Jihad will destroy us?

18th July 2007

Stumble it!

posted in Politics by themaiden |

So warns FoeHammer– ‘Jihad will destroy us if we don’t do anything about it’

I say, why worry about that? We’re doing a fine job of destroying ourselves.

And my new friend Foehammer, for all his rhetoric to the contrary, is trying hard to lead the charge.

For example, practice intolerance, that’ll drive those damned Muslims right out.

Just refuse to patronize any establishment that is run or owned by Muslims, from gas stations to convenience stores, dry cleaners to restaurants to specialty grocery stores and the like. You know the signs to look for by now and most people are intelligent enough to differentiate between a peaceful Hindu and a Muslim. But, if you need a clue, just look for the women. If you can’t find any or the ones that you do find are veiled or hooded, well, then you’re probably dealing with Muslims. There’s an even easier way to know for sure though — and that’s just locate your local mosques and remember a few faces.

How to peacefully remove Muslims from your own neighborhood

And…

This isn’t about the head-covering, my dear. This is about you flaunting Islam in the face of suspicious and reasonably frightened customers by means of your Islamic head-covering. While there is a case to be made that more awareness of the differences between Sikh and Muslim should be clarified for the American public, the fact that a practitioner of Islam is cause for upset at this particular jewelry company should be no shock to anyone!

Islamic Glacier Alert: Muslim sues jeweller over headscarf

Yes, Foe. Do save us. Save us so that we can live in a nation without freedom of religion and of expression.

By the way, ever wonder about the peculiar fascination of totalitarians with hammers?

Popularity: 3%

Love the post? Hate it? Please let me know. Leave a comment and spread the word: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 18th, 2007 at 3:31 pm and is filed under Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

1 On July 18th, 2007, Foehammer said:

You misquoted. See if you can go back to the article and figure it out.

Resorting to personal attacks is old news to me. I only find it amusing.

2 On July 18th, 2007, Foehammer said:

Oh, btw, my nickname isn’t a hammer. I’ll post an article about that sometime soon.

3 On July 18th, 2007, themaiden said:

Foe,

I reread. I have more.

Prejudice in action? Of course. But have we not been given not only a right but an obligation to exercise such prejudice when it is in the interests of our future and our safety and the sanctity of our nations? It’s either this or violence. So, what choice have we been given?

4 On July 18th, 2007, themaiden said:

Foe,

You are right about something: You do have a right to say the things you say, and people have a right to do what you suggest.

I have a right, though, to point out that what you suggest is paranoid, racist foaming at the mouth and I have not only a right but an obligation, to borrow a phrase, to point out that a great many atrocities in history have been justified by just such rhetoric as yours.

To change topics, you may argue that your nickname isn’t drawn from the word ‘hammer’ but you are going to have a hard time arguing that you don’t play on the term. You are going to have an even harder time arguing that all those pictures of hammers– bearing such eerie resemblance to the pictures I culled from the web– aren’t hammers.

5 On July 19th, 2007, Foehammer said:

No, what you deal in is patented propaganda. You do not substantiate your attacks upon me with anything. You deal in hyperbole. My site is saturated with facts, hundreds of articles, many written entirely by me, with links to back up what I say.

Instead of actually investigating Islam and finding out why I’m on the warpath, you’ve crossed the line and decided to make me out to be something I’m not. I do not take kindly to be labeled what I despise, and I can already see that you’re being cross-posted on multiple blogs.

I pay attention. Be careful I don’t decide to pay closer attention to you.

6 On July 19th, 2007, themaiden said:

This has not been personal, Foehammer. I don’t know you. I only know what I’ve read of your site. ‘Personal’ would be calling you a ‘poo-head’ and a ‘dork’. I very carefully refrained from calling you are, for example, a ‘paranoid racist’ but said instead that “what you suggest is paranoid, racist foaming at the mouth”. See, that keeps it about what you write, not about what you are.

I’ve made you out to be only what you yourself write, Foe. If that is ’something you are not’ that isn’t my fault. If you dislike being labeled what you despise perhaps you ought to consider not posting the things that earn you the label. After all, I quoted you verbatum. If you dislike the suggestion that atrocities have been justified by rhetoric such as your then perhaps you should not write things that read weirdly like the propaganda the Nazis published about the Jews.

Your whining about propaganda and hyperbole is really just amusing given the density of such at Foehammer.net, as I’ve pointed out already, but I take issue with the suggestion I don’t research. To steal a phrase, “My site is saturated with facts, ~~hundreds~~ thousands of articles, ~~many~~ all written entirely by me ( except for quotes, of course ), with links to back up what I say.”

I pay attention. Be careful I don’t decide to pay closer attention to you.

Oooo…. aaaaa….. scary…. Be careful? Really? Or bloody what? That’s just damned pretentious, Foe. Smells a bit megalomaniacal too. Am I supposed to bow under that big ole hammer? Is that what its for? To quash dissent? Maybe that is why totalitarians like hammers? Big strong powerful symbol of squashing and crushing and pounding?

Please, do pay close attention.

But… threats? Got frustrated and now you are going to beat and bang and push and bully? And huff and puff and blow my house down? Remember that part about not doing the things that earn you the honors you don’t like?

7 On July 19th, 2007, themaiden said:

I should add, Foe, that I find it peculiar that you feel I’ve attacked you personally. I don’t even particularly dislike you in any meaningful way. That I would attack you personally is just kinda weird. For that I’d have to know you. For that I’d have to come over for Thanksgiving and hang with the family. Then, maybe, I could truly dislike you, but not until. As it is, I only know your persona. I dislike the ideas you post online. I dislike the ideas– probably not all of them if I looked hard enough, but most it seems– you promote and defend. I disagree with you. Don’t take it personally.

Besides which, big boy, that is an awful thin skin for a man who spews venom like you spew venom.

8 On July 19th, 2007, JR said:

“Whenever the hard Left gained power they instituted a reign of terror in order to create what they envisage as a just society, brought about by force. Islamic law works in much the same way: utopia created by force.”

I would be very interested in who he considers to be ‘hard Left’. My guess is that it’s anyone to the left of Joe Leiberman, but I could be wrong. But I especially liked this part:

“Victim status equals privileged status in the West. People know they can be free from criticism and ordinary scrutiny.”

I wonder if he just labeled your post as personl so he could justify his veiled threats towards you or if he truly believes any sort of criticism is personal? Either way he does seem to believe he should be criticized at all. The thing that always gets me though is why people like Foe believe that all Muslims who practice Islam follow the Koran to the letter of the law. Do all Christians follow the Bible to the letter of the law? Of course not.

Removing Muslims from one’s neighborhood, peacefully or not, is not about terrorism. It’s prejudice being justified by terrorism. Chances are that the Muslim guy who owns his own convenience store and has been running it for 10 years without incident isn’t part of a sleeper cell and isn’t going to decide tomorrow to blow the place up.

But the most revealing thing about sentiments like these towards Muslims and Islam is that they are inevitably muttered by by a religious conservative. You get the sense Foe doesn’t want Islam to lose as much as he wants Catholicism to win, and there’s nothing more effective at pacifying a billion Muslims than, well, declaring Jihad on their religion.

9 On July 19th, 2007, JR said:

I reread. I have more too.

Typo: that should have read does NOT seem to believe he should be criticized at all. Validating a post’s assertion by linking to a like-minded individual or group that agrees with you does not constitute verifying one’s facts.

This post is especially fun: http://foehammer.net/2007/07/how-i-know-ive-been-right-all-this-time.html in which he realizes he’s been right all long about Muslims and Islams, and he knows this because… well… he just keeps saying he’s been right all along. He says this right before saying we should expel all Muslims from the country, or has he put it, countries. Farther on down he insinuates anyone who disagrees with him is a hater and talks about the ignorant masses with delusions of grandeur, as if he were a martyr (there’s that victim card again) and not just another blogger who hates Islam.

That ‘Prejudice in Action’ quote is a good one. Can’t wait to apply it to Christianity for the abortion linics they bomb in God’s name.

10 On July 20th, 2007, themaiden said:

JR,

So… I didn’t just imagine that part about the threat?

What gets me is that, I suspect, more than anything this was triggered by my pointing out the blatantly obvious similarities between Foe’s chosen imagery and that favored by some of the nastiest regimes of the 1900s. I caught the news the other day about some star (I can’t remember the details anymore.) who carried a purse with Chinese communist symbols on it into a country that had suffered, and defeated, a bloody communist revolt inspired by Mao. Of course, this offended a lot of people. I thought, “You’ve got to be an idiot to not recognize that symbolism.” The same principle applies.

“… the hard Left gained power they instituted a reign of terror in order to create what they envisage as a just society… ”

I wonder if he considers the Japan and the Germany and the Italy we fought in WWII to be hard left? Talk about trying to create a ‘just’ society through violence. Of course it was just only if you weren’t ~~Islamic~~ Jewish or any number of other things.

And I wonder how ‘left’ he feel Bush is for his ‘perfect society through violence’ campaign in Iraq?

Despite the right wing rhetoric, though, it isn’t the left that leans towards government bullying. Have you seen my post ‘Bloggers, Politics, Libertarians, Totalitarians‘? Interesting stuff and just the opposite of what the right would have us believe. The liberals are strongly libertarian. The conservatives are split between weak libertarianism and weak to moderate totalitarianism.

Thanks for making that point about about backing up ones assertions by pointing out other places where one has made the same assertions.

11 On July 20th, 2007, What was wrong with this comment « Foehammer’s Anvil said:

[...] in the froth of hate and start lashing out wildly. I get attacked quite regularly here (and even elsewhere on the Net) by self-righteous, blind and often false “do-gooders” that think peace is [...]

12 On July 20th, 2007, Foehammer said:

So, let me get this straight: you apparently believe Islam is truly a ‘Religion of Peace’ and that the Democratic Party, which is ruled today by the Far Left and bears no resemblance to the party once dominated by the likes of FDR and John and Robert Kennedy, are the bastions of hope for the United States? I just want to be sure, because when you attack me, attempt to candy-coat such attacks, and then manufacture comparisons with Nazi and Imperial Japanese imagery bearing hammers, I really do have to be clear on what such erudite types as yourselves have in mind.

I stand by my earlier accusations, that this is purely propaganda you are up to here, and in saying that I am simply being polite, because to offer other reasons would pour water on your fires. I think you are both intelligent enough that I do not have to bother with that. In time, you may even have the sense to actually find out what I’m about and why I’m simply correct in my assessments, indeed “why I have been right”, but I know it won’t happen anytime soon for either of you. You’re at that stage in life where you think it better to get the approval of your flunkies than to have original thoughts of your own.

Parties must be good, eh?

Continue to whittle, whittle, whittle away…it’s what you do.

13 On July 20th, 2007, themaiden said:

Foe,

I think that Islam is a ‘Religion’– full stop. And that people have a right to it, whether I like (which I don’t, but then I don’t like your religion either) or whether you like it.

I am none too fond of the Democratic Party. It is a toss up really, whether I dislike the Democrats more than the Republicans, or the other way around.

Amazing what you imagine you know, isn’t it?

Again, this isn’t personal. I do happen to think that some in this country have lost sight of just why this country is worth protecting, and in losing sight of that those folk have set out to destroy exactly those things that are worth protecting, chief among which is that idea that people get to worship (dress, talk, etc.) anyway they like short of actually hurting other people.

Manufacture comparisons? Sorry. I didn’t manufacture anything. I put one picture next to another.

Again with the propaganda. You really ought to look into just what that means. Quoting you doesn’t count.

14 On July 21st, 2007, Lakejen said:

Well, why only the Muslims. Name pretty much any religion you can think of and you’ll find violence and hatred performed in the name of it. Surely the Jews should go as well. And what about those Hindus? And, yes, those damn Christians. Christianity is well on par with Islam when it comes to violence, hatred and prejudice. In fact if you had to throw out all immigrants (or their descendants) from the USA surely there would be no one left but the original Indian population. Come to think of it, the buffalo should probably gang up and throw those pesky Indians back across the Bering Strait to where they originally came from.
Somehow I think that that in many ways would make the USA a nicer place.
Let me point out that historically nothing good has ever (never ever ever) come out of those regimes who have tried to throw out, oppress or downright kill certain part of their populations, usually based on fairly arbitrary criteria (e.g. in Nazi Germany you were Jewish if you were 1/8 Jew, not if you were 1/16). The problem is of course, that once you start there essentially is nowhere to stop. Once civil liberties are removed from one group, they pretty soon disappear from the rest of the population. This is not a law of nature, but historically I think it is pretty much without exception
Once the Muslims have been thrown out, will all USA’s problems be solved? Of course not, so then you’d have to throw out the friends of the Muslims. And then the friends of the friends. Foehammer could find himself on the wanted list sooner than he thinks After all you are never separated by more than 6 degrees from anyone on the earth – he is a friend of a friend of …….. of a Muslim (in fact he is more than likely related to a Muslim person, albeit very far out).
Indiscriminately throwing out/oppressing/killing a certain group of people is just not a solution to anything. Why doesn’t Foehammer get down to solving some of USA’s real problems like illiteracy, poverty or the failing medical system (just saw Sicko yesterday – very scary).

15 On July 21st, 2007, themaiden said:

Lakejen,

Hi. Did you see the post I put up about the video you sent me? Damned Fools. Those Atheists.

Yes, I know. Pick a religion and you can find violence. Christianity’s violence is mostly in the past now, so that doesn’t count right? Or its in Africa or the far East or something, so that doesn’t count either? Or maybe the violence is more subtle? If you think trying to cripple a person’s ability to run a business– the house a family, clothe kids, feed mouths– isn’t violence your cracked.

And yes, history is full of “lets cleanse the country of this or that bad group” and it has always ended badly. I should make a list.

16 On July 21st, 2007, 1389 said:

You don’t understand, or perhaps more accurately, you refuse to understand.

I won’t address your purple prose, your ad hominem attacks, or your misleading artwork (using the term loosely).

The fact is that we are not motivated by hate, nor are we looking to hurt Muslims or anybody else.

We simply intend to protect ourselves and others from being harmed in the name of Islam.

As an Orthodox Christian, my own religion compels me to proclaim what I believe to be the truth, and not to hide it, not to lie about it, and not to pretend that there is no such thing as truth.

That includes telling Muslims and everybody else that I believe my own faith to be true, and that I believe that it would also benefit them to join me in my faith. Yes, even if both I and they end up being assassinated by somebody because of my having talked someone into converting - it’s still worth it.

If you want to go ahead and paint us as Stalinists or Nazis, that says a lot more about you than it does about us.

17 On July 21st, 2007, JR said:

1389, the people quoted in this post aren’t proclaiming their own faiths to be true to people of other faiths like Muslims, they’re talking about the forced deportation of the entire Muslim community from both this country and others. If you yourself support such a move then you’re mimicing the Nazis all by yourself, with no ‘painting’ from anyone else.

18 On July 21st, 2007, themaiden said:

1389,

“Purple prose… ?”

Hmm… the ‘pot calling to kettle black’ factor is running pretty high here.

You might should also reflect upon the fact that most of the prose on this page isn’t mine. Its quoted from Foehammer.net. If there is “purple prose” well there is your source.

“Ad hominem… ?” You folks should look up the term. For example, Foe says “Prejudice in action? Of course”. I say, “Foehammer suggests we practice intolerance.” Foe says, “refuse to patronize any establishment that is run or owned by Muslims, from gas stations to convenience stores, dry cleaners to restaurants to specialty grocery stores and the like.” I say, “Foehammer suggests we practice intolerance.” Hmmm… personal attack? I think not. Flattering? Certainly not, but personal attack? No. Quoting someone doesn’t count. If he said something unpleasant it isn’t ad hominem attack to quote him as having said it.

I don’t, frankly, care what you are motivated by or what you are looking to do. It seems that you– well, Foe at least and you defend him– are willing to harm innocent, that is ‘law abiding’, citizens in the name of protecting yourselves. I find that objectionable. If that isn’t the case, then the rhetoric ought to change from “refuse to patronize any establishment that is run or owned by Muslims” to ‘refuse to patronize any establishment that is run or owned by someone who has been proven to have broken the law“. Then I’d be right there with you. Find some evidence that someone has in fact supported terrorists or is a terrorist then, sure, arrest that person. Put ‘em in jail. Kick ‘em out. But “All Muslims are dangerous. Kick out all Muslims is nonsense.”

I didn’t paint, or suggest, that anyone is a Stalinist or a Nazi. The connection I made explicitly was with ‘totalitarianism’. ‘Totalitarians’ can be any number of things besides Stalinists or Nazis, though those are the shining examples in recent history. Louis XIV was a totalitarian as well. The Roman ‘First Citizen’ August was a totalitarian in practice, but cleverly refused the title.

And as JR has already noted, I’m the art critic. I’m not the painter. Sorry. If the implications are unpleasant, change the rhetoric.

19 On July 21st, 2007, themaiden said:

1389,

I have to add…

Much as JR said, preach your religion if you must but that is a complete red herring. I’m not complaining about you or anyone else preaching or practicing their religion. In fact, if someone tried to stop you from practicing your religion– nauseating as I may personally find it– I’d be on your side in the fight.

Its odd, 1389, you assert your right to religion but seem to be siding with someone who would restrict a person right to practice the religion of their choosing, in the manner of their choosing– note for example, Foe’s crying foul over a headscarf. If that headscarf were, say, a crucifix would the discrimination hit home a little more?

20 On July 22nd, 2007, Foehammer said:

‘Manufacture comparisons? Sorry. I didn’t manufacture anything. I put one picture next to another.’

You actually believe the tripe you type, don’t you? It doesn’t matter that you are drawing conclusions for readers based on inference, which is textbook propaganda. Let me fix this mischief finally.

Case-in-point: the true reason why hammers are used in those posters and why the hammer is used as symbolism on my Anvil is because the hammer is an age-old, millenia old symbol of the WORKER. The hand shooting upwards on my site is actually captured from an American WW II workers’ poster and the star-spangled cuff is from Uncle Sam from a separate but similar workers’ poster. I suppose it also escaped your notice the shadow that that hammer is casting is the arm of the Statue of Liberty.

There is NO similarity whatsoever between the ideologies of the “workers” in the posters you plastered here as propaganda and the ideologies of the “workers” represented by the symbolism on the Anvil. What you are doing here amounts to libel against me and I have warned you that I do not take kindly to it.

You and your friends here make the most classic mistakes that I have editorialized about on the Anvil too many times to remember: 1) inference does not equal truth and 2) equivalence-seeking is a disease of ignorant minds with a preordained agenda.

http://foehammer.net/2007/01/inference-does-not-equal-truth.html

http://foehammer.net/2007/06/there-is-no-equivalence-here.html

Not specific to the details of the propaganda and ignorance you are applying here, but still close enough to serve as lessons.

Lastly, I find it quite disgusting that atheists who aspire to be intellectually aware are so cowardly and unaware that you believe it better to ignore all religions equally than to defend against one grand cult that would destroy all our rights regardless of our personal spiritual beliefs or lack thereof. You had better start reading H. Fitzgerald and C. Hitchens if you want to actually come into the realm of atheists worth reading.

You’ve only got about 20 years of study and living life to go and you’ll begin to catch up to them. The sun is out. Hit the library or grab your laptop, find a tree and then get to work.

21 On July 22nd, 2007, Foehammer said:

‘Indiscriminately throwing out/oppressing/killing a certain group of people is just not a solution to anything. Why doesn’t Foehammer get down to solving some of USA’s real problems like illiteracy, poverty or the failing medical system (just saw Sicko yesterday – very scary).’

Please find where I have ever called for the ‘killing of a certain group of people’ anywhere in anything I have ever written. Again, you people here overstep the entire point of boycott and you do not even understand its roots.

Next you’ll be calling Ghandi and Thoreau ‘Nazis’, too. Hyperbole: the favorite tool of the regurgitating soap-box pundit.

22 On July 22nd, 2007, lakejen said:

Foehammer: the ’killing of a certain group of certain people’ part wasn’t particularly aimed at you, though I admit that that wasn’t clear from the context and I do apologize for that. It was meant as a general statement on oppressive regimes, be it secular or religious, and I only used it because there are such obvious parallels between the rhetoric you use on the Anvil and the rhetoric that these regimes use(d).

Why on earth would I call Gandhi a Nazi? As far as I remember Nazism was the government picking (extremely violently) on a specific part of the german people while Ghandi was the leader of the Indian people fighting (largely non-violently) the unjust and undemocratic British rulers. To me that seems to be pretty much exact opposites.

Could I ask one question (which is probably answered somewhere on your website, but I unfortunately don’t have time to read it all right now): What exactly is it that you want? I think I understand you reasons (Islam being a suppresive, bacwards and hateful religion) but I am not entirely sure what you want done about it, so if you could just sum it up briefly I would much appreciate it. Thank you

Themaiden: Yes I did see your post on us damned fools. Thought you’d have a field day with that one, though it was almost too easy

23 On July 22nd, 2007, themaiden said:

Foe,

You actually believe the tripe you type, don’t you?

This is a surprise to you? Why is that? Do you not believe the things you write?

Hmmm… “drawing conclusions for readers based on inference” is called ‘thinking’ or ‘reasoning’. It is virtually all ‘inference’, more formally called ‘induction’. Grab a logic book. Talk to a logician. Break the ice with Wikipedia. Did you, for that matter even read the link you provided to your readers? That link is chock full of “deriving the strict logical consequences of” and “possesses some degree of probability relative to the premises” and “the act of reasoning from factual knowledge or evidence” and “the act or process of inferring; specifically : the act of passing from one proposition, statement, or judgment considered as true to another whose truth is believed to follow logically from that of the former”. The only negative example is this: “something that is inferred: to make rash inferences.” If you pay attention, the negative bit “to make rash inferences” isn’t a definition it is a usage example, a sentence fragment meant to show a person how to stick the word in a sentence. If you think propaganda is based on inference you are way off the mark.

What you are looking for in regards to propaganda is ‘appeal to emotion’. That is the base of propaganda. Which brings us to…

Yes. Of course the hammer of a symbol of the worker. Any good communist will tell you that. It is funny that you deny any association yet give the same justifications. Why is the hammer chosen, Foe? Appeal to emotion. Appeal to the masses. Appeal to the downtrodden. And so on and so forth. In other words, it is a good propaganda move. And dressing it up with hyper-patriotism? Classic textbook propaganda. Thanks for running through that. You’ve got to wonder, as I said, why it is so popular in totalitarian propaganda, though, and why it is so unpopular with the British and the Americans. If it is such a happy neutral symbol of the worker, why is that? That is a fair question. More relevant, perhaps, is this: Why, after the brutality that has been committed under that banner, would anyone chose to use it? I mean, if I put a swastika up here and swore up and down that it was a Hindu religious icon while at the same time railing against the Jews, or the blacks, or the Catholics, or any number of other groups, how convincing would it be? I might have gotten away with it in 1900, but now? Not a chance. Symbols are associative. They gather connections and carry them around. Thats why they work. That is why they are symbols.

And no, the symbolism isn’t proof of anything in any hard sense. It is suggestive. It is a curiosity. The proof is what you write. That is why that part came first. I could quote you all day long and it would look far worse for you than any image. I’d have probably never commented on the symbolism had you not printed things like “prejudice in action? Of course” and “just refuse to patronize any establishment that is run or owned by Muslims“.

Now… I don’t think you are an ideological Nazi, certainly not a Communist, and also pretty likely not a Japanese Imperialist. I never said so. The reference I made was to ‘totalitarian’. Symbols aside, you’ve got some frightening symptoms, whether you think so or not. Intolerance? Classic tool of the totalitarian. Hyper-patriotism? Classic. Propagandistic appeals to ‘the people’? Absolutely classic. And using the same damned symbolism as the regimes of the recent past? Wow! Chasing out the ‘bad’ people? Also quite classic. Sorry. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck… You’d have me believe it is not a duck? No dice. The safe bet is that is a duck. Second runner up is that it is closely related.

Even if you are not ideologically totalitarian– and you are probably not– you are pushing policies that would push the country in that direction. Close enough, I say. You are pushing behavior that restricts the freedom in my country, and forces it toward your ideal. Where do you think that leads? “Happy Freedom Land”? Not in the least… unless you happen to be one of the chosen. The rest of us are screwed. That is the point. The point isn’t to injure you. It isn’t libel as you seem to think. It isn’t malice. It is “you are trying to push this country in a very frightening direction” and I don’t like it. The ideas, Foe… the ideas I care about. You I don’t. As I said earlier, I don’t even particularly dislike you on any personal level. I dislike what you print.

As for the two articles you cite, the first is a rant about a Muslim being sworn in on a Quran– “I view the inclusion of a Muslim into the United States Congress bad enough… etc. etc.”. In it you assert that “inference-does-not-equal-truth”, as in the title but in no way support the statement. The second is an assertion of racial superiority– that ‘race’ being Western civilization, of course. Racism is really very much cultural.

You’ve only got about 20 years of study and living life to go…

My but we think a lot of ourselves don’t we?

24 On July 23rd, 2007, themaiden said:

Tell you what, Foe. I’ll pull the pictures. Anyone interested can Google search for themselves, and you can talk a little about that “let’s financially harm people who haven’t broken the law” part. That’s more than fair.

25 On July 24th, 2007, Foehammer said:

Well, by removing those pictures you’ve at least shown some integrity. I’ll give you that.

As for boycott “harming” people of a certain section of society, that’s the whole point to boycott — to apply financial pressure and thereby become the catalyst for social change.

Let me answer two questions directed at me from above with one statement: I firmly believe we are in a war with Islam and my goal is to see that the non-Muslim world wins.

Now, we can continue down the road of appeasing Muslims and allowing that 7th century backwards, unreformed theocratic and political ideology to flourish in our midst out of a sense of guilt and fear because we don’t want to be labeled as “racists” (which in itself is of course inane), or we can open our eyes and take a stand for what is right. Men and women are dying overseas everyday to Islamic jihadists and the machinations of states like Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. We’re probably on the verge of seeing another Islamic state win independence in the Balkans (Kosovo) because our politicians (especially George W.) are short-sighted fools and bent on appeasement of an enemy willing to do whatever it takes, for however LONG it takes to Islamize us. I am just part of a very small chunk of the blogosphere and the writing world that is not afraid to actually invest in the idea of confronting Islam without apology and showing others that it is worth doing.

You may continue to dislike what I print, but until you actually understand the conflict at hand, your opinion of what I print matters about as much as the whisper of the lawnmower I faintly hear outside my office — it’s slightly annoying but it will stop when it runs out of gas.

And Foe-hammer is a sword. There you have it. I am a weapon of war and of a righteous spirit, not of the worker. The hammer motiff represents MY labor and my incessant beating of a dead-horse, which is always what is required in order to get through thick skulls such as the ones you aim to please here, and of course your own.

You’re learning, like it or not, but whether you ever learn enough about what I am railing against, that’s entirely up to you.

26 On August 5th, 2007, themaiden said:

Foe,

As for boycott “harming” people of a certain section of society, that’s the whole point to boycott — to apply financial pressure and thereby become the catalyst for social change.

So, in fact, you’ve verified and justified my criticisms. What you haven’t done is explain exactly how you justify harming people who’ve not committed any crime, other than the ‘crime’ of being Muslim.

You may continue to dislike what I print, but until you actually understand the conflict at hand, your opinion of what I print matters about as much as the whisper of the lawnmower I faintly hear outside my office — it’s slightly annoying but it will stop when it runs out of gas.

Brilliant Foe! “Until you agree with me I don’t have to listen to you.” Utterly, myopically, insanely, close-mindedly brilliant!

And Foe-hammer is a sword. There you have it. I am a weapon of war and of a righteous spirit, not of the worker.

And so, then, the spiel about the ’symbol of the worker’ was just crap? My guess about the hammer being a tool for smashing– i.e. a weapon of war– was in fact correct?

Very interesting string of confessions, Foe. It is almost like you are confessing to all the things you’ve objected to in previous comments.

27 On August 6th, 2007, heather said:

Hi hell,
I want to express my respect to you for a good post and some excellent sane arguments, especially in the face of MC Hammer’s bizarre intimidation.:-)
Was intrigued enough by these people to visit 1389’s site. …oh dear…..

28 On August 6th, 2007, themaiden said:

Thank you Heather.

I’m fond of WhyDontYou.org.uk, by the way.

29 On August 21st, 2007, Rev. Jim Sutter said:

I find it very ironic that Foehammer rails against what he sees as the “evils of Islam” and the “danger” of all Muslims, lumping them all in with the worst of the Islamist terrorists who want to crush religions other than their own, remove freedom of religon, freedom of expression and the Constitution - yet this is exactly the same that Foehammer advocates. He wants to eliminate the Constitutional protections of freedom of religion, freedom of expression, he wants to send American-Muslims to concentration camps, he wants to eliminate the religion of Islam, he wants to make practicing Islam a crime, and (as with most other bigots) he so desperately only wants Free Speech to apply to him, and no one else - especially not anyone who has the audacity to disagree with him. Foehammer seems to be seeking the same goals as the worst of Islamist extremists.

30 On August 22nd, 2007, themaiden said:

I know, Jim. I find it a bit amazing too that Foe feels he has the right to rant and rave viciously against anyone he likes but gets bent out of shape over a wee bit of criticism– thin skin for such a mighty warrior of truth.

31 On August 22nd, 2007, Foehammer's Grey Matter | hell's handmaiden said: