Coates' assertion, that Muslims were predominately "moderates," met with general approval from his readership (after all, this is The Atlantic Monthly). So I decided to stir the pot a little and submitted my own version of things
Early in the month while browsing the Atlantic Monthly website I came across a discussion group entitled "The New Fascism" moderated by Ta-Nehisi Coates, a talented black novelist and senior editor at the Atlantic. Coates kicked off the discussion with a short article lamenting the use of the expression "Islamo-fascism." His principle complaint was with outspoken critic of Islam, Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Warning that the Moslem Brotherhood in Egypt was not an innocuous splinter group, but a grave threat to the democratic movement, Ali had said:
"Islam is the new fascism. Just like Nazism started with Hitler's vision, the Islamic vision is a caliphate - a society ruled by Sharia law - in which women who have sex before marriage are stoned to death, homosexuals are beaten, and apostates like me are killed. Sharia law is as inimical to liberal democracy as Nazism. Young Muslims need to be persuaded that the vision of the Prophet Mohammed is a bad one, and you aren't going to get that in Islamic faith schools."
To this Coates replied:
"As a writer, I think Ali has a real gift for enlisting her provocative personal narrative to make a point. But I often find that very strength to be obscuring. Had I come up like her, I might well believe that "Islam is the new fascism." But is that really born out by the evidence? Can what Ali experienced in Kenya seriously be extrapolated to Malaysia? To Turkey? To Bangladesh?"
And he cited Hannah Arent:
"During the Vietnam War, Hannah Arendt noted that members of the Democratic Administration had frequent recourse to phrases like 'monolithic communism,' and 'second Munich,' and deduced from this an inability 'to confront reality on its own terms because they had always some parallels in mind that 'helped' them to understand those terms.'"
So, let me get this straight. It's alright for Coates to use the analogy of Hannah Arendt belittling Viet Nam era hawks for arguing from the analogy of 'Munich' and 'monolithic communism,' to discredit Ayann Hirsi Ali for arguing from the analogy of the 'Islamic vision' with the 'Nazi vision'? I call that downright undemocratic, but typical of the quality of argument at this web site.
Coates' assertion, that Muslims were predominately "moderates," met with general approval from his readership (after all, this is The Atlantic Monthly). So I decided to stir the pot a little and submitted my own version of things:
"The Turks were dancing in the streets celebrating on 9/11. So you'd better find another example of Islamic 'moderation.' Muslims are their own worst enemy. Their theological obsessions have imprisoned them in ignorance, poverty and violence for centuries and still they cling to Islamic doctrine. This is a good definition of stupidity or insanity, or both. As someone once observed, Islam isn't a religion, it's a mental illness."
This produced some interesting if not very rational replies, one to the effect that the same could be said of early Christians. Another reader demanded a head count of Turks who celebrated 9/11 (never mind that 50% of al Jazeera's Muslim audience believe Osama bin Laden is a saint). But one lengthy and thoughtful response argued that:
"the poverty and oppressiveness is not due to Islamic doctrine, but rather to dictatorial regimes backed by the US such as in Tunisia and Egypt. And while it's true that these oppressive regimes and our interference have caused many to seek solace and deliverance in their islamic beliefs -- neither Tunisia's or Egypt's rebellion is at the behest of Islamists."
Good point! However one of the most interesting reactions came from a Josh Jasper who said:
"If you mouse over a post, you'll see a 'flag' link appear at the bottom right. Click that, don't reply, and with enough clicks, the troll gets shunted through moderation. Engaging these people does no one any good, and only pollutes the place. Generally, we reply to these posts with 'Troll, DNF' and flag them, hoping that others will do the same. It keeps the flame fests to a minimum. This comments section is a lot different form the other ones on The Atlantic. We like to keep it that way."
Josh Jasper was giving precise instructions to the readers on how to squelch discussion, specifically my comment. Flag a comment and trust Moderator Coates to deep six it for the duration. I thought this was comical. How could anyone possibly take such a blatant call to suppress free speech seriously? I replied:
"The usual nauseating sanctimony one expects from liberal-progressives. Speak to the point. Can you name one contemporary Islamic theocracy that isn't a failed state or that has anything approaching a civil society? Can you name one redeeming quality of Islam and the Koran? The Jews, who represent a tiny fraction of the world's population, have 165 Nobel Prize Laureates. Islam, one fifth of the world's population, has 6. I rest my case."
Later in the day I received an e-mail alert from Disqus that there had been a response to my comment. When I clicked on the link to the discussion, I found that my last quip (above) had been flagged for review (i.e. expunged) by some character by the name of Miyamoto Isoruku. Needless to say, I was incensed, so I re-inserted my remark. Immediately after I did so, I received the following warning from Miyamoto:
"Copy-pasting the same comment isn't doing your case any good."
Suddenly I was a 'case.' This was right out of Kafka! I made an instant reply:
"Tell it to the Emperor, Miyamoto."
Next I wrote an angry e-mail to the editors of the Atlantic complaining about this dictatorial and arbitrary censorship, and serial abuse of flagging. Apparently my complaint drove censor-in-chief Coates out of hiding, for the next Disqus alert I got disclosed the following transmogrification of the discussion:
"Speak to the point. Can you name one contemporary Islamic theocracy that isn't a failed state or that has anything approaching a civil society? Can you name one redeeming quality of Islam and the Koran? Israel, which represents a tiny fraction of the world's population, has 165 Nobel Prize winners. Islam, one fifth of the world's population, has 6.
"The Turks were dancing in the streets celebrating 9/11, so you'd better find another example of Islamic 'moderation.' Muslims are their own worst enemy. Their theological obsessions have imprisoned them in ignorance, poverty and violence for centuries and still they embrace Islamic doctrine. This is a good definition of stupidity or insanity, or both. As someone once observed, Islam isn't a religion, it's a mental illness."
Added moderator Coates:
"I really have no idea why you lodged a complaint. Maybe you're new here, but that's a text-book example of the kind of comments I try to keep out. It's also the sort of comment you could make on literally hundreds of sites across the internet. That isn't enough for you. It must be said here. No."
Not only had Coates banned my remarks from the discussion, he had deleted several pages of reader response to my comments to cover his tracks. His contention that provocative ideas are antithetical to productive discussion comes straight from the Leninist PC handbook. Using that as a standard would mean censoring the remarks of Ayaan Hirsi Ali herself. Vehement invective has a long and proud tradition in American letters going back to the Founding Fathers.
Coates says my remarks are a textbook example of the kind of comments he tries to keep out of his discussion group, as though it was a sober and refined Socratic symposium, when in fact his blog is rife with personal attacks and juvenile name-calling ("idiot" being a favorite epithet), and arguments that wouldn't pass muster in a high school debating society, not to mention pages of frivolous off-topic back-and-forth. Coates is himself a textbook example of the subject of his discussion group, the fascist personality.
Ta-Nehisi Coates is a gifted writer of fiction but he shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a free-wheeling discussion forum. He simply hasn't the temperament. He displays a cognitive disorder common to Liberal-Progressives: an absolute belief in his own infallibility coupled with an aversion to strenuous logical discourse. Such a person has no business moderating an open discussion forum. An Internet blog that purports to be open to all should be just that--not a mutual admiration society.
The ease with which the Obama administration obscured responsibility for the Benghazi tragedy and the casual acceptance of the contrived cover story by the press and by the American people signal a significant transfer of influence from the public forum to the secret chambers of the state.
Pericles - "we do not say that a man who takes no interest in politics is a man who minds his own business; we say that he has no business here at all." Obama: ""If You've Got a Business -- You Didn't Build That! Somebody Else Made That Happen.""
Charles Krauthammer, suggested that Roberts resorted to this semantic legerdemain to avoid politicizing the Court and weakening its prestige. But the Court and America have weathered more violent partisan storms than those of the current climate: just read some of the broadsides in newspapers written one hundred to two hundred years ago. To my knowledge, no Congressmen have been caned to within an inch of their lives in the well of the Senate (though, no doubt, some have deserved it), and no cabinet secretaries killed in duels in the past 100 years. A good rule of thumb: follow the law and let the chips fall where they may.
The point in providing these videos on behalf of the Clarion Project is to hopefully assist in getting the word out that the extreme liberal progressive ideology does not represent REALITY when dealing with the politically motivated fundamentalist Islamist plan.
Despite all the hysterical accusations made by the sociopathic ideologues, the reality is that REAL everyday Muslims who have left their homelands to settle in democracy loving western lands DON’T WANT to be controlled by Islamists. They more than anyone else know what living under Islamic (theocratic) political and social control means.
Politically Correct Ideologues are people who become so trapped inside fundamentalist thinking, that they lose contact with the real world and see nothing other than their ideology. In short, they are totally focussed on what is inside their own heads, which is why I constantly refer to such people as ‘sociopathic.’
In China, the rights of society take precedence over individual human rights. This, we Westerners call totalitarianism and from an ideological perspective, desire to destroy it right? But ask yourself this: “What does MY country promote?”
Since 2004 he has been writing academic articles, social commentaries and photographic 'Stories from China' both here at KingsCalendar, and formerly as a contributing columnist at Magic City Morning Star News (Maine USA) where from 2009 to 2015 he was Stand-in Editor. He currently has a column at iPatriot.com and teaches English to Business English and Flight Attendant College Students in Suzhou City Jiangsu Province People's Republic of China.)
BenDedek originally created the site to publicize his research results into the Chronology of Ancient Israel. Those results were published under the title: 'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran.' Whilst there have been many attempts to solve the chronological riddle of the Bible's synchronisms of reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah and their synchronism with other Ancient Near Eastern Nations, no other research is based on a simple mathematical formula which could, if it is incorrect, be disproved easily. To date, no one has been able to dismiss the mathematical results of this research.
Free to air Academic articles set forth Apologetics for and results of his discovery of an "artificial chronological scheme" running through the Bible, Josephus, the Damascus Documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Seder Olam Rabbah. Check the Chapter Precis Page to see details of each chapter and to gain access to the Four Free to Air Chapters
(The Download book does not contain a section on Seder Olam)
Definition: King's Calendar Chronological Research
The Premise: Between the 5th and 3rd centuries BCE (but continuing down to at least 104 BCE), Sectarian redactors transcribed the legitimate 'solar year' chronological records of Israel and Judah, into an artificial form, with listed years as each comprised of 12 months of 4 weeks of 7 days, or 336 days per year, thus creating a 13th artificial year where 12 solar years existed.
When the Synchronous Chronological Data provided in the Books of Kings and Chronicles for the Divided Kingdom Period are measured in years of 336 days, the synchronisms actually align. [Refer to Appendix 5. to see how it synchronises the Divided Kingdom Period]