We are in the courts again today, Boston this time, fighting for our free speech rights to oppose jihad and support Israel. I thought you should view this video — Erin Burnett of CNN and I debate the merits of free speech and our ads.
Man begins with the tribe. The tribe is his earliest civilization. It is enduring because it is based on blood. The ties of blood may hinder its growth, the accretion of tradition holds it to past wisdom while barring the way to learning new things, but it provides its culture with a physical culture.
The modern world embraced post-tribalism, the transcendence of tribe, to produce more complicated, but also more fragile cultures. And then eventually post-tribalism became counter-tribalism.
Our America is tribal, post-tribal and counter-tribal. It is a strange and unstable mix of all these things.
The post-tribal could be summed up by the melting pot, a modernist idea of a cultural empire, the E pluribus unum of a society in which culture could be entirely detached from tribe, manufactured, replicated and imposed in mechanical fashion. The counter-tribal and the tribal however are best summed up by multiculturalism which combines both selectively.
Modernism was post-tribal. It believed that advancement lay with abandoning the tribe. Post-modernism however is counter-tribal. It doesn’t just seek to leave the tribe behind, but to destroy the very notion of one’s own tribe as the source of evil, while welcoming the tribalism of the oppressed.
The post-tribal and counter-tribals both felt that the rejection of one’s own tribe was a cultural victory. But where the modernists thought that tribe itself was the evil, the post-modernists think that it is only their tribe that is the evil. The modernists had no more use for the tribalism of any culture than that of their own. The post-modernists however believe that the tribalism of oppressor cultures is evil, but that of oppressed cultures is good. And so they replace their own tribalism and post-tribalism with a manufactured tribalism of the oppressed consisting of fake African proverbs and “Other” mentors.
Counter-tribalism is obsessed with the “Other”. It regards the interaction with the “Other” as the most socially and spiritually significant activity of a society. Counter-tribalists instinctively understand diversity as a higher good in a way that they cannot express to outsiders. They may cloak it in post-tribal rhetoric, but the emotion underneath is the counter-tribal rejection of one’s own identity in search of a deeper authenticity, of the noble savage within.
For the modernists, tribalism was savage and that was a bad thing. For the post-modernists, the savage was a good thing. The savage was natural and real. He was a part of the world of tribe and blood. A world that they believed that we had lost touch with. It was the civilized man and his modernism that was evil. It was the tribalism of wealth and technology that they fought against.
The modernists believed that culture was mechanical, that it could be taken apart and put back together, that fantastic new things could be added, the boundaries pushed into infinity in the exploration of the human spirit. The post-modernists knew better. Culture was human noise. Boundaries defined culture. When they were broken, there was only the fascinating explosion of anarchy and private language. Communications broke down and elites took over. They stepped outside those boundaries and lost the ability to create culture, instead they went seeking for the roots of human culture, for the tribal and the primitive, hoping to become ignorant savages again.
The modern left has become a curious amalgam of the modern, the post-modern and the savage. There you have a Richard Dawkins knocking Muslims for their lack of Nobel prizes and then side by side is the post-modern sneering at the idea that being celebrated by the Eurocentric culture and its fetishization of technology matters compared to the rich cultural heritage of Islam and the savage on Twitter demanding Dawkins’ head.
The same scenes play out on daily commutes in modern cities, where Bloombergian post-tribal social planners exist side by side with Occupier counter-tribals and violent tribal gangs acting as flash mobs in the interplay of liberalism, the left and the failed societies left behind by the systems of the left.
Muslim immigration is a distinctly counter-tribal project. The European tensions over it among its elites, as opposed to the street protesters who make up groups such as the EDL, is a conflict between the post-tribals who envisioned the European Union and the counter-tribals who view it as a refugee camp that will melt down the last of Europe’s cultures and traditions.
Stephanie Banister, 27, a candidate for Australia’s anti-immigration One Nation party, dropped out of the election race on Saturday, after an interview in which she referred to Islam as a country.
“I don’t oppose Islam as a country, but I do feel that their laws should not be welcome here in Australia,” Banister said in a Wednesday interview to the Seven Network. The interview went viral in short order, endowing Banister with the nickname “Australia’s Sarah Palin.”
She went on to tell the riveted—if somewhat horrified—masses that only two percent of Australians follow the “haram” – referring to the Koran – and then voiced her enthusiastic support for kosher food for Jewish people, because “Jews aren’t under haram. They have their own religion which follows Jesus Christ.”
Bet you didn’t know.
On Saturday, Banister withdrew her candidacy for the September 7 election, which she was contesting for anti-immigration zealot Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party in Queensland.
Party leader Jim Savage insisted the resignation came not over IQ issues and her a lack of familiarity with current events, but because of Islamic persecution: “Due to the threats against Stephanie’s family, herself, her children, the abuse she’s copped and the enormous pressure she’s been put under, Stephanie has decided she wants to withdraw from the candidacy for the seat of Rankin,” Savage said.
Fear of persecution appears to be a running theme in One nation. In 1997, founder Pauline Hanson recorded a video which was to be screened to One Nation members and supporters in the event of her assassination.
As a looney lefitist in the NY vandalizes approved ads in the subway, under the guise of “freedom of expression” (while not allowing others to freely express themselves), her message is very clear.
She sides with the savages. She finds it offensive that Jihad is considered “savage.” Savages are those who murder in the name of Jihad; those that murdered the U.S. Ambassador to Libya are savages, those that attacked the World Trade Center are savages, those that stab to death Israeli infants and blow up buses are savages. That’s Jihad.
Mona Eltahawy is an extremely well-spoken, Egyptian-American journalist who has become the g0-to speaker for comments on the Middle East in general, and on Egypt and Women’s issues in particular. A speaker who stays on message no matter what is being asked, Eltahawy’s theme is: former Egyptian President Hosnai Mubarak and those who supported him are always bad, Muslims seeking to control their own destiny are always good and should be supported in the name of freedom and democracy, no matter how reprehensible their actions. Over the past few years Eltahawy has regularly been represented as an expert on such media outlets as CNN, the Guardian (UK), The New York Times and the Washington Post.
Eltahawy was arrested Wednesday evening, September 26, in a New York City subway station because she insisted free speech included her right to deface an ad espousing a message with which she disagreed – Pamela Geller’s anti-Jihad ad discussed and shown here. She also insisted her free speech right extended to spraying toxic paint on a woman, Pamela Hall, who tried to interfere with Eltahawy’s efforts to deface Geller’s ad. And then Eltahawy blamed Hall for interfering with her free speech rights and accused the arresting police officers of interfering with her “non-violent” protest, thereby engaging in anti-democratic activity.
It appears Eltahawy has a singularly self-focused understanding of freedom and democracy. Given her limitations, it is problematic that so many media outlets rely on Eltahawy as an “expert.” It is possible that given her criminal activity Wednesday evening, some will see her convoluted views of reality as casting doubts on past Eltahawy discourses.
The journalist’s inability to recognize why her activity was criminal and subverted the First Amendment, simply because Geller’s anti-Jihad ad constituted speech with which she didn’t agree, is telling.
But this isn’t the first time Eltahawy’s view of reality has been refracted through her own, narrow prism.
Eltahawy is best known for being an ardent activist for women’s rights, a dangerous and valiant effort for a Muslim. She has written about the enormously high percentage of women who have been sexually assaulted in Egypt, as many as 80 percent, and that four out of five Egyptian women have reported being sexually assaulted.
Although Eltahawy has been highly critical and very vocal about the subjugation of women under Islam, when that view bumps up against her global recognition as an articulate spokesperson for the revolutionary Arab Spring, a disconnect takes place.
In the context of the anti-Jihad ads which she defaced, Eltahawy expressed outrage over the use of the term “savage,” to describe Jihadi activity. In her view, the use of the word savage was an insult because she interpreted it to refer to all Muslims. While defacing the ad, she told Hall, who tried to prevent the ad from being damaged, that she was protesting racism, and that Hall was defending racism.
But Eltahawy described Muslims who sexually assaulted and beat her last winter as a “pack of wild animals.” So, was her anger over the use of the term savage, when she described wild, violent Muslims as “wild animals” hypocritical? Not necessarily, because her criticism of the Egyptian police is consistent with her world view. There were numerous reports of women assaulted by the civilian crowds, the revolutionaries, in Tahrir Square, during the Arab spring. And it is in commenting on those assaults that Eltahawy’s hypocrisy is made clear.
Perhaps the best known, to western audiences, of sexual assaults by the Arab spring activists, is the assault on CBS’s Lara Logan. Logan was brutally physically and sexually assaulted by those demonstrating in Tahrir Square crowds in February, 2011.
When Eltahawy was asked to comment on CTV News on the attacks on Logan, she “unequivocally condemned” the violence experienced by Logan. However, the focus of her ire was always pointed back at the Mubarak regime, which was, she said, “known for targetting women.”
Eltahawy even went so far as to insinuate that Logan’s story was in some ways questionable, or at least an anomaly. She also deflected the responsibility for the attack on unnamed others.
“Women I know said it was the safest area in Cairo,” Eltahawy said of Tahrir Square during the demonstrations. But after Mubarak, the area was “open to all, so we don’t know who else was there.”
Pamela Hall is pressing charges against Eltahawy. Her clothing and her bags were damaged by the paint. When reached by The Jewish Press, Hall said she knew who Eltahawy was as soon as she saw her, but she was “surprised” to see her spray painting the ad.
According to Hall, using “paint is a much more serious act than slapping a sticker up and walking away. What was she thinking?”
Pamela Geller, conservative commentator and blogger provocateur, is the executive director of the American Freeedom Defense Initiative. AFDI created and paid for an ad campaign to run in several urban transit systems, in response to anti-Israel ads that ran in the same spaces.
The AFDI ads contain a paraphrase from the philosopher Ayn Rand: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.” It concludes with: “Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”
The ads are already running on the sides of San Francisco buses, they began running today, September 24th, in New York City, and they were scheduled to begin appearing in the Washington, D.C. metro system. However, the DC system balked, citing the violent rioting by Muslims allegedly inflamed by a YouTube video which presents an unflattering view of Mohammad, so Geller initiated an emergency court action at the end of last week to enforce her First Amendment rights.
Because there is so much misinformation both about Geller and her ad, The Jewish Press asked her to explain what her ad means, why it is scheduled to run this week, what the responses to it have been and, most importantly, why she continues to express her views so publicly, when she is repeatedly condemned by virtually the entire spectrum of mainstream media and even by other Jewish and pro-Israel groups.
First, let’s get the chronology and the geography straight.
In late 2010, in Seattle, Washington, anti-Israel groups sought to run advertisements on the side of municipal buses reading: “Israeli War Crimes: Your tax dollars at work. Stop30billion-Seattle.org.” Just before the anti-Israel ads were about to go up, the county executive crafted a new policy banning all non-commercial advertisements. The new policy enabled the municipality to reject not only the anti-Israel ad, but also two counter-ads that had been submitted, one of which was one proposed by Geller, the other one offered by the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
September, 2011, New York
Last September, another series of anti-Israel ads went up in various transit systems including the one in New York City. This ad shows two smiling dads – one Israeli, one “Palestinian,” with their young daughters. The ad copy: “Be on our side. We’re on the side of peace and Justice. End U.S. military aid to Israel.” In other words, American tax dollars is being used to support Israeli militancy and injustice. These ads ran in 18 NYC subway stops for a month, in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx.
That same month, Geller’s organization, AFDI, submitted the anti-Jihad ad. The MTA refused to run it, claiming the ad violated its advertising standards because it “demeans[s] an individual or group of individuals.” AFDI claimed that rejection violated the U.S. Constitution. On September 227, 2011, AFDI, Pamela Geller, and AFDI’s associate director, Robert Spencer, filed suit against the MTA claiming that the transit agency’s no-demeaning standard constitutes “viewpoint discrimination” and is unconstitutional and therefore the MTA’s rejection of AFDI’s ad unlawfully restricted their free speech.
September 2012, New York
On July 20, 2012, Judge Englemayer, the federal district court judge in New York before whom the matter was heard, ruled that the MTA’s prohibition on “demeaning” language is unconstitutional and the ad must run. Significantly, the court ruled that
the AFDI Ad is not only protected speech—it is core political speech. The Ad expresses AFDI’s pro-Israel perspective on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in the Middle East, and implicitly calls for a pro-Israel U.S. foreign policy with regard to that conflict. The AFDI Ad is, further, a form of response to political ads on the same subject that have appeared in the same space. As such, the AFDI Ad is afforded the highest level of protection under the First Amendment.
While AFDI was the victor in the case, Judge Engelmayer threw more than a few crumbs to the ad’s opponents.
For example, there was a fundamental disagreement over the use of the term “savage” – Geller claims it refers only to those committing acts of barbarism against innocent victims in the name of Islam. Judge Englemayer, however, held that a reasonable person could conclude the term referred simply to Muslims.
What’s more, the judge practically wrote a recipe for the MTA to follow for rewriting its advertising policy so that a ban on an ad like AFDI’s could, in the future be upheld by a court.
Radio host Michael Savage has announced he will bring his recently dismissed copyright infringement lawsuit against the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to the U.S. Supreme Court in hopes of making public the Islamic group’s sources of funding.
Savage’s suit – originally filed in San Francisco district court – alleged CAIR illegally published singled-out quotes and audio excerpts from his show regarding Islam, misappropriated his words and used the clips for its own fund-raising purposes, damaging the value of his copyrighted material.
CAIR last year waged a public campaign using excerpted Savage remarks to urge advertisers to boycott his top-rated program. The organization stated its campaign resulted in Savage losing $1 million in advertising.
Part of Savage’s lawsuit alleged CAIR received millions in foreign funding and that it may have been wrongfully acting as a lobbyist or agent for a foreign government, violating the Islamic group’s nonprofit status.
Savage described the group as a “mouthpiece of international terror” that helped fund the 9/11 attacks, a contention strongly denied by CAIR.
His lawsuit was tossed out last month by San Francisco District U.S. Judge Susan Illston, who ruled it is legal to use excerpts of a public broadcast for purposes of comment and criticism.
Illston wrote in her ruling that Savage could try to rewrite the racketeering portion of his suit to better fit the specifics of his case.
Savage’s attorney, Daniel Horowitz, said he is re-working the suit to directly address Illston’s “respectful” ruling. He said the new suit includes over 200 pages of supporting documents, including 200 pages of transcripts of the meeting in which CAIR was founded.
On his program last week, Savage announced that if Illston again rejects his suit, he will bring the case to the higher 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and then to the Supreme Court.
“I’m going to open up this case. I’m going to sue CAIR. I’m bringing a lawsuit back against them. It’s going to cost me a fortune. And when Judge Illston rejects it again, which she will do because she’s a minion of the Bill Clinton crowd, I’m going to take it over her head and I’m going to go to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, where again I’m going to hit a stone wall. And then I’m going to take it to the Supreme Court until eventually I force CAIR to describe who their funding sources are,” Savage said.
Savage pointed to CAIR’s recent complaint against the Abercrombie & Fitch clothing company for not hiring a Muslim woman dressed in a head scarf as evidence the Islamic group is expanding its targets beyond talk radio.
The woman applied for a job in Oklahoma City. The local Abercrombie manager allegedly said a scarf “does not fit” the company’s image.
“Don’t you understand what they’re doing to this country?” asked Savage. “First they came for Michel Savage and you didn’t raise your voice and you laughed. Then they came after Abercrombie and Fitch and you didn’t raise your voice because you weren’t in the retail business. Tomorrow they’ll come after you and your business.”
Addressing CAIR directly, Savage warned: “One day you’re going to hit the wrong judge in the wrong city at the wrong time and then the American people are going to find out where your funding is coming from.”
The radio host urged listeners to make online donations at his website, michaelsavage.com, to help fund his lawsuit.
In May 2007 CAIR was identified by the government as an unindicted co-conspirator in a case involving the Holy Land Foundation. Federal prosecutors listed CAIR under the category of “Individuals/entities who are and/or were members of the US Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee and/or its organizations.”
The government also listed Omar Ahmad, CAIR’s founder and chairman emeritus, under the same category.
CAIR is registered as a nonprofit organization recognized as tax-exempt under IRS codes that restrict “lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.” On its website, CAIR claims it receives no foreign government support.
Tanks keeping illegal immigrants from U.S. borders? Nukes dropped on terrorist sanctuaries? Iraqi insurgent strongholds barb-wired and then decimated?
That’s just a glimpse into the future should ultra-opinionated radio host Michael Savage have his way and become the next leader of the free world.
The top-rated talker announced last month that he may leave the airwaves and join the political zoo by running for the nation’s top office. Since then, more than five million people have affirmed that they want him to seek the presidency according to an online opinion poll conducted by Savage Productions (www.savage-productions.com/ webpoll_savage_president.html).
In an interview with The Jewish Press, the radio personality spelled out his official presidential policies on some of today’s burning issues:
Regarding U.S. border control, Savage favors stationing the National Guard along America’s periphery “with orders to shoot to kill.”
“I’d also put tanks on the border if necessary,” he said. “I’d reinforce the border after making sure we still have a border following so many years of it’s having been melted down under George Bush.”
Savage’s formula for winning the war on terror is simple: “My platform would be nuke ‘em and rebuke ‘em. Hit them hard. Hit them fast and get out of the Middle East. Teach them we are the most powerful nation on earth and when our interests and their interests conflict, we are going to win.”
The talker maintains America can “absolutely” be victorious in Iraq.
He said as president he would “send maximum force into the Sunni triangle and after giving them 72 hours to evacuate their women and children, turn on the Sadar City area and not go door to door, but decimate the entire area after barb-wiring the place and letting the women and children out.”
Following his prescribed military campaign, Savage said Iraq would be divided into four quadrants as determined by the League of Nations after World War I.
He then turned to Iran, calling it a “great nation of great people,” but deeming Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “an anomaly, the Hitler of our time.”
Savage advocated an international coalition unified against Ahmadinejad to ensure Iranians “have a chance to live in freedom and peace.”
Savage said his presidential candidacy can do no harm, since the GOP in its current state is “incapable of winning.” He knocked all the current Republican candidates as “good Republicans and bad conservatives. None of them evidence much of a conservative orientation.”
While Savage is mulling a run, vice-presidential candidates shouldn’t be lining up just yet.
“I’m just exploring,” he said in a previous online interview. “I could not continue to do my radio show. I’ve been told that once you’ve declared yourself a candidate and you’re openly running, you have to give up your career in the media for obviously good reasons.”
Savage is the nation’s third-most popular talk-show host, reaching approximately 8 million fans listening on more than 370 stations weekly. His show is consistently ranked one of the nation’s most influential, and is rated number one in multiple major city markets, including his home base in San Francisco.
The Talk Radio Network host often sparks national news. Savage was credited with bringing the Dubai Ports World deal to national attention. The deal would have turned over U.S. port operations to the Middle Eastern company. A public outrage ensued, forcing Dubai Ports World to scuttle its plan.
Savage has written a series of best sellers, the latest of which, The Political Zoo, is a satirical criticism of both Republicans and Democrats.