Naked women protesting: The EXACT response needed, to Islam in general, Islamic State, and censors of Charlie Hebdo cartoons.

Naked women protesting: The EXACT response needed, to Islam in general, Islamic State, and censors of Charlie Hebdo cartoons.

Femen revolution...

Women protesting nude in Stockholm in front of the Egyptian embassy.

Link to video.

Sharia is not a constitution...

Other good slogans including at the end of the vid: Arab women against Islamists.

When will they be showing this video on the PBS Newshour, or MSNBC, or the BBC, or the CBC? Macneil & Lehrer's eyes would be bugging out if they show this video. It's too much truth for your average mealy mouthed recalcitrant pseudo-liberal to handle.

More info:
http://web.archive.org/web/20130216040401/http://femen.org/news/id/185

http://www.everydayrebellion.net/nudity-against-mursis-constitution/

http://snaphanen.dk/2012/12/20/aliaa-magda-elmahdy-i-stockholm/

Little Johnny, and little Suzie, the world is not all fluffy and nice I'm sad to say. In countries called Iraq and Syria they burn people alive, cut their heads off, stone them to death, and throw people off towers. And in other "more nice" Islamic countries they jail women and lash them for driving or for walking around unveiled.

Nothing to do with Islam (ie: everything to do with Islam - the oppression).

A perfect response is nakedness. The power of the pen. The power of the breast. The power of the nipple. The power of the hoohaw.

Latest thoughts on the pressing issues of the day

I love inherently reproductive sex (AKA sex), children, life, the Universe, the fact that we're the first life here to have some understanding of how we got here, the Internet, amateur porn, oral sex, masturbation, Charlie Hebdo, and sticking it up the right royal ass of all censors and freedom hating cult members, and their dumbass leftist apologists, including cult members of Islam.

I dislike Mormon leaders Oaks, Spencer Kimball, Mark E. Peterson, and Boyd Packer.

I enjoy Duck Dynasty. 

I like Oscar Wilde, Stephen Fry, and other service oriented and/or highly-artistically-usefully gays.

I don't like and am highly wary of wastrel angel reading bipolar gays who readily befriend convicted pedophiles after they're been released from prison.

I hate doctors who circumcise boys or girls, and Muslims and Jews who continue to genitally rape their own children . Also I hate idiot secular apologists for barbaric religious practices, and John Harvey Kellogg and his legacy in medical pseudoscience.

I like Thunderf00t. I hate Skepchick and all her Atheism-Plus related ultra-retarded cohorts.

I highly admire Christopher Hitchens, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdie, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and I like Pat Condell. 

I loath Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman, Scott Atran, and Reza Aslan.

I get nauseous about Unitarian Universalists who claim Mohamed was an advocate for social justice. At one highly illustrative congregation these same people also readily elected a freakish hideously-ugly man-woman-it to be their priest. 

Many humanist and Unitarian groups are seas of gray hair. The hippie-worshipers of all things "childfree."

I dislike dogmatism on the left more than I dislike dogmatism on the right. Both are bad but leftist dogmatism is worse.

I was raised as a liberal. I voted for Obama twice. But I can now see more clearly key fundamental flaws in current liberalism. The near entirety of the current cultural left is failing everyone. They are clueless regarding Islam and abusive cultures. They want to be "childfree," and have inherently non-reproductive "sex" with everyone in every possible combination. They want to actively deny 13.8 billion years of evolutionary history by subverting and denying what sex is and how we all got here - deny and be traitors to their own personal history. 13.8 billion years of evolution by natural selection and 1.2 billion years of sex - and then came the petty "childfree" vain narcissistic wastrels - traitors to the evolutionary and sexual history that brought us here.

It's quite true that there is only one type of "sex" in the human animal, the type which inherently leads to reproduction, and by extension only one type of real marriage. 

But gays are gay I admit. Let's just hope more gay people learn to draw Mohamed.

Why are the champions of gay, "minority," "race," and women's "rights" sucked into Margaret Sanger's and Gloria Steinem's kool-aid, so clueless about Islam? 

If the left is so fundamentally clueless about the root causes of the abuses in Islam are they also clueless about feminism, gay rights, race relations and rights, affirmative action, social justice, and socialism in general?

Is being an idiot about Islam an indication of more widespread memetic disease and intellectual malfunction? 

I believe we can at this point question the validity of their *whole* project perhaps. The liberal permissive hippie project - apparently leads to kissing the ass of Mohamed.

Maybe the Libertarians really are more right. Yes Ayn Rand was a complete fool and idiot. But in general look across the cultural landscape to see exactly who (!) is on the side of Charlie  Hebdo! It's not the UUs. It's not the secular left as shown on MSNBC, the BBC, the PBS Newshour, or the New York Times. 

Look closely. 

Who exactly champions the right to offend religious sensitivities of Muslins? Who loves Charlie Hebdo's very valuable art - who on the cultural landscape?

Not the secular left. Yes the secular right. And also the religious right have some useful agreement with the value of Hebdo's work regarding Islam.

The left, as perfectly exemplified by UU congregations, is obsessed about gay rights and the rights of women to have "sex" without reproduction. The rights of "minorities" to be worshiped and have their collective asses kissed. And they believe Mohamed was an advocate for social justice, even though the complete opposite is true.  

The Hebdo murders was a 9/11 for art. A wake up call. 

Much of the cultural left is engaged in slow motion suicide. 

I'm moving toward being more of a single issue voter. I now care less about disparaging believers in the Bible. Islam is such a huge threat that it must be fought on all levels. Not everything is equal. Not all cultures are of equal value. 

Even the much-worshiped "Native Americans" abuse their own kids when they are allowed by Canadian courts to deny life saving leukemia cancer treatment to their kids for religious reasons. 

Political correctness trumps children's lives in ultra-PC Canada.

So again I'm moving right, happily toward Christopher Hitchens and Pat Condell. 

Freedom of speech. Freedom of thought. Honesty. Moving forward. Survival. Preserving the Reformation and Enlightenment. The current-left are traitors to all.

DeWayne Wickham, Coward and Murder Apologist - Regarding Censorship of Charlie Hebdo

Greetings,

I am writing to file a complaint regarding the following employee of Morgan State University: DeWayne Wickham. The main focus of my complaint is one of journalistic malpractice, where this man who's the head of the journalism department in my view advocates for the murder of artists - such as the artists recently murdered at the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris.

A journalist should report the facts, not censor them. It's not your job to treat religion and cults with kid gloves, or to "protect" people from well-founded honest opinions about religions and cults.

Recently Mr. Wickham published the following article in USA Today:

Wickham: 'Charlie Hebdo' crosses the line
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/01/19/charlie-hebdo-cross-line-free-speech-covers-islam-limits-wickham/21960957/

Here's my reply to that article:

De facto apology for, and support for, murderers and their actions. In the wake of the murder of 12 people this is the best you can do?

Papers which refused to show the art of artists just barely murdered for their art need to find useful apologists for their despicable and cowardly actions. USA Today has such a man on staff apparently.

Want to know about Islam? Ask an ex-Muslim. You'll get more honest answers about the totality of the situation. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Faisal Saeed Al Mutar, Maryam Namazie, Salman Rushdie, Walid Shoebat, and so on. Also you'll get more honest answers from people who left other cults such as Mormonism. Ex-Mormons usually more easily sympathize & empathize with the plight of people in other cults. The two main differences between Islam & Mormonism are time-since-founding and that the core edicts of Islam are more dangerous & destructive & abusive than Mormonism.

Apology for murder. Apology for censorship. Apology for having a new de facto sharia, a new "Islamic-State-Light" in America and Europe. That's what people like DeWayne Wickham are apparently advocating for.

As for me I'll stand with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Faisal Saeed Al Mutar, Maryam Namazie, Salman Rushdie, Walid Shoebat, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, Sam Harris, and Caroline Fourest.

Here's a related article by Ms. Fourest:
Violence Against Charlie Hebdo: The Globalization of Moral and Intellectual Confusion
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/caroline-fourest/violence-against-charlie-_b_6509802.html

Cowardly "journalists" who aren't really journalists quickly apologize for murder and their own pusillanimous actions, search, find, and scratch for every possible reason for their cowardly actions. It's lame - but you're part of the "old media." Old-media is who's doing the censoring of art artists were just barely murdered for. Thank goodness for the Internet, where we need not ask amoral cowards to be our filters.

The "left" really does *nothing* to help Muslims leave the abusive cult they're in. So-called "journalists" stand by and watch murder happen, and then quickly go on and apologize for (and de facto support) the actions of the murderers. It's your job to report on the facts - that's it - not to be cowardly rear-end-covering filters in the wake or terrible murder and murder-enabled artistic censorship.

Additional related articles:

We Are Charlie: Free Speech v. Self-Censorship
by Douglas Murray
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5016/charlie-hebdo-attack

Charlie Hebdo stood alone. What does that say about our ‘free’ press?
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-stood-alone-what-does-that-say-about-our-free-press/

Salman Rushdie on Charlie Hebdo: freedom of speech can only be absolute
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/15/salman-rushdie-on-charlie-hebdo-freedom-of-speech-can-only-be-absolute

Charlie Hebdo Editor To Chuck Todd: When You Blur Our Cover, 'You Blur Out Democracy' - Hebdo Editor Scolds Outlets For Not Showing Cover: ‘You Blur Out Democracy’ With Censorship
http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/18/hebdo-editor-scolds-outlets-for-not-showing-cover-you-blur-out-democracy-with-censorship-video/

Men Without Chests: How C.S. Lewis Predicted Charlie Hebdo Censorship
http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/08/men-without-chests-how-c-s-lewis-predicted-charlie-hebdo-censorship/

Sam Harris' new entry on the murder of Hebdo artists, and the subsequent censorship.

After Charlie Hebdo and Other Thoughts
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/after-charlie-hebdo-and-other-thoughts

PBS Newshour censorship of Charlie Hebdo art people died for!

PBS Newshour refused to show the latest issue of Charlie Hebdo. Here's the complaint I just filed with them:

Regarding your refusing to show the latest issue of Charlie Hebdo: The PBS Newshour is complicit with murder, and is acting as apologists for murder.

12 people just died for god's sake!

Excellent clarity from Douglas Murray:
https://youtube.com/user/DouglasMurrayArchive

Related complaint sent to the BBC regarding censorship of Charlie Hebdo:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2015/01/complaint-sent-to-bbc-regarding.html

The above referenced complaint also relates directly to the PBS Newshour.

"Old media," such as the Newshour can go the way of the Dodo (no offense to Dodos). Your main audience appears to be Luddites with no access to the Internet.

Latest issue of Hebdo available online

http://issuu.com/charliehebdo/docs/charlie_hebdo_14.01.2015_no1178

Very good lines on paper. Blood paid for this issue.

The future belongs to those who slander, and draw outrageously funny cartoons about, the prophet of Islam.

Children in Islam reportedly love Mohamed more than their parents - the sign of a cult.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30790412
"...for a Muslim, the Prophet Muhammad is more important than their own parents..."

-----------

From Indian TV:

Paris attack: Taslima Nasreen says freedom of expression is absolute

Speaking on the killing of Charlie Hebdo journalists, Bangladeshi author said that the freedom of expression is absolute and that the state failed to act against radicals.

Video at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/video/paris-attack-taslima-nasreen-says-freedom-of-expression-is-absolute/1/412838.html

Islamofactia.

Islamotruthia.

Quite true that the left is out to lunch on this issue.

More info recently found:
https://www.youtube.com/user/DouglasMurrayArchive/videos

According to Mr. Murray behind closed doors European leaders know the truth. But they dare not speak it in public.

We don't need you to censor truth and facts on our behalf. We don't need you to be our filters of reality, and to hide us from the truth 12 people just died for.

Complaint sent to the BBC regarding censorship of Charlie Hebdo

Hello,

I am writing to make a complaint regarding the BBC News division, and the matter of your choosing to now show copies of Charlie Hebdo.

It's almost as if you view these papers as a type of pornography. You also don't show graphic images of sexual activity. And also you refuse to show caricatures of the Islamic prophet Mohamed, even after several deaths of associated publishers & so on.

This is outrageous and highly immoral, these actions of yours.

You're not reporting the news. Your censoring it. Managing it.

You're acting in this matter very much like "old media." New media remains relevant because it's uncensored and often unfiltered.

We don't need the BBC to filter our eyes from sexuality. And we don't need the BBC to filter our eyes from caricatures of Mohamed.

Islam is not a race, it's a religion. I am an ex-Mormon and so I know what it's like to believe in a charismatic charlatan prophet. Joseph Smith had a 14 year old wife & he was married to women who were still legally married to other men. Mohamed had a 6 year old wife, and he was a warmonger & murderer.

So the bottom line is that you're not reporting the news accurately. Instead you're acting as a lame old-media-style filter. And you're acting as an enabler for murder.

Your actions in this matter essentially are complicit with, and an act of apologetics for, murders. And for what? For lampooning the prophet of a religion. An abusive religion. A religion which never had a Reformation, or maybe it's having one now with our help. But it will only have one effectively if we are willing to be honest, and to treat Islam with the same level of criticism we use for other religions.

We don't need your help to keep us from cartoons, especially when the cartoonists involved were murdered for what they drew.

Publish images of the latest issue of Hebdo.

p.s. Hebdo applied a near equal level of scrutiny toward all religions. That's the way it should be. Why should everyone be required to treat Islam with kid gloves? Because it's people are supposedly oppressed, or because it's a "race," or because angry Muslims will try & kill us for being critical of Islam? Which is it?

Muslims are oppressed by their own religion, and by the fact that Islam *never* had a proper Reformation like Christianity did. Maybe Islam is having it's Reformation now (where afterword it can have it's big boy pants on and be able to deal with cartoons like adults instead of like spoiled little brat kids) - but it will only have an effective reformation if we're willing to be honest about Islam.

Islam is not a race, it's a religion.

Everyone should be perfectly willing to be critical if all other religions.

Leftists often don't know what it's like to live in real religions, such as Mormonism, Islam, Scientology, the Jim Jones or David Koresh cults, and so on. All they know is about the light & fluffy stuff they hear in Anglican or Unitarian Universalist meetings. But those are no longer *real* religions, where people really *are* brain washed.

What's one key sign of a cult? When children view the cult leaders as being more important than their families.
In Islam children are taught to value Mohamed more than their parents.

That's abusive, and a key sign of a cult.

Can we handle honesty? Apparently some of us cannot. But news orgs should not keep of from cartoons of all things! Especially when the associated artists were murdered for their work.

Films, Cartoons, and Mohamed: Islam is a cult - just older and larger

A film comes out. Then some cartoons. Vociferous people demand censorship. Other people don't want "oil thrown on a fire."

Listen to recent BBC programs on the issue.

Read the comments on Charlie Hebdo's blog.

Let the comments from everyone wash over you. I did, and here's what I've come to conclude:

Islam is a wacky abusive cult, just like any other cult. What's the difference between Islam, Mormonism, and Scientology? Time, and the level of violence advocated by and allowed for by the core doctrines. Even regular Christianity, in it's many flavors, has cultish aspects depending on which church or denomination we're talking about. 

Listen to what Islamic believers say about Mohamed. They love him more than they love life, more than their family, and so on.

Any criticism against Mohamed is taken so personally that the believers advocate censorship at the very least, and violence more commonly. With the recent debate over the film Innocence of Muslims, and the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, I constantly heard talk of "red lines." "You've crossed my red line" this, and "don't cross my red line" that. 

When you cross a person's so-called "red line" what happens? What'ja gonna do? Complain? Sue me? Hit me? Kill me? Talk of "red lines" are threats. And threats for what? Regarding complaining about whom? A 6th century war mongering pedophile?

Have you ever heard of the wives of Joseph Smith? How about Brigham Young?

Why do cult leaders get to have so many wives? Charismatic charlatans really enjoy sex - with other men's wives, and with underage girls. 15, 14, 9? WTF! God gave you a message to do what? FOAD - that is the appropriate response to such people. But, you can always tell cult leaders by their actions.

They say: God gave me a message.

Reply: A message to do what?

They say: To fuck your wife and your daughter.

Reply: What if I say no?

They say: God will send you to hell... and, maybe I'll have my friends lean on you, or kill you.

They say: I am God's messenger. To deny my words is to deny the word of God.

Joseph fucking Smith, Brigham fucking Young, David fucking Koresh, L. Ron fucking Hubbard. And fucking Mohamed, peace be upon him - all the same deranged controlling fucks who want to use lies, violence, and damaging virulent meme sets to control others. 

So yes, the only differences between Mormonism and Islam are this: Time, and the level of violence allowed by core doctrines.

I am an ex-Mormon. Thank god I wasn't a Muslim. But if I were, I hope that I'd have the balls to stand up to the cult members & their leaders.

People who have had no experience with real religion have no fucking idea what they're talking about when they use such phrases as "don't provoke," or "oil on flames," and so on.

It's our duty to provoke, to cajole, to help people oppressed by mind controlling cults fucking O-U-T of their religions. And to help force their religions to be more civilized. Christians were forced to have a sense of humor, by two world wars, the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment. Islam never had either on a permanent basis. Like it or not, we're helping them have theirs now. B grade film makers are helping, as are naughty, brash, and brave French satirical magazines.

In a civil society, cartoons & films are N-O-T banned, even if they offend your cult-originated deranged sensibilities about "your prophet." And in civil societies, you don't get to censor or threaten with violence me or anyone over a cartoon or film.

Many people in Islamic countries are unhappy because they are in Islamic countries being oppressed. Their hatred and anger is derived from their status. So, when the "oil" of films or cartoons are poured upon their hatred, they become angy - becuase they are currently in a prison.

BUT, the one thing secular people who want to censor films & cartoons & art critical of Islam don't realize is that art & speech critical of Islam will help to free these people. The volume needs to be turned up as loudly as possible, not turned down.

Related views:

By Sam Harris. And a previous extended interview where Harris talks about cult leaders.
By Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
By Pat Condell.

Additional copies of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons:
http://www.noelshack.com/2012-38-1348042554-20120919-100853.jpg
http://www.noelshack.com/2012-38-1348042543-20120919-100843.jpg
http://www.noelshack.com/2012-38-1348042534-20120919-100905.jpg
http://www.noelshack.com/2012-38-1348042594-20120919-101202.jpg

Copies of a related posts I've put up elsewhere:

--------------------- 1

Oh, no! More cartoons are coming! More drawings on paper! Run. Hide. Or, if you're an Islamist, go on a murderous rampage.

The volume should be turned up. We have, with the protests, the personification of a spoiled brat child. What if, by comparison, Rome threatened the Monty Python troupe with death for their film Life of Brian? What would be the "appropriate response" from that group & related artists? MORE OF THE SAME, and higher quality parodies as well. In the instance of the film we have a poor quality parody. We need higher quality parodies. Maybe that's REALLY why the Muslims are upset. A B movie is a B movie. We all want higher quality production values in our art.

Sam Harris on the issue:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-freedom-to-offend-an-imaginary-god

BBC World Have Your Say programs on the cartoons:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/worldservice/whys/whys_20120919-1912a.mp3
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/worldservice/whys/whys_20120919-1423a.mp3
[the above links will only be available for a few days, but here's an archive for you]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnARvLa3Pd8

A parody of my own about Joseph Smith & his church. Should I be killed for this by Mormons? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERKfXjG-7Xc Should my parody be banned? Damn, I'm glad I wasn't a f-in Muslim, but if I had been I hope I'd have enough balls to stand up to people still being repressed by the cult & their leaders. 

--------------------- 2

Crazy repressed nuts kill a guy over a B film...
Part of the film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAiOEV0v2RM

The killers of the U.S. ambassador to Libya have by their actions moved this otherwise low grade laughable B movie into a very important status, and in my view it goes to show that more higher quality and more accurate films (and campy and crapily made films) need to be made.

We need a Monty Python style Life of Brian type film about Mohammed. Christians, through the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and two world wars, have been forced to have a sense of humor about their religion. Muslims need to have a sense of humor about their religion as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_movie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_of_brian

--------------------- ps

The film Sumission Part 1, that Theo Van Gogh was killed over and why Ayaan Hirsi Ali has to live with constant security. Sam Harris has to have security guards travel with him. The Charlie Hebdo artists have to have this also. Having to live your life with security guards always around does tend to sharpen your mind about things, and your views about what really is important to say - and about the value of free speech, calling a spade a spade, honesty, and stating when the emperor has no clothes.

--------------------- ps2

Also, regarding certain libertarian ultra right wing nutjobs who claim that Palestine doesn't exist, I don't support them either, nor do I wish to be drawn into blind support for whatever Israel wants to do. People do have a right to live on their own land and to be left alone. But people also have a right not to be suicide bombed. So there's trouble on both sides there. But one key bottom line is that freedom of speech must not be abridged. 

The "moderate" Muslims want censorship. They want their sharia also. That's not moderate though. We need freedom of speech. For the critics, for the cartoonists, for the sane people, and for the nutjobs. Everyone. Censorship is not an option. That's our red line.