Monday, 25 August 2008

America's speech impediment

A division of Random House pulled the plug on a work of fiction because of threats over its description of the lives of Muhammad's wives, and an expert on terrorism says the decision marks a significant advance in the Islamification of America, because "some Muslims now feel free to make threats of violence even in the U.S." Yes. Even in the US.

The controversy over the book, "The Jewel of Medina," by Sherry Jones, was highlighted in a column by former Wall Street Journal reporter Asra Nomani in that news publication. "You still can't write about Muhammad," she wrote. Nomani said Random House bought Jones' novel for $100,000 in a two-book deal and plans were begun for an eight-city tour after the Aug. 12 publication date of the "tale of lust, love and intrigue in the prophet's harem."

But, Nomani wrote, "It's not going to happen. … The series of events that torpedoed this novel are a window into how quickly fear stunts intelligent discourse about the Muslim world."

She concluded Random House feared the book would become a new "Satanic Verses," the 1988 novel by Salman Rushdie that "led to death threats, riots and the murder of the book's Japanese translator, among other horrors."

Thomas Perry, a deputy publisher, said after sending out advance copies, the company got "from credible and unrelated sources cautionary advice not only that the publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community but also that it could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment," Nomani wrote.

She added "This time, the instigator of the trouble wasn't a radical Muslim cleric, but an American traitor academic. In April, looking for endorsements, Random House sent galleys to writers and scholars, including Denise Spellberg, an associate professor of Islamic history at the University of Texas in Austin.

Nomani said Spellberg was upset that the novel "made fun of Muslims and their history" and asked the editor of a Muslim website to warn Muslims. Apparently her concerns were raised by a written description of Muhammad's consummation of his marriage to Aisha, who had not yet reached 10 years old.

Spellberg said, "You can't play with a sacred history and turn it into soft core pornography," according to Nomani. Er, excuse me, since when can't you do that? In the US? Oh yes, since Muslims got in there in big numbers. That's when.

The complaints went viral immediately, and within hours a seven-point plan had been proposed to force the author to apologize to Muslims.

"If I searched around right now, I could probably find eight or 10 books that outrage me," Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch wrote. "But the idea of bringing pressure upon a publisher not to publish them would be inconceivable to me. Those of a totalitarian mindset, however, do not hesitate."

On Spencer's forum page, a contributor wrote, "I thought we had freedom of speech and freedom of the press in this country. I forgot – we're living under sharia law!"

This is how Muslims in the West will achieve their goals. In essence they’re saying, ‘we’re not violent, oh, no. But trouble is, if you publish this stuff we won't be able to control the violent minority among us. So best if you just cave in’

And that what we’re doing, big time.


Kilbarry1 said...

Around 1993 an American artist got a Government grant for an artistic work called Piss Christ - depicting a crucifix in a bucket of his own urine. When American Christians protested, the Boston Globe denounced them furiously and in the course of the controversy, published a photo of the work of art on THREE seperate occassions. In Ireland an article in the Irish Times referred to the protestors as "fascists". (They didn't propose to murder the artist - they wanted his subsidy withdrawn.)

At the time of the Danish Cartoons controversy the Boston Globe refused to publish ANY of the offending cartoons. A few of their readers protested to the Globe Ombudsman about this double standard. I think the latter said something about two wrongs not making a right! (Does this mean he regretted the publication of the Piss Christ photos??).

I'm sure that particular controversy is still available on the Internet. Maybe one of your readers can locate it?

Kilbarry1 said...

I forgot to add that that the Irish Times did not publish the Danish Cartoons either and I'm 99% certain that they did not describe the Muslim protesters, arsonists and bombers as "fascists".

Rhein said...

Jews are much more of a problem in the US than muslims. They're currently doing to the US what they did to Russia decades ago. And now, flame on...

SAVANT said...

I wont flame, Rhein. I happen to think that AN ELEMENT of Jewry in the US, those associated with Likud in Israel and the neocons, who are almost all jews, are causing serious problems.

Essentially they are - successfully - trying to drag the US into the general Middle East conflict, all with the aim of furthering Israel's ambitions. (See my post on the Georgia crisis).

They're also perverting the whole US political system, having created a situation where any politician expressing even the slightest criticism of Israel is finished. So you have the bizarre situation where, I think it was McCain said 'protecting Israel is America's NUMBER ONE foreign policy objective'. So it's ahead of protecting the US? Bizarre.

However, these are only a proportion of Jews. In general, it seems to me, Jews are highly productive and law-abiding citizens, contributing disproprtionally to a country's wealth.

Rohan Swee said...

So you have the bizarre situation where, I think it was McCain said 'protecting Israel is America's NUMBER ONE foreign policy objective'. So it's ahead of protecting the US? Bizarre.

I wouldn't worry. Poor ol' McCain probably just misspoke himself. He knows perfectly well his first responsibility as POTUS would be to the Mexican kleptocrat class.

Rhein said...

Of course, when i say jews i mean the 'elites'. Quite a few of them oppose globalism and a lot are fully integrated into western societies and don't like the changes being made any more than we do.

And i'm not calling for genocides or cleansings. The point i want to make when i call them out is that we should never allow foreigners to own significant parts of our infrastructures or have any influences over our governments.

A country that permits a group that is not indigenous to control their medias and governments like the US does is heading straight for disaster. History has shown this to be true on numerous occasions. In any case, unlike Europe the US's main problem right now isn't the muslims altough they could become if left unchecked.

And it is a small proportion but you have to admit that for such a small proportion they take an awful lot of place. And in most cases merits or intellect has nothing to do with their "achievements", just look at the bush administration and most neocons, not really the cream of the crop there. And let's not even get into the Hollywood clique...

SAVANT said...

I'm largely with you on this rhein. The real potential risk for the Jews in the US, especially if things get bad, is that the country could turn on them, the way Germans did. In fact I posted on this earlier.

Nel said...

I don't like what is happening in America and Europe. Muslims and Africans are migrating into the different countries because of their economic success. When they arrive they want the existing societies to change to tolerate their religion, culture and practices. Essentially they are saying they can chose where they live and their lives should be comfortable in that country - fair enough. Our leaders have a tendancy to give them what they want by assigning positions such as "integration minister".

Essentially what is going on is these demographics are promoting the free mobility of human capital. They want to be able to live and work in any corner of the world and not have to change their fundamental beliefs and practices. I personally like the idea of the free movement of people. Our Irish relatives, during the potato crisis, must have realised the importance of this to.

What I dislike is the fact that in African countries and muslim countries tolerance is not the order of the day. Muslim countries DO NOT tolerate other religions and would never allow Catholic practices in their schools. Africans do not want white people in their governments, owning their farms or in their companies and businesses. I wonder if South Africa has an "integration" minister to ensure the whites get equal opportunities in a black governed country? From what I hear on the news it sounds like they appoint ministers for the opposite reason.

So in essence we are allowing them international mobility by saying you can come live in Europe and we will accomodate you AND don't worry, your home will always be home - unchanged and exactly how you remember it. For us, there is no progression towards international mobility. We cannot go live & work in their countries and expect our religion, culture and practices to be fully tolerated.

It's like having a wild house party - you want to go but you don't want it at your house cause of all the mess that could be left behind.

I think a multicultural WORLD is inevitable and will be beneficial. BUT I think that the Irish should not be rushing towards the finish line when Africans and muslims aren't even racing.

SAVANT said...

I agree with all of this Nel apart from the last bit. I do think the multicultural world is inevitable, bit i do NOT think it's a good idea!

Rhein said...

Maybe it's inevitable but humanity as a whole is not ready for this. People of the same race are fighting all over the world. If we still can't get along amongst ourselves how are we supposed to get along with others.

If such a thing is to happen then it will happen naturally, shoving it down people's throat will bring nothing but disaster. And once the whole world has been merged under the pretext of 'diversity' then there will be no more diversity. All our countries are going to look the same and so will all races. Pretty boring place if you ask me.

Altough i don't think it's inevitable. Different races have existed since the dawn of man and i have no reason to think things will change. Liberalism is only a temporary phase, we'll grow out of it. Exposing it helps in getting rid of it faster. ;)

Rohan Swee said...

I don't think the world will become "multicultural" except in the way that nations have always been "multicultural" - from the earliest times humans have had vast trade networks and endless mutual cultural influence (and of course, old school rape, pillage, conquest, etc.). I don't think the current multi-cult - of trying to smash together culturally incompatible people in large numbers in very short time spans - will end well. People are tribal, as any glance at current global conflicts will show, and it will probably get worse, not better, as the pressure is ratcheted up. Some global goop of undiverse "diversity" will never be achieved. And let's not forget that it's really only European nations that are the object of the multicultural steam-roller.

There is always a small number of cosmopolitan elites, and that class will expand (has expanded) to include elites from more nations. But the vast majority of humans will never occupy that empyrean. There's a larger class of highly-skilled workers below them, and when young it's a great adventure to live the "have skill, will travel" life moving around the globe. But that sort of life is not attractive to most people, or any people once they're past their foot-loose and fancy-free young adulthood. Normal humans desire home, traditions, roots, a sense of place. A small class of beneficiaries wants endless flux and churning, an inexhaustible borderless, exploitable mass of workers. In particular, they seem to be doing there damndest to make sure that "home" will cease to exist for hapless worker bees of the European persuasion, whether they wander themselves or stay put. Human beings are made miserable by this endless instability, and I can't see anything but disaster if, as rhein remarks, they keep shoving it down our throats, damn the consequences to people who can't insulate themselves with wealth.

SAVANT said...

I'm afraid that I take a similar view ro rohan swee. The imperative to settle amongst one's own is incredibly strong, but it's increasingly doomed. I'm not optimistic at all.