On March 27th 2012 The Guardian published a propoganda hit piece on the Freedom Parties. It attempts to smear the Freedom Parties before their summit in Europe This coming saturday (March 31, 2012). It appears to be about how jews should not trust extreme right wingers who claim to support Jews and Israel - but it is really an attempt to conflate the various (and varied) Freedom parties with antisemitism in the mind of the reader (particularly any Jewish readers).
This is the excruciating Op Ed:
Don't be fooled. Europe's far-right racists are not discerning
PREPARE FOR BATTLE!
It starts by conflating them with actual right wing polititicans like Nick Griffin. This is intended to confuse them in the minds of the reader. As far as I have seen these organizations are composed of those who have a wide range of political stances.
It then smears Geert Wilders Freedom Party as being anti immagrant. It is not anti immigrant and Mr. Wilders has never said a negative word about immagrants. He has discussed measures against immigrants who commit serious crimes or have specific right wing anti democratic and anti humanist agendas.
Ms. Karpf neglects to inform her readers that Mr. Wilders has had to live under armed guard for years because a note with his name on it was found on a knife sticking out of the body of his friend Theogh Van Gogh. That doesn't seem to bother Ms. Karpf, who cares more about imaginary threats than real ones.
"On Saturday, in the Danish city of Aarhus, a Europe-wide rally organised by the English Defence League will try to set up a European anti-Muslim movement."
It is not an anti muslim movement as Ms. Karpf, if she knows as much about these groups as she would like us to think she does, should know full well. These organizations are against islamic radicals only. Ms. Karpf does not offer one single shred of proof nor one single quote to support that these organizations are against anything other than specific organizations that have extreme anti libral agendas. Not. One. Single. Quote. Not. One. Single. Citation.
I was taught in elementary school to look for those sorts of things in newspaper articles. I would think the British education system is at least as good as the American. The British journalistic education system, one the other hand, seems to have failed Ms. Karpf in that little matter.
"(Marine Le Pen) laced her oft-expressed Islamophobia... with a newfound "philozionism" (love of Zionism),"
"Philozionism" is monsterous. It is a word intended to make people who support Israel look like abnormal freaks. So far in her use of propoganda tricks to support radical right wing religous ultra conservatives, Ms. Karpf has showed herself to be quite the philofascist.
"The Dutch MP Geert Wilders, leader of the anti-immigrant Freedom party, has compared the Qur'an to Mein Kampf."
Ms. Karpf does not investigate the reasons for that statement and quite lazily just presents it as if it is patently ridiculous. She should read it before coming to conclusions about the validity of the conclusions of those who have read it.
She then offers another quote without researching its validity.
(From Mr. Wilders) "Isam threatens not only Israel, Islam threatens the whole world. If Jerusalem falls today, Athens and Rome, Amsterdam and Paris will fall tomorrow."
There are many cilps of highly placed or highly regarded islamic leaders discussing their plans for Europian capitals which can be found on Youtube. If Ms. Karpf is too lazy to read the translations, there are several such statements in the queens english (or Dear Leaders English if you prefer, Ms. Karpf).
"But the most rabidly Islamophobic European philozionist is..."
Why am I not surpised to see THAT word used by Ms. Karpf. THAT word was concocted by the precise organization these groups are most concearned about. The same organization that spawned Al Quida and is connected to the assassination of two Egyptian leaders. The Muslim Brotherhood. It was crafted to be used against those whistle blowers who try to shine light on what that organization is doing in western countries. It is designed trick people into thinking the people who talk only about radicals appear to be talking about all muslims. It is the very definition of The Big Lie and by using it even once Ms. Karpf becomes a Big Lier.
"the most rabidly islamophobic..."
By saying that Ms. Karpf is trying to trick us into associating people against radical terrorism with antisemites. She is intentionally trying to confuse good with evil. One would expect such an intentional attempt to confuse morality from a Soviet era edition of Pravda but not from a news outlet in a free democratic country.
"At anti-immigrant rallies, EDL banners read..."
They ARE NOT ANTI IMMAGRANT RALLIES. THAT IS A BOLD FACED LIE! Am I being a bit hard on Ms. Karpf? Nope. This lazybones gives us not one single citation or quote to support her lie, so no I am not being too hard on this philofascist lier.
"What's more, the "philosemite", who professes to love Jews and attributes superior intelligence and culture to them, is often (though not always) another incarnation of the antisemite, who projects negative qualities on to them..."
Wow. What a pile of crap. First of all there is "philosemite". Philozionist has morphed into another word - do you think the casual reader will notice this? I suspect that Ms. Karpf hopes they won't. Philosemite, like philozionist is intended to make people who don't think jews should be exterminated seem to be crazy. What a nice lady this Ms. Karpf is.
And again we have another intentional flipping and confising of morality. This kind of rhetorical trickery is intended to confuse the reader so as to make them more receptive to the writers propogandistic rhetoric. She is attempting a real jedi mind trick here. She is saying that people who laude jewish contributions to western culture are antisemetic. Darg?
She then supports this propoganda trick with, and I kid you not, some quotes from a known schizophrenic, Anders Brievik. What a responsible journalist Ms. Karpf is. She probably created that knot of reasoning only so she could insert Brieviks name in this crappy propoganda.
Oh and she gets to add a mention of the repulisve Nick Griffin again, further indirectly smearing people who have nothing to do with him.
"Most Jews, apart from the Israeli right wing, aren't fooled." Propoganda 101. Make your stance appear to be held by the majority. Does Ms. Karpf cite any statistic or even give a quote? No she does not.
"They see the whole iconography of Nazism – vermin and foreign bodies, infectious diseases and alien values – pressed into service once again."
Yes indeed they do, Ms. Karpf. Well to be more accurate, the jews who left Sweden for Israel did. As do the Jews who are now fleeing France. They have certainly seen the a kind of Nazism returning. But you don't want to talk about that, do you Ms. Karpf. One wonders why...
"The philozionism of European nationalist parties has been scrutinised most closely by Adar Primor..."
Where in Mr. Primor's article is "philozionism" to be found? I sure didn't see it. That sentance is meant to imply his endorsement of your sleazy rhetorical trickery.
"Similarly Dave Rich, spokesman of the Community Service Trust (CST), which monitors antisemitic incidents in Britain, told me that far-right philosemites "must think we're pretty stupid if they..."
Notice that the quote starts RIGHT AFTER the word philosemite. What do you think Mr. Rich, who monitors antiesemetic incedents, would think of that word? I don't think he would like it very much. Which is why, despite your putting it right next to the beginning of his quote, he didn't actually use it. If he had used it you could have put it in with his quote - but he didn't, so you maneufactured a connection.
But Mr Rich contineues: "The moment their perceived political gain disappears they revert to type."
Possibly true, but which "they" is it? Will Geert Wilders become antisemetic once he has whatever it is that you decline to sepecify he wants? This is a not a group with a narrow political range. If there are opportunistic antiesemites amongst them then of course they will revert to form. But they are not composed of antisemetic groups now are they, Ms. Karpf. They only seem to be because you are intentionally conflating these people with antisemites in this article.
"French Muslim leaders rallied round Jewish communities last week... Let's hope that French Jewish leaders use the occasion (of passover) to rally round Muslim communities, and to remember that ultimately, racism is indiscriminate." (only in scrabble could those two words appear next to each other. Another sleazy attempt to create confusion in the reader).
You finish the article telling us that when a muslim kills a jewish schoolgirl that jews should rally around the muslim community. Why? To protect them from the racist ounslaught that, despite the automatic handwringing after every single islamist atrocity, never ever actually comes? Why don't you call for them to come together in mutual defence against Manbearpig while you're at it.
It is an attempt to reframe the dangerous reality of jews in Europe as a situation of imminant jeapordy for muslims living in Europe. But that is a jeapordy that is never going to come about becuase the organizations coming together at this summit champion classical libral ideals of equality for women, homosexuals, and minorities. They champion both religious freedom and freedom of concience. That is the exact opposite of the publicly stated agenda of the specific organizations they are confronting - the violently anti humanistic agenda you are attempting to protect with this article.
Shame on you.
Steen Raaschou, editor of snaphanen.dk (1) suggests a new kind of crime called Dominance crime. A crime where the motive of the perpetrator is to experience dominance, rather than to achieve material gain. It is a rational yet innovative suggestion as the experience of dominance is already known to be the primary motive for rape.
Many countries have now criminalized motivation as well as action. The current motivation crimes are called hate crimes. If crimes can be hate motivated and thus garner stonger punishment, then criminalizing other motives is not an idea which comes from left field. Indeed, dominance is just as bad as hate as a motivating factor for crime.
Many crimes or antisocial behavior have their roots in documented and common primate behavior. Primates have been witnessed to engage in murder, rape, assault, adultery (ya ya I know that's not a crime) and theft. Primates also engage in behavior to establish and maintain dominance that would be criminal when done by a human.
In psychology the extreme need to dominate others is called sadism.
Sadism is not merely a need to hurt. It is an abnormal need to dominate. The pain, verbal abuse and imposed restrictions are merely methods used to achieve the feeling of dominance.
We are all aware of it as a sexual dysfunction but it is also a personality disorder known as Sadistic Personality Disorder or SPD (2).
SPD is a need to dominate others. Key to that is for the dominated to know and acknowledge that they are dominated. Does that sound familiar? You bet your burka it does.
Psychologists and anthropologists have known for some time that it is possible, thru natural selection, for cultures to have different amounts of incidence of specific disorders. Extreme examples of this phenomena have been documented in populations that are geographically remote from others.
What happens is this. A culture values a trait. Those with that trait, thru natural (or unnatural) selection have a higher chance of having offspring. As a result more people with that trait appear in the population and the expressions of that trait become stronger and stronger. The most extreme expressions of the trait are forms of insanity.
Of course it's not just biology. An individual interacts with their culture. But if that culture is geared towards extreme shows of dominance, because its been created by people who have a predisposition for displaying and valuing dominance, we see an echo chamber effect, with psychology/biology creating the culture and culture having an effect upon psychology/biology of the individual.
Did that make ANY sense? It sure wasn't easy to write.
A culture that engages in polygamy, where the most dominant men get most of the mates and less dominant men get mostly none, would exacerbate the increase in a population of those who have stronger and stronger predispositions to have a deep rooted psychological need to show dominance.
Schizophrenia, autism and retardation are not necessarily included in that theory as they can have other causes than just "natural" selection.
This is not the same as the "bell curve" nonsense. It is also not saying that humans are incapable of making rational decisions about their behavior. We do so thousands of times a day.
It is also not saying that only one people in the world experience this particular disorder. Mental disorders are merely extreme expressions of tendencies we all have.
It is also not intended to discount the effect of intentional radicalization and propoganda. Though such effects and their success do have a symbiotic relationship with culture and personal predisposition.
However it does appear to that there is a direct relationship between islam, the culture developed under islam, and the results of polygamy and an increase in more numerous and more extreme expressions of SPD.
It is a matter for Historians to determine if Muhammad is the generating factor or if the factors and their interrelationship I discuss above were already in existence in that region at the time of his birth. It is clear from the source material that he was a sadist but was that an over common psychological phenomena of the region already? If that is the case than even if Muhammad never existed, another with similar ideas would have eventually achieved the same kind of success he did because his ideas were of a sort that would gain traction in that particular culture.
The point I was trying to make in the previous paragraph is that Muhammad may not be responsible for the inception of the phenomena, but was himself and his resulting ideas, the result of an already existing process. If polygamy was already a common feature of the region than there could have been a process in motion already. Though if that is the case his ideas and the culture they produced certainly did not help matters.
Discus.
1.A new term: Dominance crime
2. Sadistic Personality Disorder A definition by Stephen J. Hucker, MB, BS, FRCP(C), FRCPsych at Forensic Psychiatry. ca