collection of opera too? I’m afraid you have unwittingly proved my point.

  11. Ass Brain says:

    He reads the comments, he even reads them out on his radio show, just to prove what a Randian superman he is. You can just about hear the blood rushing to his cock (from his brain) as he proclaims another victory for rationality and bad fiction.

  12. Terry Smith says:

    You guys are shooting the messenger but deliberately ignoring the message.

    Does anyone disagree that Islam is superstitious nonsense, advocating absurdities resulting in atrocities, that to live in such Islamic countries (Iran, Saudi Arabia) would be hell, especially if your a women or non-Islamic. That the murder and violence expressed in the Koran towards the infidel leads to Jihad and terrorism, which is being directly driven by Islam.

    Islam is the foremost engine-driver of oppression in the world: Jihad, beheadings, honour killings, Bigamy, censorship, Mass Hysteria, terrorism, brutality towards women, rape, homophobia, clothing restrictions, fascism, …

    The integration of Islamic thought into New Zealand Consciousness and Politics via Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, and the desire not to offend will have detrimental consequences on our freedoms.

    Terry Smith – Auckland

  13. DenMT says:

    In fairness, the messenger shot himself Terry, and the message itself , when stripped of it’s flowery bombastic language, doesn’t extend far past a simple nose-thumbing to a very large religion.

    Had Perigo set out a reasonable, measured argument focusing on the threat to Western society he perceives from Islam, then one might expect a bit more playing of the ball than the man. As it is, Perigo came out of the blocks jabbering all sorts of nonsense about teatowels, sharpening scimitars, and stupid, stinking superstition.

    Talk about ‘hoist by your own petard’.

    DenMT

  14. Lindsey perigo says:

    This is so funny… all of you mere humans are nothing compared to me….. I just came in my pants, I make myself so hot, just thinking of myself. Steve, you can lick it up for me

  15. dirk says:

    hahahahahaha

  16. Henry Jane Windsor says:

    I’d like to see tired old balding right-wing extremists like Perigo point their intolerant and hate-filled rhetoric towards Christianity or even Libertarianazism itself. There are many verses in the Bible that are very extreme. For example, where it says that all adulterers should be put to death (Lev 20:10).

    ‘Islamofascist’ is a contradiction in terms often used by proponents of the New Zealand National Front and the equally as democratic Australian First Party. Fascism, if it can be defined religiously, had links with Christian religious traditions (eg Italian Roman Catholicism), and is strongly anti-Muslim. Most Muslims who live in New Zealand accept New Zealand laws and live here peacefully.

  17. CMR says:

    Are any of the “commentators” at this site equipped to debate the content of the Perigo article…or are ad-hominem diatribes to be the accepted norm?

    To date we have
    1 Perigo right wing and balding.
    2 Perigo is a “Randian superman”. (He may well be a “randy-superman!”)
    3 Perigo is an attention seeker.
    4 Libertarianz spread insults and sweeping generalisations.(Does the commentator hold a mirror?)
    5 Libertarianz are a dogmatic bunch of faux intellectuals.

    I am certain that this site will record vast quantities of further nonsense before any commentator steps over the threshold of infantile ramblings and grapples the issue. That of course may never be realised!

  18. Ricky says:

    Lindsay Perigo.

  19. perigo says:

    Can CMR prove that anything he listed in “to date’ is wrong. We are yet to see otherwise. Debate the issue CMR, or do you admit you can’t prove your list wrong.

  20. CMR says:

    The point is…the tone of the “commentators” is ad-hominem and not addressed to the issue.

    The issue as I perceive it is that Islam poses an unacceptable threat to rational/law-abiding citizens of this country.

    What aspect of this topic can possibly pivot on the personal attributes of Lindsay Perigo or Libertarianz as a party of freedom lauding individuals?

    I suggest that fellow readers of this reputable magazine ponder the subject matter rather than wallow in personalised warfare.

    I contend that “Perigo a go go” would be well advised to read Mr Perigo’s article in a quiet corner and weigh the subject matter rather than colour the work with derisive prejudices.

  21. CMR says:

    The point is…the tone of the “commentators” is ad-hominem and not addressed to the issue.

    The issue as I perceive it is that Islam poses an unacceptable threat to rational/law-abiding citizens of this country.

    What aspect of this topic can possibly pivot on the personal attributes of Lindsay Perigo or Libertarianz as a party of freedom lauding individuals?

    I suggest that fellow readers of this reputable magazine ponder the subject matter rather than wallow in personalised warfare.

    I contend that “Perigo a go go” would be well advised to read Mr Perigo’s article in a quiet corner and weigh the subject matter rather than colour the work with derisive prejudices.

  22. CMR says:

    At least “Perigo a go go” is even handed…he now wishes to attack me… the content of Mr Perigo’s article being thoroughly ignored!

    The point is…the tone of the “commentators” is ad-hominem and not addressed to the issue.

    The issue as I perceive it is that Islam poses an unacceptable threat to rational/law-abiding citizens of this country.

    What aspect of this topic can possibly pivot on the personal attributes of Lindsay Perigo or Libertarianz as a party of freedom lauding individuals?

    I suggest that fellow readers of this reputable magazine ponder the subject matter rather than wallow in personalised warfare.

    I contend that “Perigo a go go” would be well advised to read Mr Perigo’s article in a quiet corner and weigh the subject matter rather than colour the work with derisive prejudices.

  23. perigo a go go says:

    All Lindsey does in this article, CMR, oops, i a mean Lindsey.. is that you use an antidote “my view of Islam” to prove your point. This is a huge generalisation, that’s typical of what you do Lindsey, use antidotes to prove something. Normally, you are way of the mark.

  24. perigo a go go go says:

    All Lindsey does in this article, CMR, oops, i mean Lindsey.. is that you use an antidote “my view of Islam” to prove your point. This is a huge generalisation, that’s typical of what you do Lindsey, use antidotes to prove something. Normally, you are way of the mark. It’s really sad

  25. CMR says:

    At least “Perigo a go go” is even handed…he now wishes to attack me… the content of Mr Perigo’s article being thoroughly ignored!

    The matter is…the tone of the “commentators” is ad-hominem and not addressed to the issue.

    The issue as I perceive it is that Islam poses an unacceptable threat to rational/law-abiding citizens of this country.

    What aspect of this topic can possibly pivot on the personal attributes of Lindsay Perigo or Libertarianz as a party of freedom lauding individuals?

    I suggest that fellow readers of this reputable magazine ponder the subject matter rather than wallow in personalised warfare.

    I contend that “Perigo a go go” would be well advised to read Mr Perigo’s article in a quiet corner and weigh the subject matter rather than colour the work with derisive prejudices. Afterall does it truly require a university environment to enable someone torespond with the sad “no shit!” retort?

  26. James G says:

    bunch of cry babies
    someone mocks you, hassles you, ignore them. Declare them irrational and move on.
    It’s what i do to defenders of Islam. Perhaps you could try the same to perigo?
    The polemic is just arguing against an idea, if you believe in it, defend it. No need to moan about the injustice of someone ripping apart what you hold dear. Jeez, i’m offended by every student who writes distortions or rambling criticisms of Rand, but i either attempt to defend her rationally or don’t engage.
    Make the same choice people.

  27. Nadine says:

    Perigo, your article is extremely biased and oh so misinformed. We have a substantial Muslim population at the university and you are being unnecessarily insulting…why are you even writing for Salient, a student publication? You should spread your hate speech elsewhere. Anyway aren’t old people supposed to know better?

  28. Whatever says:

    If I read another person write ‘ad-hominem’ in a effort to be clever, I will scream.
    Perigo delights in causing these little shit storms, in reality it achieves nothing & means nothing. Any attempt to argue will just result in more sweeping generalizations (read objectivist rational thinking) and insults (read objectivist humor). I actually think that Perigo’s point of view needs to be expressed, the problem is, it seems he has to express it in ever escalating hysteria and bad taste in an effort to offend, and in the process loses his audience.

  29. perigo says:

    ad-hominem, yes I came again…. I love being clever… something you will never understand… I love being so smart…you mere humans will never understand… I am the greatest… ad-hominem, ad-hominem, ad-hominem… yes…… see how smart I am

  30. CMR says:

    “In an effort to offend.”

    At the risk of revealing an “effort to be clever” I enquire how you derive Mr Perigo’s motives from his well pondered and balanced article? Do you earnestly contend that he writes simply to be offensive to his readers? I prefer to interpret the subject article as educative/provoking/enlightening.

    Having been a classics and law scholar I find your apparent distaste of the use of latin rather perplexing, almost as perplexing as your use of the misty term “shit storm.”

  31. MarcusD says:

    Can anyone tell us whether any of the Muslim groups on Campus have ever issued a press release condemning car bombings, oppression of women etc? If they haven’t doesn’t that just prove Perigo’s premise in his article?

  32. Scissors says:

    I am ashamed by the commentators here. How can anyone respond to Perigo’s objective, fact-based, tasteful article with such crude personal attacks?!

    Perigo has enlightened us all with his fart jokes and references and references to buggery, and we should respond in kind to his graceful, classy writing.

  33. perigo says:

    I am so smart, bow down to me…. I love making generalizations, using antidotes, just to prove a point.. that’s right.. i am always right, and I got three friends, who I get to comment on a student web-site, just to prove how great I am…. bow down I said

  34. There's a girl in New York City who calls herself the human trampoline says:

    Harry Potter and the Lindsay Perigo Article

  35. ron "i don't even support free market solutions to genocide" paul says:

    “Can anyone tell us whether any of the Muslim groups on Campus have ever issued a press release condemning car bombings, oppression of women etc? If they haven’t doesn’t that just prove Perigo’s premise in his article?”

    Just as the lack of Christian groups issuing press releases on, say, Fred Phelps, indicates tacit support of his views, right?

    The reason most Muslim student groups don’t bother issuing press releases on those subjects is because a) it’s taking as read that they oppose them, just as it’s taken as read that most Christian oppose the actions taking by fanatics like Paul Hill or the Army of God, b) any such statement would simply be dismissed out of hand by people who are determined to see Muslims as a homogeneous group of bin Laden supporters, or would c) be seen as some sort of admission of guilt or complicity, and finally d) most such statement issued by Muslim groups are simply ignored, anyway, so what’s the point?

    Try googling muslims+condemn+terrorism before you make a claim.

  36. Ass Brain says:

    Ah, but see this is just Muslims pretending not to support terrorism.
    This is the actually counter argument being used by a Perigo supporter on another site.
    Basically they just keep on upping the Platonic generalizations, and then they wonder why nobody wants to play, they then take this as evidence of their views being correct.
    All rather silly really.

  37. Bryan says:

    Perigo does not learn from his mistakes. He insists on undermining what credibilty he may have by continually passing off vapid judgments as informed commentary, and presenting his opinions in a pontlessly insulting way.

    If hirs writing is to be viewed as political entertainment, rather than analysis, then more entertainment in the writing itself is required. Thousands of second rate bloggers are doing this schtick, and doing it a whole lot better.

  38. dave says:

    hey i follow perigo’s argument that because some muslims are violent all muslims are therefore violent, all white people must therefore be nazis/jew-killing/brutal colonisers/paedophiles…shouldn’t lindsay perigo as a white man be issuing press releases protesting all this? i guess you can’t judge an entire group of people by a minority…

    am i the only one who yearns for the days of old in salient when the satire was actually funny, offensive and clever?

  39. Blackie says:

    You know, it is possible for Islam to be a horrid, divisive, stupid lie which perpetrates the worst aspects of mankind AND for Perigo to be a smug, righter-than-right Rand-fancier. However, the latter comment has no weight in this discussion, and the former requires explanation. Perigo has explained himself. He is a finger-wagging contrarian, so factor that in to the tone. But really, the evil done by the world’s Muslims far outweighs his – in my opinion (which he claims he may die defending) – misled and inherently selfish beliefs. He’s cynical to the point of naivety, but followers of The Prophet are stupid to the point of mass homicide.

  40. Glenn says:

    Funny that this magazine is called ‘Salient’ when nearly every counter-argument made here has been anything but…

    Perigo has railed vociferously against all religions, including Christianity, since Adam was a boy. Nevertheless, it appears a distinction needs to be made regarding the two religions: Christians separated church and state in their native countries and gave women the vote long ago; Muslims have not. Christians stopped executing adulterers, homosexuals and heretics long ago; Muslims still do – regularly. Jesus did not advocate or practice paedophilia; Mohammed did – and by the Qur’an’s account thoroughly enjoyed it. The Bible does not demand war with the infidel until the all world is subjugated; The Qur’an does. Christian peace means peace; Islamic peace means when all the world is Islamic. Christian fundamentalists are a threat to abortionists and not much else; Muslim fundamentalists are a threat to the whole of western civilization. Moderate Christians rally against atrocities performed in the name of their religion; Moderate Muslims do not.

    I could go on…

    Here’s something you don’t hear moderate Muslims talking about: the Qur’an is essentially made up of two halves – the Meccan and Medinan, which have been knitted together in a non-chronological order. Mohammed wrote the first ‘peace and loving’ half in Mecca when he was trying to get support for his fledgling movement. The second ‘blood and guts’ half calling for the subjugation, proselytisation and/or execution of non-believers was recorded in Mecca, when he had assassinated all the dissenters and formed his brutal totalitarian state. Now, the important bit to note is this: the latter half of the Qur’an dictates that all laws written prior to the Meccan scriptures were made null and void in what is known as the Doctrine of Abrogation. This means, quite simply, that Islam is NOT a religion of peace, and that all those who are so-called ‘moderate’ Muslims are in fact wishy-washy practitioners who digest their holy book al a Carte. It is the Jihadists who are the true Muslims and faithful followers of Islam – as proscribed by the war mongering, Jew-hating, prepubescent-girl-humping Prophet himself.

    Finally, Islamofascism is not an oxymoron – unless you are completely ignorant of the brutal totalitarianism gripping Islamic states all over the world.

  41. Glenn says:

    [correction] … written prior to the ‘Medinan’ scriptures…

  42. Glenn says:

    [correction] The second ‘blood and guts’ half calling for the subjugation, proselytisation and/or execution of non-believers was recorded in ‘Medina’.

  43. I put a copy of your comment on my blog glenn. It points out excellently thy big difference between Christianity and Islam.

  44. Glenn says:

    Please tell me you made the corrections, Nicholas… :-)

  45. Jade says:

    Very well said Glenn.

    When Islam has had it’s own renaissance and reformation, their barbaric religion may lose its blood-lust and succumb to its more peaceful elements. But whilst they take seriously the role of Jihad, through terrorism, immigration or the womb, they are comparable to vampires, sucking the life blood of the West, whilst hating it at the same time. Read the writings of Hirsi Ali. She was exiled over them – that’s how seriously Islamics hate people speaking out against them. If you don’t believe her, read Oriana Fallaci, another outspoken exile.

    Thank Christ for the likes of Lindsay Perigo – the only one man enough in this complacent country to name something for what it really is, and happily take the backlash.

    Shame on you so called “students” who don’t understand the nature of the world you are living in, or its threats. You are obviously not receiving an education. Islamofacism is a serious threat.

  46. Tobias says:

    Steve, can you fire that fat shit Perigo and hire Glenn instead? He actually has a point to make.

  47. CMR says:

    What a marked and admirable turn around…the subject matter of Mr Perigo’s article is finally being pondered without the childish fixation on the author’s persona. (With the exception of Tobias!)

    Glenn’s knowledge of the dastardly attributes of the followers of Islam is indeed expansive and accurate. Mr Perigo’s authorship of quality writing in this magazine is hereby justified. Thank you Glenn. Thank you Lindsay.

  48. Richard McGrath says:

    Thank you Glenn for the comments on the Qur’an. I am still to read any argument among the comments above that actually rebuts anything that Lindsay Perigo said, only the style in which they were delivered, which I concede may not have been to everyone’s taste. If anyone from the local Muslim community is reading this, could they make some comment on the points raised by Lindsay Perigo. The silence from ‘moderate’ Muslims regarding the daily atrocities committed in the name of Isalm is deafening. The attacks on Perigo are somewhat wearisome – yes the man is overweight and balding, but so bloody what. Are alopecia and adiposity moral crimes and threats to the Western ideals of freedom of speech and action and individual rights in the same way that the Islamic jihad is? Not in the same ballpark. Finally, I think one of the writers above needs to brush up on the difference between an antidote and an anecdote. Now come on you apologists for Islam, play the ball not the man.

  49. dirk says:

    Enough bleating.

    All Perigo is doing is imposing Western cultural values on Islamic culture and then getting all uppity about it.

    He attributes a series of descriptive generalisations to Muslims (ie “murderous savagery”) which anyone ought to find offensive. I think Shanim Homayun is right in asking whether Perigo ever met a Muslim. I think Perigo has no real experience in dealing with Muslims and is far too poorly informed to write an article about them.

    The idea that peaceful Muslims should be obliged to condemn terror attacks is also blatantly absurd. Terrorists are not representative of peaceful Muslims. By the same token Perigo, who I assume is white, ought to be held responsible for all atrocities committed by white people, whether or not he chooses to elect them, under his analysis.

    This article is poorly written by the way.

  50. Yes, I did include the corrections. i cut and pasted the original comment and amended it for the corrections.

  51. Brendan says:

    “Some good, robust sodomy as the Muslims bend towards Mecca…”

    Hmm. I think we’re getting to the bottom of Mr Perigo’s distaste for Islam. Too many bums, not enough buggery.

    But what would Miss Rand think?

  52. Glenn says:

    Thank you, Dr. McGrath for adding some extra gravity to this debate (if we could call it that), now heavily weighted on the side of reason. That makes you, me, Mr. O’Kane, CMR, Jade, Blackie, James G and the indomitable Perigo against… well, actually, the other side hasn’t really made an argument yet. Dirk’s had a go, sort of…

    There was one other blogger who looked promising…

    Henry Jane Windsor (might wanna pick a gender and stick to it – just a suggestion) had a crack at a counter-argument – once s/he got had gotten this off his/her chest: “I’d like to see tired old balding right-wing extremists like Perigo…” They went on to inform us that “‘Islamofascist’ is a contradiction in terms often used by proponents of the New Zealand National Front and the equally as democratic Australian First Party. Fascism, if it can be defined religiously, had links with Christian religious traditions (eg Italian Roman Catholicism), and is strongly anti-Muslim.”

    *truck screeches to a halt*

    Henry Jane… after the expected epithet you guys kicked off with a fact – in the contest of your side’s mudslinging, a relatively good start! But then you completely lost the plot: Fascism, as defined by their posters boys the Nazis, is not anti-Muslim – it’s PRO-Muslim: the Nazis and Muslims had an agreement of cooperation in the eradication of the Jews. Hitler, Himmler and Eichman were all best mates with The Grand Mufti Amin Al Husseini (the biggest hat in the Muslim world), bestowing on him the rank of Gruppenführer in the SS – the equivalent of General. Hitler bankrolled his Arab bureau in Berlin and the Mufti became a regular in town, making nightly broadcasts on the radio where he spoke of the three big enemies: the British, the Americans and the Jews. Of course, he made special mention of the latter group, calling on all Arabs to, and I quote, “Kill the Jews wherever you may find them.” But he was just getting started. When he heard that Hungry, Romania and Bulgaria were letting thousands of Jews leave for the safety of Palestine, he had his SS pals cancel the programme, which sent more than 4000 children to the ovens. And it wasn’t just the top dog Muslim who was in bed with Adolph and Frauleine Braun; 30,000 other Muslims joined the ranks of the esteemed SS and by all accounts acquitted themselves admirably in hunting down partisans.

    Unfortunately, Husseini’s legacy didn’t end with the war. Thanks to the Nazis the Arabs finally had an idea of how to set up, organise, manage, and *secure* a totalitarian state. Tragically, Husseini’s legacy didn’t end with his life; he is widely credited for laying the foundations of the new Iraq.

    One could argue that Bush is finishing the job that Roosevelt ignored.

    You know, at first I was dubious about Islam Awareness Week; now I’m really getting into it.

  53. ron "the official stormfront.org candidate" paul says:

    The silence from ‘moderate’ Muslims regarding the daily atrocities committed in the name of Isalm is deafening.

    As I said previously, NO IT ISN’T. Their comments just aren’t reported by the media, because “slavering horde of Islamofascist bastards” makes a better story.

    Have you ever actually tried searching “muslims+condemn+terrorism” on google to find examples of the many Muslim institutions decrying bin Laden and his ilk?

  54. Ass Brain says:

    Here is another Perigo classic for ya all, so after all this he has now decided “Academia is no longer a bastion of free speech and open debate—it is, rather, at the very vanguard of tyranny” (this from Perigo’s blog), another classic bullshit objectivist generalization. So some students call Perigo names and now they are the “vanguard of tyranny”.

    Those people trying to put up counter arguments, forget it, this is the level of self delusion/worship you are dealing with and you can’t win. One has to ponder what Perigo’s map of the world looks like, there can’t be many things left, which from his point of view are not sources of tyranny or collectivism.

  55. ron "the fda is only getting in the way of a cure for cancer" paul says:

    oh my god, he’s having a meltdown because a few people in their late teens/early twenties are calling him mean names on the internet?

  56. Glenn says:

    Yes, Ron Paul (or is it really Gnome Chomsky behind that pseudonym?), there are many Muslim organisations that vocally condemn Islamic terrorists who murder in their name, and I applaud their bravery in becoming apostate and joining us westerners on the Islamic death list.
    However, in the context of this discussion, we’re not hearing ANYTHING from our local Muslims during their big week. The NZ press can only be expected to report what our local Muslim leaders are feeding them in their press releases, NONE of which have so much as mentioned ‘jihad’ or ‘terrorist’.

    Making the distinction between the moderate and the radical would have infinitely more meaning emanating from the Muslim community than coming from white middle-class students feeling all warm and fuzzy in their Kumbaya. I can tell you right now, if just 1% of New Zealand’s moderate Muslims got off their prayer mats and marched in protest of the jihad it would absolutely make it on to our news; 10% and their voice would probably ring around the world.

    Instead we have utter passive, and dare I say, suspicious silence… that is, until the next anti-Iraq-war march when they’ll hit the streets to protest AGAINST the allies trying to put an end to Islamic extremism.

  57. Glenn says:

    Read it again, Ron: the thrust of Perigo’s argument is not that you’re calling him names – he doesn’t give a toss what you call him; it’s the epithet unaccompanied by a rational counterpoint that makes him spew. Have you spotty brats even heard of Socratic argument?

    Ass Brain – what “counter argument”???

  58. Henry Jane Windsor says:

    Not a epithet, I was calling the Libertarianz as I see them… When people wear jackboots and say that they want a police state to replace the ‘nanny state’, while being against trade-unions, people of colour and the poor … draw your own conclusions.

    As for ‘my side’, I’m proud to be against racism and the scape-goating of all Muslims because of the actions of a few extremists. Does ‘your side’ supports the murder of women and children in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine?

    “Fascism, as defined by their posters boys the Nazis, is not anti-Muslim.”

    Glenn, if you actually read my comment closely, you would have seen that I was writing about the Italian Fascists (using a specific political science definition of ‘fascism’) who had a difference relationship to Muslims to than the nazis. In particular they hated people descended from the Moors and African Muslims. What Hitler and his cronies thought about Muslims had little relevance upon what I was writing.

    “The Grand Mufti Amin Al Husseini (the biggest hat in the Muslim world)” = One individual. There is no singular Muslim world, in the same way as they is no singular Christian denomination. Just because one individual may have given himself fancy titles doesn’t mean that all of Islam, or even Muslims outside of his own country, defer to him.

    A totalitarian state, you mean like the United States under George W. Bush?:
    http://mvp-seattle.com/pages/pagefascism.htm
    Finishing the job that Roosevelt ignored? Bush would have difficulty finishing a blow job.

  59. Glenn says:

    Henry Jane, fascism, defined as “a system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism,” couldn’t be a more accurate description of almost every Muslim state in the world. If you think the U.S. matches this definition you’re either clinically retarded or terminally stupid. Next you’ll be telling us that socialism will save the world, despite the 100 million deaths that can be directly attributed to its ideology.

    True, there is no single Muslim world; there is, however, a single Muslim doctrine, to which all Muslims adhere; a doctrine with a central tenet that demands its adherents decapitate you and I if we refuse to comply to its dictates; a doctrine which remains UNREFUTED by the bulk of the billion-plus Muslims worldwide. That you’ve avoided addressing the points made earlier regarding the content of the Qur’an speaks volumes.

    Incidentally, the Libertarianz uphold the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness FOR ALL, so I’m bewildered as to how you might translate this into racism and fascism. One of their central tenets is the principle of non-force, and while they hate unions that hold to ransom those who created their jobs in the first place, they nevertheless support voluntary membership – UNLIKE the Marxist union leaders who want it made compulsory.

    But at least you’ve avoided the epithet and attempted to make an argument, and for that you deserve a modicum of respect – which is more than can be said of those here who remain wallowing in the cesspit of cynicism and unsubstantiated slander.

  60. Richard McGrath says:

    Henry Jane, you seem to have some misconceptions about the Libertarianz political party, which is explicitly NOT ‘against trade unions, people of colour and the poor’ as such. It IS against THOSE trade unions, employer groups, people of colour, people of European descent, people on the rich list and poor people who get the government to use force on their behalf to plunder the earnings and assets of other people whose only crime is that they are productive. Libertarianz doesn’t want a police state, it wants the rule of law enforced to protect individual rights. Police states, incidentally, like countries under Islamic rule, aren’t particularly interested in protecting individual rights.

  61. Glenn says:

    Well put, Richard – a much better retort than mine…

  62. dirk says:

    “Henry Jane… after the expected epithet you guys kicked off with a fact – in the contest of your side’s mudslinging, a relatively good start! But then you completely lost the plot: Fascism, as defined by their posters boys the Nazis, is not anti-Muslim – it’s PRO-Muslim: the Nazis and Muslims had an agreement of cooperation in the eradication of the Jews. Hitler, Himmler and Eichman were all best mates with The Grand Mufti Amin Al Husseini (the biggest hat in the Muslim world), bestowing on him the rank of Gruppenführer in the SS – the equivalent of General. Hitler bankrolled his Arab bureau in Berlin and the Mufti became a regular in town, making nightly broadcasts on the radio where he spoke of the three big enemies: the British, the Americans and the Jews. Of course, he made special mention of the latter group, calling on all Arabs to, and I quote, “Kill the Jews wherever you may find them.” But he was just getting started. When he heard that Hungry, Romania and Bulgaria were letting thousands of Jews leave for the safety of Palestine, he had his SS pals cancel the programme, which sent more than 4000 children to the ovens. And it wasn’t just the top dog Muslim who was in bed with Adolph and Frauleine Braun; 30,000 other Muslims joined the ranks of the esteemed SS and by all accounts acquitted themselves admirably in hunting down partisans.”

    What ties do Muslims have with the Nazi party nowadays?

    Spouting historical details doesn’t make your ideas any more cogent or your terms of abuse any less than terms of abuse.

  63. CMR says:

    “Bush would have difficulty finishing a blow job!” (I take it Henry Jane states this from personal attendance on the President)

    In one phrase Henry Jane you have superbly encapsulated Mr Perigo’s valid observation that “Academia is no longer a bastion of free speech and open debate…” Thank you.

  64. Michael says:

    Hmm, I’m not sold on the “Academia is no longer a bastion of free speech and open debate” rhetoric yet. Not that I disagree with Mr. Perigo’s column (he does raise what some might call uncomfortable truths, and that seems to have pissed off a whole lot of… uh… computer users? Bloggers?), it’s just that I think the majority of Salient’s readership have got, ya’know, shit to do.

    Yes, it’s a shame that the majority of students don’t care enough to actively voice their thoughts on such a contentious issue. It’s not that they don’t want to care, they just find it impossible to fit the requisite caring into their daily schedules.

    That said, Lindz, I think I’ve got a solution: your next column should include the usual Perigo sweeteners (go all Bill Hicks on our asses and write about pro-lifers protesting outside cemeteries or something), but entwine it with tips about how to “poon” spaghetti-strapped first year floozies at the Big Kumara. And for the girls? I dunno, uh, pictures of Daniel Carter in his underwear? A link to your Bebo page? I dunno, man, feel free to go hogwild.

  65. Bryan says:

    ““Bush would have difficulty finishing a blow job!” (I take it Henry Jane states this from personal attendance on the President)
    “In one phrase Henry Jane you have superbly encapsulated Mr Perigo’s valid observation that “Academia is no longer a bastion of free speech and open debate…” Thank you.”

    And you have eaten your own shit, making an ad hominem attack after crybabying about them post after repeated post

  66. Chris McConnell says:

    Funny that I should find out about this article tonight – what on earth is the Salient thinking? There are no words to describe how I feel about this type of literature – and to read comments referring to Arnaz Amir as a terrorist?!?!

    Lindsay, easy for you to sit in the comforts of your wonderful, peaceful country and comment on something you know nothing about! You sit there and write such hateful things about those following Islam in a student magazine from the comfort of your home. How old are you by the way? Are you a student? Do you not think that you are hurting a valued community on campus that contribute regularly to a colorful campus life? Anyways, I think you are a COWARD! You have no class, no intellect and absolutely no compassion. You are nothing and should not be writing for a student magazine! Leave this campus alone!

    Oh, if you are so convinced in your beliefs why don’t you go overseas and fight? Wait, are you scared of bullets? Bombs? Terror waged on both sides? Maybe you should go! Maybe you should speak to Robert Fisk – someone who has actually experienced what is going on overseas and is able to articulate an opinion in an 1000 page book! No, you chose to sit in your nice peaceful home, nearing retirement writing for a student magazine while students from Canada, the USA, UK and various other countries have to go to war and fight! How dare you…You coward! You are a joke!

    Lindsay, have you read the Koran? Do you know the difference between regional custom and religion? Oh and no, I am not a subscriber of any religion – well…maybe a bit of ‘DO UNTO OTHERS … ”

    Chris

    PS: Arnaz Amir is a million times the man you will ever be! He is compassionate, caring, intelligent and very, very aware of the world! Never belittle someone and something you know nothing about…

  67. Peter says:

    The real question is why is the editor allows Perigo to write for Salient. This isn’t an issue of Pergio’s freedom of expression. Pergio gets to voice his opinion in the Free Radical and on Radio Live. Student money is gong to pay for this ignorant bigot to voice is opinion. I know that Steve has turned away articles written by students in the past. It doesn’t matter what Perigo has to say, its just sad that Perigo gets space in Salient every week. I also notice that most comments in support of Perigo are most likely his friends, and not VUW students.

  68. Chris McConnell says:

    Yeah that is true as well Peter. I suppose that is the editers doing and maybe this apathetic student body should do something about it. I would much rather read some insight a student has on the world than that of a bigot! Doubt you can consider the Salient a student magazine anymore though. It is just a rag…

  69. Lance says:

    A set of laws and traditions that, at the very least advocates, or in more extreme interpretations demands, violence against non-believers, subjugates women, and requires you to bow your head in subservience, all for the appeasement of a non-existent sky fairy IS a stinking, stupid superstition. For Mr Perigo to call it such is not unreasonable, although it is not very nice either, it’s bound to offend such people as believe. Too flippin bad! Believe and advocate such utter drivel (as you are free to do) and you will find that people will point out, with varying degrees of politeness, the stinking stupidity of your superstitions.

  70. Bryan says:

    ‘I also notice that most comments in support of Perigo are most likely his friends, and not VUW students’

    Yeah. If you look at his blog ‘Glenn’ is “Jameson”, who looks like a paid up member of Stormfront or Aryan Nation.

  71. Ricky says:

    Am I the only person who reads Perigo’s columns like they’re pro wrestling promos? I get this mental image of him swaggering into the library one afternoon with his theme music blaring, standing in the middle of level 2 with his arms reaching out, saying “Here I am, academia! Show me whatcha got!”, only for some first year law student to walk past muttering “Fucking mature students. THE PASS CLASSES ARE IN KK204. FOR FUCK SAKES.”

  72. CC says:

    So ‘Glenn’ is ‘Jameson’, good to know I nearly picked it right (no pun intended), it is so hard to differentiate Perigo from his fluffing squad, they all so slavishly imitate his style.
    I was reading Perigo’s blog the other day, taking in the sordid mutual masturbation which passes for commentary, it seems they have a new word, apparently we are all ‘solipsistic’, the irony of this is so utterly priceless I was almost tempted to register just to pass comment on this comedy, this of course would have propelled me straight into the ‘vanguard of tyranny’.

  73. George W. says:

    Dear Lindsay,

    Yours is a cause worth defending–free speech and a true understanding of Islam. You write beautifully, and with a rigorous background of research to boot. I just have a few questions and points to go over, before the multiple-choice exam.

    In the first article you described Abdullah Drury’s ‘Islamofascist credentials’. I was just wondering where he got them? Was it a BA or a Bsc?

    I also found your parallel references of attempted bombings in Britain and separate swimming facilities for a Muslim women’s group in Christchurch quite enlightening. Clearly they’re all evil, and now that some of them have discovered underwater Pilates, none of us are safe. I’m just not sure what to look out for, Lindsay. A man with a bomb strapped to his back or one complaining about a vegetarian pizza with meat on it? But I’m sure you’ll tell us soon.

    Of course, I’m sure the man will be brown and Muslim either way; but it’s important to stay vigilant if we’re trying to eliminate bigotry. Perhaps you could start your own game show ‘Blind Hate’. Contestant number one: if I was out on the town and we met in a bar would you (a) refuse to buy me a drink because it’s against your stinking religion? (b) Put a fatwa on me? (c) Blow yourself up?

    But honestly Lindsay, I think we can all be friends, don’t you? Some of my Muslim friends (yes, that’s right I do have some. Somehow I feel dirty having admitted that), might have a few qualms about hanging out with you. Nothing to do with your superlative personality or world views (speaking of which look up a radio pundit in America called Michael Savage–he helped popularize the term Islamifashism), but more the fact that you have clearly eaten all the pies and need to get laid, and a cup of tea is the best you’re gonna get out of them I’m afraid. “Go sharpen your own scimitar, Lindsay”… they might say.

    Muslim students here at Vic pay extremely high international fees, and over the years have paid hundreds towards VUWSA and the Salient publication. For that matter, so have I. I mention this because if enough students did kick up enough dust about this, you could be dropped from Salient. Why am I saying this? Is it another thinly veiled threat? Am I sharpening up my own scimitar?

    This is friendly advice, in fact. I don’t want to see you go. So calm down a bit, maybe drink some coffee (which originated in Islamic nations, but never mind), and write a few, more benign articles in the coming weeks–maybe about pies, for instance.

    If not, I still look forward to Islamfascism Part 3, because now that I am so thoroughly well informed on Muslim culture, history, and mentality, I need to know what to do next…

    Yes it’s true that Islam is the fastest growing ‘superstition’ in the world, Lindsay. Well done. But in light of this, wouldn’t it lead any dignified, free thinking Muslim to ask a provocative question of his or her own: ‘Hey, Lindsay; Who the f*ck are you?’

    (The problem, Lindsay, with farting loudly… is then you have to smell your own shit).

  74. Michael says:

    Dunked.

  75. downwithpatriachy says:

    I am absolutely shocked that so many MALE commentators are rushing in to defend a patriachal religion like Mohammedanism. It is very suspicious if you ask me. Would all you men like to have 20 or 30 prepubescent wives?

    Lindsay is obviously a vulnerable young woman who is disturbed by the way Islam regards her as a female. It is truly disgusting to see so many MEN attacking a young WOMAN columnist. Shame on you all.

  76. Uh, dude. Lindsay Perigo’s a 60-year-old man.

  77. Michael says:

    I think he was being subtle.

  78. Not Saying says:

    It is amazing how many people in New Zealand claim to actually understand Islam. After reading through the comments I am curious if any have actually opened the Koran, studied it etc. I think most of the bloggers here are individuals who likely sit at home and watch Fox news to collect their sources for their pending 100 level World Politics class while, at the same time, ridicule Fox News and poke fun at it for not being OBJECTIVE OR LEARNED. Should you actually open a primary source you might learn that perhaps it is more peaceful than Christianity. Oh, wait…when was it that Christian states gave women rights again? I think Switzerland was the last and it was in the 1970s sometime…

  79. Oops. Big faux pas there. Apologies Mr Perigo.

  80. CMR says:

    I have resided in both “Christian” and “Muslim” socieites. I regard both religions as gibberish nonsense. I derive from Mr Perigo’s writings that he also does.

    Both “faiths” if they desrve that status, have histories of savagery and violence. In this respect they stand together. The current problem facing all of us is “How do we respond to the jihad?” Islam is the faith which has authored the unfair,unwarranted and, frankly, terrifying jihad. The “authority” to decree a war on non-believers is derived from the Koran…those correspondents who have blasted this site this week without repairing to that book, are really thundering in the kind of darkness which allows superstition and voodoo to flourish.

    One can only hope that at that the very least the correspondents who have preferred to lambast the columnist, will stop to ponder the nature of the jihad and its potehtial impact on each and everyone of us!

  81. Glenn says:

    No, Yee Yang, what this world needs are more thinkers. Clearly they won’t be coming out of this university, which has by all accounts abjectly failed to teach its students the art of debate. Ad hominem is not a substitute for cognition and counter argument. The only thing you mental midgets are proving is that you don’t have the brains to pull it together. Perigo has won this by default.

  82. Glenn says:

    Dirk asks, “What ties do Muslims have with the Nazi party nowadays?”

    A cursory glance at the brutal nature of Islamic totalitarianism will answer your question.

  83. Glenn I get the feeling that you took me seriously… Hehe.

    No offence intended, but sweeping generalised comments on the university student body is probably not that far removed from the propaganda Perigo is spewing. (For the record I am not a student at the university.)

    But yes, I concede that the world could do with some more thinkers – people who, as you imply would be learned and wise enough to know better than to put forward argumentum ad hominem. These same people would probably know Latin by heart too AND not be of lower than average height.

    The world would then be a better place. Huzzah.

    Oh one more thing.

    * putting on ad hominem hat *

    I can’t help but think that “[t]he only thing you mental midgets are proving is that you don’t have the brains to pull it together” is a textbook ad hominem argument.

    Irony. Got to love it. No. Wait. I think that’s closer to hypocrisy.

    Does anyone know what hypocrisy is Latin? They forgot to teach me that in Law School. Fark.

  84. Glenn says:

    No fear Yang, there’s nothing you say that I’m likely to take seriously.

    You’ll note that my ad hominem is not without sound argumentum: in rugby parlance it’s tackling the man AND the ball. :-)

  85. Ralph says:

    Glenn, your a legend!

  86. dirk says:

    ‘Dirk asks, “What ties do Muslims have with the Nazi party nowadays?”

    A cursory glance at the brutal nature of Islamic totalitarianism will answer your question.’

    Dude, I wasn’t speaking metaphorically. What actual current links between Islam and Fascism or Nazism justify the moronic, simplistic and hyperbolic term ‘Islamofascism’? If you can’t find any I’d be happy to accept your apology for using such a fabricated racist word.

  87. Henry Jane Windsor says:

    Are you using the right definitions Glenn? Maybe you should go and check with your grand dragon or exalted cyclops. Otherwise put your white hood back on and shut the fuck up.

  88. Phillip says:

    lol you implyed he is a memeber of the ku klax clan!!!!!!

  89. Michael says:

    Lindsay, what’s your favourite Harry Potter book?

  90. Sean Abdullah says:

    You’re right, enough being apologetic. Instead I’ll thank the terrorist this time for giving an opportunity for Lindsay to show how ignorant, depressed and stupid she really is.

  91. Kathryn says:

    Well well….
    Lindsays style is, one must confess, a trifle acerbic from time to time, but this merely demonstrates his passionate belief in what he says.

    However, he is totally right about one thing. Not ONCE have I heard any of the Moslem clergy, or lay congregation for that matter, say one negative word about the vicious savages that are trying to subdue the western culture with their frequent atrocities against the defenseless.

    About the only useful thing to come from the Arab world has been the concept of zero, which made our numeric system more convenient, even if their choice of ten as a base for that system was totally illogical. All else from that part of the world has been mayhem, cruelty and death.
    Initiation of force is their stock in trade, and I can see only two workable solutions. We either have to exceed their level of savagery and quell them, and we have the capacity to do that, or their own “moderates” will have to conquer the abject fear that holds them in thrall to their doctrine, and object to the actions of their extremists in sufficient numbers to be effective.
    I would much prefer the latter to the West being left with no alternative but to use the former, or submit to the theocratic slavery that is the norm in Islamic countries.

    To anyone holding even the very limited definition of freedom that seems current in our universities, that last option should be unconscionable. Already here in NZ a school principal has knuckled under to a Moslem parent and removed a book by Salman Rushdie from the school library.
    That principal should be dismissed for that act of moral cowardice in my opinion.

    While Lindsay could sometimes couch his opinions in more diplomatic terms, the essential substance of them is demonstrably true. All of the reactionary vituperation that so many of our so-called “intellectual elite” on this, and other, campuses heap upon his head, do nothing but prove my point.

    Lindsay has more knowledge, wisdom and factual information in one of his little toe nails that most of you put together. That you cannot, or will not, see it does nothing but prove my contention.
    I don’t necessarily agree with Lindsay’s views on all things (theism is one of them), but nevertheless they are always worth listening to.

    I repeat Lindsay’s challenge here. If you disagree with him, then debate the issue and try to refute his statements.
    Insults and denigration of his person do none of you any credit.

  92. dirk says:

    ‘I repeat Lindsay’s challenge here. If you disagree with him, then debate the issue and try to refute his statements.’

    How about deconstruct the issue and show how your ideas are predicated on racist assumptions?

  93. Ricky says:

    god, put the fucking thesaurus away, Kathryn, you boring cunt.

  94. Phillip says:

    Hey, you know what, as far as I’m aware, this creepy sixty year old man isn’t enrolled at our University. Feel free to prove me wrong.

  95. Rally Against Islamofascism:
    Remembering Bloody Tuesday

    Six years have passed since the worst terrorist attack on America. It seems that most Americans do not remember what happened on September 11, 2001. We are back to business as usual. While our military is fighting the War on Terror, American consumers are financing terrorism by buying Middle Eastern oil. While a Crucifix submerged in urine is considered to be a free artistic expression and received a government grant, flushing a Koran down the toilet is prosecuted as a hate crime. While moderate Muslim groups like American Islamic Forum for Democracy and Muslims Against Sharia are virtually unheard of, terrorist fronts like CAIR and MPAC receive multi-million dollar payments from Saudi Arabia and enjoy full recognition by our government officials.

    When: September 11, 2007, 4pm-6pm
    Where: 12901 Q Street, Omaha, NE 68137
    Inquires: Omaha @ TerrorFreeOil.org

  96. ron "colloidal silver" paul says:

    Not ONCE have I heard any of the Moslem clergy, or lay congregation for that matter, say one negative word about the vicious savages that are trying to subdue the western culture with their frequent atrocities against the defenseless.

    Except for, oh, the MULTIPLE TIMES IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED ON THIS VERY PAGE.

    If you genuinely believe Muslims are not criticising Osama bin Laden, you are so astoundingly stupid I don’t know how you manage to get up in the morning.

  97. Henry Jane Windsor says:

    About the only useful thing to come from the Arab world has been the concept of zero, which made our numeric system more convenient, even if their choice of ten as a base for that system was totally illogical. All else from that part of the world has been mayhem, cruelty and death.

    What about literature? The Arabian Nights, for example. Poetry? Agriculture, and more recently, horse breeding has strong ties to the Arabian World. The legal system… from the Arab World. As does mathematics and many other ideas that we have pertaining to civilisation.

    Initiation of force is their stock in trade, and I can see only two workable solutions. We either have to exceed their level of savagery and quell them, and we have the capacity to do that, or their own “moderates” will have to conquer the abject fear that holds them in thrall to their doctrine, and object to the actions of their extremists in sufficient numbers to be effective..

    The so-called ‘Arab World’ does not have a monopoly on “Initiation of force” as their stock in trade, or has George W. Bush found the non-existent WMDs?

    I’m waiting for “their level of savagery” to get even close to the savagery that the United States and its allies has committed upon Muslim peoples. I’d also like to see any Arab state get even close to the fear, paranoia and loathing of the USA.

    To anyone holding even the very limited definition of freedom that seems current in our universities, that last option should be unconscionable.

    What freedom?

    While Lindsay could sometimes couch his opinions in more diplomatic terms, the essential substance of them is demonstrably true. All of the reactionary vituperation that so many of our so-called “intellectual elite” on this, and other, campuses heap upon his head, do nothing but prove my point.

    True? Maybe in Perigo ‘cloud-cuckooland’. Perigo is a utopian idealogue whose extremist views have no bearing on the real world. He is also very selective with respect to the subjects of his criticism. I’d like him, for example, to focus his arguments on a critique of Christianity. Moreover, racial scapegoating is always based on lies and exaggeration, not on any ‘truth’.

  98. Bryan says:

    There is yet another white supremacist on his site, who has been welcomed with open arms – ‘Elijah Lineberry’. To have Perigo writing here is unconscionable and this should really should be taken further..

  99. Lance says:

    “Moreover, racial scapegoating is always based on lies and exaggeration, not on any ‘truth’.”
    Yes, very true but Islam is not an ethnic group.
    “There is yet another white supremacist on his site, who has been welcomed with open arms – ‘Elijah Lineberry’. ”
    Yeah right.

  100. Henry Jane Windsor says:

    “Moreover, racial scapegoating is always based on lies and exaggeration, not on any ‘truth’.”
    Yes, very true but Islam is not an ethnic group.

    Lance, ‘ethnic’ is inclusive of people with common cultural and religious values, and lines of descent. There is diversity within most religious traditions, even if it just between converts and people who are raised under those traditions.

    Whatever semantics you use, it does not change the fact that Muslim Peoples are being subjected to scapegoating and hate crimes, due to their ‘religion’.

    Remember that Jewish Peoples are not one single ethnic group either.
    Compare this (wherever the term ‘Jew’ or ‘Semitic’ crops up, replace it with ‘Muslim’):

    “Modern European antisemitism has its origin in 19th century theories—now mostly considered as pseudo-scientific—that said that the Semitic peoples, including the Jews, are entirely different from the Aryan, or Indo-European, populations, and that they can never be amalgamated with them. In this view, Jews are not opposed on account of their religion, but on account of their supposed hereditary or genetic racial characteristics. ”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_antisemitism

  101. Glenn says:

    For the record, I abhor any group that seeks to deny any individual the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, including the KKK, right wing totalitarians, left wing totalitarians, and Islamic totalitarians. If you’re going to slander me, back it up or shut up.

    Ricky: “god, put the fucking thesaurus away, Kathryn, you boring cunt.”

    Another blistering retort from an intellectual midget.

  102. Michael Oliver says:

    Yeah, you zing em, Glenn. Uppity students with their “internet”.

    I thought Perigo’s column was pretty good this week. Still don’t quite understand why someone – anyone – outside of Victoria is writing for Salient, but they’re interesting reads none the less.

  103. Michael Oliver says:

    The columns, that is. I’m sure the only time I’ll ever get to “read” Perigo is if a posthumous Ann Rynd work surfaced that described in vivid detail the cordial joys of having a psych -reading done by the sports columnist of a student magazine.

    But stranger things have happened!

    (I was in trouble about three words into that sentence…)

  104. Lance says:

    “Whatever semantics you use, it does not change the fact that Muslim Peoples are being subjected to scapegoating and hate crimes, due to their ‘religion’.”

    Fair point, and there are people out there that feel that because of the actions of Islamic terrorists, they have the right to physically attack any Muslim and/or their property in retribution. And THAT is a load of stinking horseshit, it’s a crime, lock those pricks up, punish them, what they’re doing is goddamn wrong! However, the question of the appropriateness of Perigo having a column in Salient aside, I see little that is wrong with the Death to Islamofascism articles. Offending people is not and should never be a crime (to be clear I’m not saying you said it should, I’m referring back to what I wrote above), it isn’t racist to verbally attack a religion or its adherents.
    There seems to be an unwillingness here to separate race from religion though, an attack on Islam is apparently an attack on Arabs, Lindsay Perigo is white, Arabs are brown, therefore LP is a racist/fascist/Nazi.

    “I’d like him, for example, to focus his arguments on a critique of Christianity.”
    Yeah sure, why not, Christianity are just as stupid and superstitious as Islam. So why the negative reaction when it’s about Islam and Muslims? It’s just a religion, as flippin stupid as the rest of them.

  105. Lance says:

    “Christianity are just as stupid and superstitious as Islam.”
    Read “Christianity ‘is’ just as stupid and superstitious as Islam” damn no edit button. I originally wrote Christians are just as stupid and superstitious as Muslims, but in the interest of having a reasonable discussion and not being overly antagonistic, I changed the wording.

  106. Madeleine says:

    Arguments do not have ages or hair and cannot be measured in kilograms.

    You people are university students, that should mean you have the faculties to engage Linz’s argument, to research facts and offer counter-facutals but instead you throw in insults about Linz’s age, hair line and weight!

    That said, I do think that Linz wrote this article deliberatly seeking a raise. The tone and the angle he came from is my basis for thinking that along with his use of ad hominems and the uneccessary inflamatory remarks he knows full well are insulting to Muslims but Linz knew what he was doing and he is more than up for getting a raise. Getting a raise is often a good way of stirring things up so that the real issues can be brought out, discussed, dissected and debated and on this topic there are real issues that need to be aired and not swept away in the name of PC-ness.

    If Christians were blowing civilians up, committing acts of terrorism, trying to convert people by force and generally affronting morality in a serious way in this current day and age in large numbers and were loudly using the Bible to justify their actions I would be speaking out and so would my entire church. I have a public track record of doing just that and so does my church.

    It could be that they are loudly doing this and that the media is not giving them a voice but I doubt it. When I spoke publicly about my former Christian friend who committed unspeakable atrocities on children and tried to defend himself from the Bible the media fell all over themselves to give me a voice, to explain how wrong his claims were that the Bible gave him any justification.

    But this is by the by. I think the real issue here is what does Islam teach? Clearly there are some tenets of Islam that are supportive of violence, conversion by force and the subjugation of women. A simple analysis and comparison of Christianised countries v Islamised countries shows up the differences in the guiding principles. Where the Christian church got these things wrong the followers of the church overthrew them – you don’t see churches today as a whole committing or endorsing suicide attacks, converting people by force and making the status of women unequal – feminism grew out of the church. By contrast you do not see muslims challenging their leaders and demanding an end to suicide attacks, you do not see them demanding an end to conversion by force or giving women equal rights.

    So Lance I would appreciate it if you and others would not dump Christianity in with Islam.

    Before nit picking what I wrote please keep in mind that there are individual ‘evil’ splinter groups/examples in every corner of society including, atheism and libertarianism, and every group has had moments when their forward growth has not been as strong as it could have been. What I wrote was in generalised terms so a response citing the inquisition will not rebut it.

  107. Madeleine says:

    To perhaps make my point plainer: compare the Declaration of Independance and the US Constitution, notions of free speech, freedom of religion and conscience, equality, fair trials for examples of public policy spawned out of Christianity and Sharia Law for examples of Islam public policy and then think about which system of law you would rather live under before you try to put Christianity and Islam’s social and political policies in the same basket.

  108. Lance says:

    “…before you try to put Christianity and Islam’s social and political policies in the same basket.”
    I did no such thing, I can see how it could be construed that way though as I did not clarify. I only meant that they were both as stupid and superstitious at the most basic “invisible sky fairy” level.
    The point was that people who don’t like hearing Islam criticised as it upsets their fuzzy wuzzy sensibilities, invariably say “oh oh but but what about Christianity?” and to that I say sure, Christianity is a stupid set of superstitions too.

  109. Madeleine says:

    Christianity is a stupid set of superstitions too.

    Do you have an argument to go with that assertion?

  110. Lance says:

    Superstition: A belief in something not justified by reason or evidence.
    Stupid is of course made somewhat redundant by ‘superstition’, but provides a nice alliteration and reinforcement.

    I see on your blog though:
    “Matt holds a PhD from the University of Otago and specialises in Philosophical Theology and Applied Ethics.”

    So I won’t waste time by laying down the standard atheist 101 arguments. I’ve read in depth debates with theologians and such arguments are generally brushed aside by arguing semantics and ‘god is not x god is y’ and suchlike. I’m sure someone who has studied to be (or is married to) a philosophical theologian has become extremely adept at rationalising their position.

    So I stand by Christianity being “A belief in something not justified by reason or evidence.” on face value. Though I’m sure a philosophical theologian would be quite capable of putting forward a different view.

  111. Madeleine says:

    LOL

    Putting aside you definition of Christianity for the moment, humour me with an answer to the following:

    Is there something wrong with holding to the occaisional belief that is not justified by reason or evidence? Are you claiming you hold to no beliefs whatsoever that cannot be justified by reason or evidence?

  112. Lance says:

    Ooooh you’re a clever one! You know full well that’s not my “definition” of Christianity, that’s a description of it.
    And I’d hardly call it an occasional belief. It’s a life-long commitment no?
    I’ve genuinely thought long and hard about your question and I have to say that anytime I might believe something that cannot be justified by reason or evidence, I’d at least try and find some or let go of the belief.

  113. Matthew says:

    Lance

    *I’ve genuinely thought long and hard about your question and I have to say that anytime I might believe something that cannot be justified by reason or evidence, I’d at least try and find some or let go of the belief.*

    Well this seems to me to be mistaken,

    1.If you have evidence for a belief, then that would usually consist of something else you believe to be the case. In which case you must have evidence for this, which would be something else and so on, ultimately you will have to believe some things without evidence otherwise you’ll have to give up everything.

    2. Consider the claim “one should not believe anything unless there is evidence for it” should I believe this? Well if its true I should not because so far you have not provided any evidence for it and hence it should be rejected.

    See for example my http://mandmandmandm.blogspot.com/2007/09/on-believing-without-proof-some.html for some articulations of the other problems with this sort of stance.