An examples of radical laws and discrimination exposed.

One topic that has started flowing around the so-called anti-jihad sites is the decision by the European Court of Justice to force Britain from the discriminatory law of restricting Social Security benefits to the wives and families of convicted terrorists.    It was imposed by former Treasury Minister Ed Balls.

One blog that I do comment on, known as “The Battle for Britain – Islam on the march” and get a fair hearing and often interesting debate, has such an item and I have made the below comment.  I am sure that any response will be interesting and I may expand this item by adding the responses and going somewhat in-depth into the views (and motives) that some may have.

donny2811 said

May 3, 2010 at 13:57

I agree with the decision by the court and I hope it is followed.

Social Security is designed to support those without sufficient income, if the family of known terrorists are not gaining any other income, why should they be “discriminated” against? If they should still be in the country and their immigration status being terminated is another subject and I am all for that to be carefully reviewed, but if they are legally allowed to be in the country and obtain Social Security then there is no grounds to make them different.

To believe the contrary, then there should be equal consideration that the families and spouses of any criminal, of any race or religion, should also have their benefits cut – there is no difference.

Hopeless Fools or Ugly Bloggers?

I add my thoughts to a few blogs, I do not really have the time for them all but when you start it is hard to give up and turn your back on them.   I simply point out my view of how very wrong some of the comments or themes are and since they put so much effort in posting these errors, they do not give in without a fight.  It is rather like duelling then anything else and I do not give in easily, or at all.

What I noticed, and as this is my first subject theme, is that some of them will debate or argue once or twice but when you point out the obvious error – with facts, examples or basic logic – they simply make an outrageous reply, often accusing and even including foul language, then they block your rebuttals.  A clever but rather juvenile way of trying to look good – obviously to themselves alone.

Some blogs are fair in discussion and I accept that in the end no matter how much facts, logic or other evidentiary points you give – they will disagree because of the environment they are in or that they simply “want to believe” the rubbish they have been fed.  

In some areas, it is just opinion if it is radical or not, or if being radical over a subject is justified or not.  I give credit to those that stick to their guns with logical-driven responses, we may not agree in those areas but they are trying to “think about it” and that is good.  I am on two such blogs and I will discuss some of our debates.

Recently I was “link jumping” these so-called anti-jihadist blogs and came across a silly blog with the rather hypocritical name “The Astute Blogger“.  The name is actually in All-CAPS and so are many replies and comments – so much for basic blogging and internet standards……    The blog is owned is an Israeli-American (not that it makes a difference to me) with views that are basically odd, confused and contradictory.  What I quickly found out is that the blogger does not read comments at all but reads the first line only, assumes incorrectly what is said and then goes on some tirade that is half subject oriented (and not necessarily the topic) and half verbal abuse, swearing and accusing the commenter who disagreed, such as myself.   Make a comment that is not supportive of Israel and then the foul language increases to a point of sheer childishness and of course your accused of being anti-Semite.   From this we can come down to the conclusion that the blog-owner is a bigoted idiot with no self-respect at all and has been covered in flour and dipped in a large vat of oily zionist propoganda.   I guess the biggest example of his contradictions is that it has a banner for “I support Israel “(no problem in that, to a degree I do as well) and under it is a banner showing a picture of that young Iranian lady Neda that was brutally killed in the recent rallies in Tehran, Iran.  Somehow, as a basic average young hijab-wearing Iranian, she would more than likely be anti-Israel or at best with similar views of my own and most certainly would have been called many ugly and horrible vulgar names by the blog-owner if she had responded to his rubbish.  Now her picture is there on his blog as if in a place of honor – for what logical reason is beyond common sense.    I lasted two rounds with the blog owner on some basic subjects and now my responses never turn up, his ugliness is there to read hung-up-dry without pointing out his comments were simply insane.

The so-called Astute Blogger is the first of what we can class as hypocritical-come-insane-radical.

Welcome to Blootstellen

Blootstellen in my language means “exposure” and it is a big part of what this blog is about.   I have a huge dislike for radicalism in all its forms and in the present polarized world we live in – radicalism flourishes – everywhere.  I simply wish to expose it, discuss it and debate it.  That is what this blog is about.

When we hear the word radical we think mostly of politics and religion and that in most instances is correct.  Often we in the west also assume that radicalism is harmless and fringe and that only outside the west does it dominate life.  In most cases that is also correct, but not always.  Memories are short and in today’s media and internet-dominated society, even small fringe radical groups with a budget and a clever blog supporter group not only gets a larger than deserved hearing but they can distract, muddle and confuse issues that are really important.  They can also add fuel to the fire and in some cases become the excuses and justification for the actions of those radicals that they target.

In this blog I will attempt to vent some opinions, expose examples of bloggers who willingly or without knowing it are pawns of real radical low-lifes and to give some examples of radicalism at its worst.

I am not interested in self-gratification or making something of a name for myself in fact I was not planning to make a blog at all.    Most certainly, I am not the topic of this blog but I do have experiences both professional and personal that are relevant and having lived and worked in many places prudent to this topic – it will come out.   

Included in my definition of radicalism, and thus a part of this blog will be racism, bigotry, anti-Semitism, islamophobes, fascists and self-claimed anti-jihadists.  I also place in the  same radical title radical muslim groups, genuine political-islam, anti-integrationist “euro-muslims”, fundamentalist evangelical christians, hard-line Zionists and  ultra-orthodox jews, neo-nazis and white supremacists.  I have no issues with political sidings, race, faith, colour or preferences – in fact that is the colours that make up this world – I do have issue when one of these groups either imposes their views on others or unjustly attacks others for the sole purpose of selling their own as the only alternative.

My own choices, preferences and faith is exactly that – my own.  I am of the centre-right of politics, I support common-sense conservative values but allow space for change when change is needed, not because it is possible as often many on the left like to do.  My agnosticism yet strong belief in God is a personal thing and though I support religious structure, so far I have found little but self-absorbing or closed-in organizations keen on nothing but control over its followers and hiding errors rather than repairing them.

So beware those with a radical view, even if your goal is to target an obvious danger and evil – fighting one evil with another has and never will work.  If you fight something radical, remember that the opposite of radicalism is normality and thus it is only with normality as the focus and the tool that you can fight it.

You will hear from me many times over  two phrases that I consider important and reflective of my views.  The first is “that two wrongs never make a right” and that radicalism in religion is summed up as “a willingness to alter their faith to suit their politics and not the other way around”.   Understand these two points and you understand me completely.

Grootjes

Donny van den Helm

Rotterdam