“Why are you not in Palestine fighting for the cause?”
Monday, August 22, 2011 at 11:02am 19 Comments
This is classic (h/t BlazingCatFur).
A member of the anti-Israel Boycott Divest Sanction movement (we’ve seen their moonbat tactics before) confronted Muslim shop owners in London demanding that they not sell Israeli products. The shop owners were not intimidated and demanded to know why she wasn’t in Palestine fighting for the cause, if she felt so strongly about it.
The BDS movement consists of truly demented hateful people.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
This was beautiful. A clear case of moonbat insanity faced down by reasoned discourse and (a little) necessary force. I love her last screech about them, ‘wearing frilly pink dresses’. Doesn’t she realize they would be sodomized or killed (or both) in most muslim countries for that?
She wants to get shrill muslim denunciation and all she gets is a person defending his right to conduct his business as he sees fit.
BDS has to be considered one of the premier up-and-coming comedy troupes in the world.
Funny – when I read ‘BDS’ I immediately thought ‘Bush Derangement Syndrome.’
“The BDS movement consists of truly demented hateful people.”
Similar, somehow. 😉
It seems to me that the real story here, behind the issue of this nut job wanting the store owners to stop selling Israeli dates, is that England is gone! Not only that, As we have all seen, Holland, France, Spain, Germany and many other European nations, including the Scandinavian nations too, are gone. In essence, it seems Europe is European no more.
While immigration and the merging of the world’s populations may have some benefits, the nonsense about a “global village” is just that.
Surely, here in America we too have problems with immigrants having no interest in assimilation whatsoever – and shame on us for allowing such a situation to persist.
Go to any Muslim nation, from Morocco to Indonesi,a and see if they have been so welcoming of immigrants that their indigenous culture has been left hanging by a thread.
We hear the environmentalists screaming all the time about indigenous populations of flora and fauna being decimated by foreign species because they want to keep all ecosystems exactly as they have been for thousands of years. They want no invasions by foreign species in the environment. But when it comes to maintaining an American culture, or a British culture, or a French culture – this sense of guardianship for that which is/was indigenous is totally absent. Why is this?
I don’t think its such a bad idea for people to want to maintain the culture of their native lands. Here in America, we had immigrants come in by the millions in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s and while there were indeed tensions at times, immigrants from that era assimilated, and we all benefitted from it. And we NEVER stopped any ethnic or religious group from culturally becoming Americans after they got here.
People need to wake up. The Muslims are taking advantage of immigration in free nations throughout the West in order to conquer them from within. Islam is not just a religion, it’s a totalitarian system of religious beliefs, laws and governance. They first introduce Islam Lite and then, over time, as their numbers increase, and they take hold in political offices little by little, they work to supplant the very culture of the nations they have immigrated to.
Again, as I have mentioned above, go to ANY Muslim country and see for yourself. Even in “moderate” Muslim nations like the UAE, where they have jailed British people for kissing on the beach, they do not tolerate even the most infinitesimal threat to the purity of their culture. But in the West, we stupidly open our arms to those who wish us no good and we give them the full protection of our freedoms to conduct their assaults on our culture which they would NEVER tolerate in their native countries. I’m not pushing for ethnic purity here. I am saying that for each nation around the world to be the guardians of their unique indigenous culture would be a good thing – if its not already too late.
Stop telling us Islam is just a religion. That’s just baloney.
When you’re talking about the indigenous culture, are you talking about Native Americans? Or the culture of one of the successive waves of immigrants that have been coming to this country since the 1600’s? I’m a little thrown off, because I’ve never heard of contemporary American culture being referred to as “indigenous”.
When you refer to “native Americans”, are you referring to the known first, second, or third waves? Are you referring to the people from Europe or Asia? As for indigenous American culture, there is only that established by Americans. Anything preceding that was respective of individual empires, nations, and tribes.
I’ll gladly go with the term “contemporary”. I am speaking of the culture of America as it has been for about the last 200 years. Yes, it evolves, however, the evolution of our own culture is vastly different than any culture that is a result of challenges from the outside or even worse, “multiculturalism”. I would put forth that America is a Judeo-Christian nation, and it should stay that way. Honestly, I believe the Muslims are far from what they represent themselves to be. I think it is a mistake to allow too many of them in. Their numbers should responsibly be limited by our own immigration policy in order to avert the type of crisis we are seeing in Londonistan. We have been living very well under the motto, E Pluribus Unum, for some time now. If we keep allowing people in that have no interest in becoming Americans, our new motto will be – every man/woman for himself – and there will be no fabric left of our founders intentions.
While I would welcome any and all religions, ethnic groups, etc, we are best served by preserving our own culture and letting in only so many people of any one persuasion. If diversity is so great – and I think it is – lets not bring in people that wish to establish their own enclaves, have their own legal system (sharia law) and who have no interest in assimilation or diversity. I think we should start making the citizenship of naturalized immigrants conditional as well. If we are not the custodians of what makes America what it has always been and what it is today, one day this will no longer be America. And if such a day comes, make no mistake, it won’t be a better nation, it will be a conglomeration of the banana republics and Arab kingdoms from around the world. I believe we need to stop NOW and make serious revisions to the manner in which we admit immigrants to this nation going forward.
I find it funny that you went from complaining about Muslim immigration to fearing the “Arab kingdoms”. I’ll ask that you not use Arab and Muslim so interchangeably, one is an ethnic group, the other is a religious group.
You’re first statement is kind of my point, protecting the “culture” of a land continually populated by successive waves of immigrants, you’re talking in extremely ambiguous terms. As for what is referred to as indigenous Americans, the vast majority of academic works refer only to those in the Americas prior to 1600 as indigenous. From a technical perspective, it is difficult to consider ourselves indigenous peoples because the term requires an “other” group that considers the area where the indigenous peoples reside as their own. I don’t think that’s really the case for contemporary American culture.
On a side note, great video.
That would be a signature of semantic games. I do not believe manufactured discrepancies are relevant to the conversation. If we are to discriminate against one class of people or another, then we should consider the normative conditions by which these classes are established and distinguished. They are principally about shared heritage, especially genetic lineage, and competing interests.
As for the other rule, the native “Americans” are known to have arrived in the second wave. The various native “Americans” were in progressive measure competing interests, the same kind found throughout the world, who established and sustained empires, nations, and tribes, through violent confrontation with competing groups. Their tactics included murder, rape, pillage, and enslavement of their competition. They conquered and displaced other natives. Interestingly enough, there were some, including the Aztecs, who also ritually sacrificed virginal life to appease their gods. Very much the same as the efforts conducted by liberally minded individuals and special interests today as the seek to normalize sacrifice of developing human life and other deviant behaviors.
In any case, as the various civilizations were recycled before the arrival of “contemporary” Europeans, so will our civilization, and every other, be recycled as individuals submit to progressive totalitarian principles when they dream of instant gratification. It’s not like left-wing ideology wasn’t born with a purpose and ambition. America is simply the latest target of individuals suffering from delusions of grandeur (and their supporters), armed with a selective history and emotional appeals. The only difference is that they cannot confront the most powerful nation, with the most productive people, in a frontal assault. Instead, they have chosen to sabotage the economy, undermine the education system, and cow the people into submission. It’s quite insidious, and, frankly, very effective.
It will be interesting to observe if these creatures who adhere to a perverse natural order will succeed in America, as they have throughout most of the world. Subversion from within is the most insidious and it seems to me to be an uncivilized means by which to effect a consolidation of wealth and power. I guess everyone has their means and justification to achieve their end.
I’ll bet five will get you ten these are people from academe. In the world of business today there is a cardinal rule – never interrupt or contradict someone over a minor point.
These people clearly have no concept of this – they should go back to the faculty lounge and immerse themselves in dry conversations with other inept “scholars”.
These trivial remarks serve only to create an infinite number of inconsequential intellectual cul-de-sacs that we could examine ad nauseum at the expense of totally missing the clear issues I have raised. I would further submit that with respect to geo-politics, ARAB and MUSLIM are nearly synonymous for the purposes of this issue.
C’mon people, try to enter the real world for just a minute because the dry and condescending tone of academe is just tiresome, and tedious in this type of forum. I stand by my remarks in their entirety. This is not a thesis forum, it’s a blog where people write spontaneously and without the encumbrances normally associated with formal academic scrutiny. What I’m saying here is clear – most people in the blogosphere have no interest in the petty distractions you are raising.
Ipso, you do realize you’re writing on the blog of a law professor, right?
My atheist Arab friend would beg to differ that Arab and Muslim were synonymous in ANY discussion of contemporary culture.
John Keat’s beloved England…is no more.
Disturbing that this is happening in any part of the world, let alone the UK.
You know…. some people are just “special.” And their God is “special.” And their beliefs are “special.” And we must all step aside for their “specialness.”
Such “special” people do not have to abide by the same laws and courtesies that they expect society to show them.
When the “special” people take over your country, look out. Even selling the wrong dates or nuts becomes an unforgivable crime worthy of public humiliation.
There must still be some Muslims who recall being targeted along with Jews, Christians, pagans, etc., for extermination by Palestinians and their supporters. It’s not like 1948 was the first time in the 20th, or even the 19th, century, that Arab and Muslim competing interests massacred unbelievers and Muslims who resisted their “enlightenment”.
As for the date pickers, it’s only relevant if they are not compensated for their labor. Actually, I’m surprised that a left-wing ideologue would express concern about progressive involuntary exploitation, or individual dignity, for that matter.
Does she know the conditions under which Christians and pagan black Africans exist under Islamic rule, including slavery, torture, and yes, apartheid. If she does, then she must not comprehend the equal, if tribal, representation that exists in Israel and in most places where people align themselves with others of a common heritage.
In any case, an appeal to emotion and a reference to a selective history, seems to offer progressive dividends for her and others of similar mind.
Who was that Alpha Cow?
Yes, I am very well aware that this is law Prof. Jacobson’s blog. This fact does not make me feel inhibited about submitting comments even though my writings may not measure up to the standards of people from the inner sanctum of academe. It seems to me that Prof. J. is a breath of fresh air and clearly (thank goodness) well outside of the core of narrow self-absorption that seems to have infected so many in the field of education. From his writings and the entire tone of this blog, it seems to me that he does not post subjects that are only for the specially initiated nor does he become mired in petty peripheral issues that may distract readers from the main thrust of his posts. Since Prof. J. tolerates meager civilians like me for posting (often very imperfect) things that are written in the moment, I am very thankful and I sincerely appreciate having this forum for expression.
Now with respect to the distinction between Arab and Muslim, mia culpa! I got it, I know it, and I humble myself to you for pointing out the error in my replies. I would also like to point out that this error of distinction has little to do with the core issues I have written about.
I have conducted business in the Middle East for quite some time and in my travels there I have had extensive dealings with the Ministry of Interior of Qatar and with various entities in Dubai , Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries. I know exactly what you are speaking about and you are indeed correct. Now, can we please go on? This is just a blog, we’re not curing cancer here.
Richard Millett is a London-based Jewish activist who, sometimes single-handedly, combats the BDS brigade. I sent this link to him but I highly recommend you all go and read his blog.
Read and weep at what has become of England. (And as a bonus you can laugh at some of the BDS antics).
I’m surprised that a professional person like yourself resorts to using a term characteristic of right wing slang–moonbat–which has no objective meaning outside of ultraconservatives who use it in a derogatory sense as a part of their ad hominen artillery.