Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Europeans upset at exclusion

The Europeans are peeved that there is no room for them at the table. They, too, wish to be involved in the United States backed talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

"French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said it would be “too bad” if the EU were locked out — noting the bloc’s political involvement in the region and its role as a top contributor of financial aid to the Palestinians. "

[ Source:
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=186222 ]

There is in fact scant reason to include them. They were not particularly helpful the last time Israel and the Palestinians talked - and much has changed since then.

For one thing, the continent that invented the most virulent historic forms of anti-Semitism has since then perfected a post-WWII variant, and succeeded in making it respectable again. Even more than respectable - salonfähig.

"Not only is the EU a ‘top contributor’ to the Palestinian Authority, it also finances numerous non-governmental organizations in Israel whose primary function seems to be to delegitimize or even destabilize the Jewish state."

The cited statement above, from FresnoZionism, diplomatically points to the major problem with adding the Europeans to the table: they aren't neutral.

[Read more about European wafflegab at 'A world without Baronesses'.]


Not only are the Europeans not neutral, but they aren't capable of being equitable. They never have been. The British certainly have always favored the Arabs, the Swedes have a major problem with anti-Semitic acts committed by their Muslims and praised by their socialists and their newspapers, the Dutch, Belgians, and Danes have substantial far-left anti-Israel movements, the French, Spanish, Germans, and Italians have rabid Israel-haters in their universities and political parties.......

Europe invented virulent anti-Semitism, and in the past few decades they have re-invented it.
Israel's opponents would want them at the table. Rational parties to the negotiations should not want them there under any circumstance. They've made enough trouble already.


Cross-posted here:
This post: http://proisraelbaybloggers.blogspot.com/2010/08/europeans-upset-at-exclusion.html

Sunday, August 29, 2010

Mosque bigotry and racism

Opposition to the mosque at 51 Park (colloquially known as 'The Ground Zero Mosque') may qualify you for the title of 'bigot'. In this you will not be alone - several million 'nice white people of limited literacy' in this wonderful nation join you! Yes! You too are an ethnic group ("nice white people of limited literacy"), and you should probably go somewhere and form your own country. I suggest Alaska.


At the risk of beating a dead horse: the damn thing isn't ON ground zero but at least two blocks away, it isn't a mosque but more a Muslim version of a JCC or YMCA, it isn't a training ground for terrorists or even funded by or for terrorists, it isn't a symbol of triumph to have a building significantly shorter than many nearby buildings, the term Cordoba indeed echoes a once-great Muslim city but ALSO the loss of that city and the final defeat of Muslims in Spain (followed by their expulsion and permanent erasure as a political group in Iberia), and, most importantly, Glen Beck, Geert Wilders, Pamela Geller, and several others spearheading the opposition to the mosque are blatant racists.

The opposition by the most repulsive elements of American society to Cordoba House have transformed what was once not a particularly good idea into an absolute imperative. That 'mosque' must be built, there is no choice; if it isn't, evil will have won.
Preventing the building of Cordoba House will mark the failure of American civilization, and the triumph of tyranny.

I am not fond of Islam. Even less am I fond of ignorance and bullyism.
I therefore must support Cordoba House. There is no other choice.

I don't cotton to mosques, I dislike Islam, and the entire Middle-East outside of Israel looks from this distance as a place of perpetual bloodshed and barbarism.
But many ancient mosques are incredibly beautiful pieces of architecture, often at the heart of universities and hospitals that flourished when Europe was still a bloody mudpit filled with wallah-wallah shouting savages and democracy hadn't even been invented yet, and many modern mosques serve EXACTLY the same function for their mukim ("parish") as churches: social center, bingo hall, and the charitable heart of a community.

I don't like churches either, but there are already tons of those - this country is OVERWHELMINGLY Christian. Those folks need a place to go.

So do Muslims. Who are barely a few million in the US. Not a significant percentage of the population, except, nota bene, in the area where Cordoba House will be built. And even there they are small fish in a large pond.


Besides, Dovbear mentions that there are also places nearby that cater to America's upstanding non-Muslims.

Specifically, strip clubs.


There. Doesn't that please you? While Ibrahim and Ahmed are attending to Allah in the prayer-room, or washing their hands and feet preparatory to religious service, John and Bubba-Joe can enjoy the gyrations of a hefty blonde nearby, while getting smashed on Bourbon or Budweiser. Everybody happy.

Ogling strippers and getting smashed (and possibly even catching the clap afterwards)!
Dude, you can't get more 'nice white person of limited literacy' than that!


So much for the sacred ground argument. Pole dancers, liquor stores, and fast-food joints.

Also from Dovbear: "Are you aware that Rauf says in his books that the U.S. political structure is already Sharia compliant? (Thus the charge that he wants America "to become Sharia compliant" is completely false) "

An interpretation of Sharia and its role in completely modern terms - what's right with America is what's right with Islam. Rauf is playing with the same deck of cards as us.

"I wouldn't say the United States deserved what happened on 9-11."
------Feisal Abdul Rauf

Actually, even more interesting, check out point number eleven on Dovbear's post. Apparently Glen Beck said that United States policies contributed in part to the terrorist strike on September 11.
While Imam Rauf stated "I wouldn't say the United States deserved what happened on 9-11."

Yep. Blowback.


Maybe those who oppose Cordoba House/Park 51 are scared of Islam?

Perhaps Islam's conversion by conquest of so much of North Africa and the Near-East is cause for their alarm.......

The Catholics were far worse in South America, the Protestants raped much of Asia.
As a "heathen Chinee", I for one cannot look at the many churches in San Francisco with anything other than distaste.
The Japanese took one look at the Europeans and their warlike Christian activities and decided to keep the entire lot out for centuries (well, other than the Dutch - harsh Calvinists, but convinced that Asians were not worth "saving", and therefore mostly harmless).

The United States, motivated by the purest of Protestant motives, invaded the Philippines and destroyed their nascent independence movement, in order to make "our little brown brothers" ready for Christianity. They conveniently overlooked the stalwart fire and sword conversionary activities of the Spanish, who spent three centuries christianizing the natives with rape, slavery, extortion, and brutality - very successfully too, I might add.
The American forces during the war that followed managed to cause the deaths of nearly twenty percent of the Philippino population (almost all of whom were Christian).
A famous Protestant victory!

By the way, those 'harmless' Dutch Calvinists savagely butchered Balinese (Hindus), Acehnese (Muslims), Dayaks (animists), and Jakarta Chinese (Buddhists), while energetically furthering the noble cause of their Calvinist bulwark against the Spanish (Catholics) and Portuguese (allegedly also Christians of some sort).
Oh, and they also killed many Spanish and Portuguese while they were at it.

What both Catholic and Protestant nations did to the people of Africa cannot even be mentioned, as I'm trying to run a clean blog here.

How the Europeans behaved towards each other during the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth century during their near-endless religious wars somewhat dwarfs what the Muslims did anywhere.
Several centuries of savage internecine slaughter, in between rapes. For very nice and thoroughly Christian motives, by very nice and thoroughly Christian people.

Surely the world should fear Christianity, in all of its myriad militant forms, much more than a bunch of kabob-selling immigrants who wish to have a social center and place to nourish the spirit in the largest, most cosmopolitan, and most diverse city in the world?

If we cannot defend the rights of even that group of immigrants - especially their right to practice their religion peacefully, in an American context - then all of us are at risk.
Not only those of us who are your "little brown brothers" - also you whites.
The Catholics will not be safe. The Jews will not be safe. The Heretics will not be safe.


Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Hitler was Jewish

I wanted to call this post "Why I have the same butt-size as my cousin, which is why I borrowed her panties today". But I didn't, for two reasons: ONE is my panties are not something you should really be concerned with (it isn't about my panties), and TWO, this post isn't really about that but about haplotypes, genetic fragments, and fractions.

It's also about the recent news item that Adolf Hitler shared some genetic markers with Ashkenazi Jews, North Africans, and some very dark people indeed. The key word is E1b1b.

Fortunately I know about Gregor Mendel.

Which meant that I ended up reading about haplotypes.


Actually, Hitler had dna which showed ancestry in common with most of South-Western Europe and North Africa. The haplogroup in question is a variant on E1b1b, shared by many Arabs, Africans, and Ashkenazi Jews, as well as Frenchmen, Spaniards, Southern Italians, and some Germans. It is passed from father to son, and remains constant no matter how distant the ancestry - so really, it doesn't mean much. After ten generations (a mere three hundred years or so), there's less than one thousandth part of an ancestor in the descendant, after twenty generations, less than a millionth. Now imagine that the haplotype entered his ancestry during Roman times, and you will see that for all intents and purposes, there was almost nothing Jewish (or Berber, or Sudanese, etcetera) about him.

The point is, he probably shared ancestry with Genghiz Khan and Niall of the Nine Hostages as well. As do a majority of modern ethnic Europeans.

Was there anything actually Jewish about him other than a minute and rather unimportant genetic fragment? Maybe. Maybe no.

It's all about recessive genes versus dominant genes, basically, which also applies also to behaviour patterns based on instinctive tendencies. So a hobby or tic which has a deep-seated cause may crop up in variations over a number of generations, leading to what look like shared behaviours among a group. Like collecting glittery things by magpies, or a preference for certain types of trees by beaver populations.
Mutations are usually subtle, and can only be mapped over a span of several generations. So some characteristics will, even over a thousand years, remain constant - ever wonder WHY everyone says all of us Chinese look alike?
Within the same general gene pool (ie, a settled population group), a number of multi-gene interactions will frequently recurr, over several generations and among numerous individuals. And even traits which appear identical in their discernable manifestations may not be the same on a genetic level. So there are multiple variables to take into account, a number of which may be repetitive among a narrow spectrum of people who are of similar origin and share bloodlines.

To put it differently, I can tell who is 100% Toishanese or Hakka, because their facial types AND many of their unconscious patterns are so similar - even if they do not speak Toishanese or Hakka and have been several generations removed from Canton. But children of interracial marriages may after less than two generations no longer even look Asian. After four or five generations, the difference from Toishanese type is almost completely stable.

So, if there was anything 'Jewish' about herr Hitler, it was no more than what several hundred million people also share. In his case, we think he walked upright. More than that we cannot say.
By that measure we are all Jewish.

[Howdy. And shalom! Voss mokhs a yid? Ma shlomkha? Eat!]

Not Hitler's taste in panties...

And that, you see, also explains why my cousin and I have very similar little rumps and wear the same size undies, and why we prefer the same panty types too: pastel cotton with lacy edging. These are both 'inherited' characteristics and 'acquired' protective instincts within a close kingroup.
I am SO glad she goes to the same school.
Now if ONLY neither of us had run out of Ibuprofen!


Monday, August 23, 2010

Hate the mosque or hate the message?

A blogger whom I read occasionally (meaning - someone whom I'm internet stalking) has a totally unique point of view about the crowd opposing that mosque.
By which I mean that I really have to wonder about his sanity.

Is ribald or off-color humor REALLY the best way of fighting fools?

"darkness, stupidity, and idolatrous worship of a pit"


It sure is an interesting post. I had NO idea that men did such things among themselves. Now that I know, perhaps I ought to avoid them like the proverbial plague. They are sick puppies.

"I think it would please him immensely if Pamela Geller, Newt Gingrich, and Geert Wilders were beaten to death with his twenty inch long flexible rubber monster hose."

Yes, you read that correctly. The entire post is about unmentionable things. Which includes Pamela Geller, Newt Gingrich (I can't BELIEVE that he divorced his wife while she had cancer! And carried on with a woman twenty three years younger WHILE MARRIED!), and Geert Wilders.

On the whole, I would rather have Muslims in my neighborhood than any of those three. Far less threatening, even if marginally more inclined towards violence. Not so bloody vulgar in any case.
And they should go ahead and build that mosque. It may not have been the wisest idea to come up with, but it has absolutely become the right thing to do.
Don't give in to hate.


Thursday, August 19, 2010

Breast milk

Comes an interesting news-article:

SAUDI ARABIA: Cleric who urged grown men to drink breast milk of unrelated women taken off air

" ... Sheikh Abdel Mohsen Obeikan, the Saudi cleric and royal court adviser who earlier this year earned notoriety for rolling out an eyebrow-raising religious decree that called on women to give men breast milk to avoid illicit mixing ... "


Wow! I am not at all clear how they would obtain that milk, nor how it would avoid illicit mixing.
I rather think that it would promote exactly what it sought to discourage.
But I'm not lactating, so what do I know?

Sheikh Obeikan's radio show, Fatwas on the Air, is no longer being broadcast.
A very great pity.

If it still were, I imagine him pronouncing a deeply thought out follow-up Shariah-ruling about the matter.


Bismillah ur Rahman ur Raheem!
The proper Muslim way to partake of a woman's breast milk is to extend a tube with a nipple-cup to the relevant breast. In order to maintain propriety, the tube should be at least six feet long, bent once horizontally (either to the left or to the right), and twice vertically - thus the man would NOT be able to look directly at the relevant breast.

There should be three parts to the tube: a non-suggestive mouthpiece, a semi-rigid tube, and a nipple-cup.

The nipple-cup should be of generous dimension, and made of rubber or cured camel-hide, so that it is soft and loose enough to not betray either the moment of contact, OR the density of the breast, NOR even the general shape, contour, outline, density, sponginess, surface texture or skin tension, OR any other imaginable dimension or measurement.


The feeding tube should be cleaned rigorously between use: both with hot water and with fire, so that the next experience not reek of the last, nor a milking be rendered impure by the decay of previous milkings.

The tube and the cup should be examined regularly by a cleric.

A damaged tube may not be used; it is haram.
A tube with sharp parts may not be used; it is haram.
A tube with an irregular nipple cup may not be used; it is haram.


No one is to partake of both breasts (ie, a matched set, that being a pair of breasts that belong to one individual woman), as that demonstrates willful preference, and may lead to obsessions. One breast per person, neither more nor less, nor the same breast twice!
As with remarrying a woman that one divorced, where we hold that there must be an intermediary marriage before the man remarries her, there should be an intermediary breast between the breasts (clearly it is best if the man is acquainted with several breasts).

A man who partakes of breast milk should at ALL times have this feeding tube with him - so that no one can pinpoint the exact time of day when he is accustomed to partake, and so determine to observe. The woman should NOT touch the tube with any part of her body other than the breast in question, so that no actual mutual contact is implied by her co-operation, nor any co-operation by the contact.

It is better that the woman whose breast is targeted not be aware of the process, lest she inadvertently have unclean thoughts. She should be stunned first with a cudgel by a third party of impeccable reputation, in the presence of four witnesses of probity .......................

The Iranians, being fractious and Shia rather than Sunni, would no doubt disagree vehemently with such a Wahabi opinion, write their own rules for milking, and execute anyone who partook of breast-milk through immodest or Western methodologies.

In either case, many intellectuals in Europe and parts of America would wholeheartedly approve of the new traditions. So beautiful, so meaningful.