“Innocence of Muslims”

I just wasted about 14 minutes of my life watching “Innocence of Muslims“. I can’t believe somebody actually spent money making such garbage. It’s even more incomprehensible to me that millions of Muslims worldwide are rioting because of it. Normal people would laugh at such a movie, not go on a rampage and murder innocents.

There are millions of lousy movies on YouTube and we think little of it. But we should pay close attention to the Muslim reaction. It should serve as a warning that “blasphemy” will be punishable by death anywhere large numbers of Muslims settle. This punishment might be de jure or de facto, but either way freedom of speech will become a thing of the past. Some Western countries already have anti-blasphemy laws on the books. Instead of calling it “blasphemy”, they call it “hate-speech” or “ethnic incitement”.

If we are to guarantee the long-term survival of freedom of speech in our societies, then we must carefully limit the number of Muslims we allow into them. Freedom of religion is not, in the long run, compatible with freedom of speech. Some people try to get around this contradiction in the Constitution by defining Islam not as a religion, but as a political system.

Is Catholicism a political system? For centuries the Catholic Church stifled freedom of expression, tortured and executed people for heretical views and persecuted non-believers. Jews would also be guilty of similar crimes if we had the power. I don’t believe in the distinction between a religion and a political system. If you take your religion seriously, it’s also a political system. If you don’t, then you are only nominally religious – at least when it comes to “religions of the book”, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Of course, most Muslims haven’t taken to the streets. The vast majority of them, no doubt, have carried on with their daily lives. But the fact remains that wherever there are large numbers of Muslims, there will be an element of fanaticism that raises its ugly head at the drop of a hat. There is no way to distinguish between “normal Muslims” and “fanatical Muslims” at the border. There is no known way to ensure that immigrant Muslims, and their children, will refrain from going berserk every time they encounter “blasphemy”. As a matter of fact, the younger generation of Muslims, in Western countries, often turns out to be more violent than their immigrant parents.

Western nations, pay attention and take heed!

About jewamongyou

I am a paleolibertarian Jew who is also a race-realist. My opinions are often out of the mainstream and often considered "odd" but are they incorrect? Feel free to set me right if you believe so!
This entry was posted in freedom of speech issues, Muslims. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to “Innocence of Muslims”

  1. Thank God, I was waiting for you to comment on this.

    It is interesting: the Syrian rebels are profoundly irritated. They say the fellow Muslims care about movies and riot. But that 250 people got killed in one day in Syrian attacks does not cause Muslims to riot.

    You are very correct in all you say. Europe will be majority Muslim in a few decades. And 20% Muslim is enough to lose all liberties.

    But feminist and politically correct fanatics already gravely restricted freedom of speech with hate speech laws all over the world. Enjoy your freedom while you are in the USA and while you can.

  2. I could only bear to watch the first 5 minutes, but its the sort of pathetic childish “comedy” style that is so popular in low IQ Arab/Muslim countries so maybe thats why it hit its mark. I would dearly love to watch a well-made documentary about Islam that also told the unedited truth. How about it BBC? (sarcasm)

  3. Annoyed says:

    I do wonder, what will happen when the gay pride parade meets the militant muslims?

    Part of me would enjoy sitting back and watching as the white anit-whites get eaten alive by the very people they imported into previously white countries.

    In any event this demonstrates how fundementally flawed open borders idiots are.

  4. sabril says:

    “The vast majority of them, no doubt, have carried on with their daily lives.”

    True, but (1) for the most part they are mildly sympathetic towards the more fanatical Muslims; and (2) in a conflict between fanatical Muslims and non-Muslims, they will generally take the side of the fanatical Muslims.

    You can see this kind of phenomenon happening in Israel since Israeli Arabs get to vote. Even though your typical Israeli Arab may seem to be a likable fellow who just wants to feed his family, he will still vote for and elect a hard-core Israel-hater.

    That’s why large numbers of Muslims = trouble for non-Muslims.

  5. I had the same reaction to the video. Terrible acting, none of the jokes delivered with any mirth or timing, laughably bad bluescreening.

    I gather that the Dutch have made a couple of pretty serious anti-Islamization vids recently; Van Gogh made one before they murdered him. I saw one Pamela Geller promoted. I’ll try to dig it up.

  6. Freedom of religion is not, in the long run, compatible with freedom of speech.

    That’s a provocative way to put it. Absolute freedom of religion, combined with ethnic diversity, is certainly incompatible with real freedom of speech.

    If I were drawing up a bill of rights to promote maximum comity and freedom, I would guarantee “freedom of conscience” and “freedom of worship” and not say anything about religion.

    Freedom to believe and speak what is in your heart can be absolute.

    Freedom to organize along confessional lines, maybe not. (Obviously the Creativity Movement could not legally form a community along the lines of its religion, because that community would necessarily exclude non-whites.)

    Freedom to carry out all commandments of whatever god you choose can definitely not be absolute. Tenets of the Aztecs’ religion, as it was practice circa Cortez, are illegal today everywhere on earth. I’d say the same about the Norse religion; none of the texts that are central to that religion call for human sacrifice but there a descriptions of it occurring, and the bog bodies are pretty good evidence of it.

    So basically we are left with the characteristically American compromise on both certain religions and certain political ideologies–you can legally say it is your belief that doing a certain illegal thing would be a good idea, but you can’t actually do it or conspire to do so. Thus the Communist Party USA is legal even though, if they did what they say they have the right to do, they’d be multiple felons.
    … Ditto for Islam.

  7. countenance says:

    I gave up on it after 30 seconds. The only kind of people who thinks that this movie sparked the recent “mahogany mobs” in that part of the world are either crazy, intellectually dishonest, hate the First Amendment, or are shilling for Obama.

    • destructure says:

      I don’t doubt that the imams used the video to whip up an angry mob. But the Libyan embassy was attacked with machine guns and rpg’s. An angry mob throws rocks not grenades. That was a coordinated attack coinciding with the anniversary of 9/11. Even worse, I’ll bet the terrorists asked the imams to whip up an angry mob for cover. It says a lot about a religion when even the clerics are working with terrorists.

  8. WMarkW says:

    I haven’t quite figured out how to interpret “vast majorities” not doing something that only requires a few people — the vast majority of white southerners during segregation never lynched anyone or rode with the Klan.

    The Anti-Islam site Jihad Watch is documenting that many Muslim leaders are demanding the US to violate our First Amendment under the terms of international treaties and UN resolutions:

    Iran: Obama can be sued in US courts under UN blasphemy law that he signed onto
    Egypt’s Prime Minister: U.S. must criminalize criticism of Islam — or else
    Lebanon: Hizballah top dog Nasrallah calls for nationwide protests against Muhammad film, demands that U.S. be held accountable
    Dearborn Imam Hassan al-Qazwini calls on U.S. to enforce Sharia blasphemy laws
    Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia calls for international criminalization of insults to prophets

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/

  9. Gay State Girl says:

    These riots aren’t about the movie at all. I don’t believe it is in the interests of the West to antagonize the Arab world. I don’t believe that this was a mossad project but Israel better keep a low profile from now, because they’re leaving us with this mess.

    • jewamongyou says:

      It might benefit the West long-term to antagonize the Arab world. If Muslims can be provoked to such an extent that it becomes normal, and acceptable, to speak out against them in the West, then perhaps this could be the first domino to fall in the cult of multiculturalism.

      • Gay State Girl says:

        I’d rather step baack and let them duke it themselves. If you don’t see where this is going…

  10. ““blasphemy” will be punishable by death anywhere large numbers of Muslims settle”

    Exactly. This piece of wisdom should be emblazoned in two foot high letters at every port of entry in every white country, in every government office and in every school.

  11. Californian says:

    Normally I do not get into conspiracy theory, but it would be interesting to see the back story on this video.

    I haven’t quite figured out how to interpret “vast majorities” not doing something that only requires a few people — the vast majority of white southerners during segregation never lynched anyone or rode with the Klan.

    However, all white people are being held accountable for segregation-slavery-lynchings-apartheid. By the same logic of the multicult, then should all Muslims be held accountable for the crimes of a few jihadis? It seems that collective punishment for segregation-etc., is fine, even when the transgressions are long since past. But collective punishment for Islamic acts of violence today must be done on a basis of strict individual accountability (if at all!).

    Another point which seldom gets brought up: since segregation was enacted under the law, and up until 1954 upheld by the courts, then how by any legal definition can it be considered to be a “wrong?” There may be a moral judgement about it (which is irrelevant under the law), but white people were not breaking any law by practicing segregation. If so, are the various programs which are intended to “right” the “wrong” of segregation ex post facto laws, and therefore unconstitutional?

    For that matter, since Muslims have the proverbial long history of slavery, does this mean that Muslims must make reparations for it? Or are such judgments only for Western/White peoples?

    Of course, to the multicult, there is no need for logic or consistency. Their agitprop line pushes whatever tactic works best for each situation. As for Western elites, it’s the same old story of invade-the-world-invite-the-world. One press conference we are being told that we must go to war with Islam, the next that we have to change our laws to accommodate their definitions of blasphemy.

    It’s all nuts.

  12. pdxrobocat says:

    if muslims want to stem the flow of religious hate speech they have no need to look any further than their own imams and friday prayers which regularly disparage jews, christians and anyone else not muslim.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s