You Don't Have To Be a Muslim To Be Furiously Denounced, But It Helps

It seems like The Encyclopedia of Decency is in trouble with the chardonnay-swilling, braying, hooray Henry bien-pensant community again. Brie-scoffing, pony-trotting posho elitist Penny Laurie posts these words about us at The Samosa...

The Encyclopedia of Decency has pursued what has been seen as a "witch hunt" against any Muslim or Muslim-ally who does not fit the site editors' strict definition of "moderation"; to whit, near non-involvement in politics.

Oh dear, that old failure to distinguish between two entirely different, obviously unconnected things again. Laurie's unfounded accusation that we engage in politically-motivated smear campaigns and ad hominem attacks on dissenters is exactly what we'd expect from a painfully right-on upper middle class permastudent with a great, throbbing boner for Islamist fascism.

Let's get this clear. The Encylopedia is - inter alia - a website to which those individuals who hold deranged, belligerent hardline right wing views on a wide variety of national and international issues are welcome to contribute, provided they are willing to coat their wingnutty babble in a thick layer of faux-lefty bullshit about anti-racism.

We're against baleful theocratic conspiracies against democracy that threaten to hold the scimitar of head-chopping Islamic law to the neck of the human race, and we pull no punches in writing snotty blog posts about those who are in favour of such set ups, no matter how Muslim they are.

In short - you don't have to be a Muslim to be repeatedly and vociferously denounced as a brutal threat to peace and freedom in a frenzied circle-jerk of ever-increasing paranoia, but it helps.

I should clarify something else too. The Encyclopedia is not a racist hate site, although anyone who came here looking for endless, inflammatory booga-booga scaremongering about one particular minority religious group certainly wouldn't be disappointed.

The Encyclopedia is more of a voluntary police action aimed at a) defining our own fucknut, rah-rah pom-pom waving for one-sided violence as the outermost boundary of acceptable opinion and b) sending great snarling packs of feral right wing bigots snapping at the heels of those with the temerity to differ.

Nonetheless, it is far easier to portray these attacks on our race-fixated commentariat as the effete affectations of politically correct liberal woofters than it is to directly address the issue of our obvious witch hunting bastardry, so let us slyly gloss over the Samosa's entirely accurate accusations of McCarthyism.

So, in summary, Penny Laurie is - like most with the effrontery to criticise our monomaniacal zeal for partisan condemnation - very, very posh. Regular readers will know that the Encyclopedia is published straight from the Stygian blackness of our proletarian coal mine, and its hard-grafting, rough-handed writers do not take well to being ticked off by some tofu munching, proto-lesbian Jemima.

Let us then return to the good work of sniffing out vaguely suspicious opinion for political gain. We can do so secure in the knowledge that our relentless war upon reason, truth and basic human decency is the pinnacle of working class activism, rather than simply a bunch of illiberal, whining ex-Trots camouflaging their rocket propelled rightwards trajectory with a load of mealy mouthed and dishonest waffle about fascism.

Source: Never Mind The Legitimate Criticism - Here's The Bullshit, Marcus at Harry's Place.

When I Called It "Human Rights Watch," I Meant "Watch The Baddies, Not The Goodies"

Guest post by Robert Bernstein, founding chairman emeritus of Human Rights Watch, cross-posted from the New York Times.

As the founder of Human Rights Watch, its active chairman for 20 years and now founding chairman emeritus, I must do something that I never anticipated: I must publicly join a militant wingnut circle-jerk with a mealy-mouthed and disingenuous hissy fit of epic proportions.

HRW had as its original mission to pry open closed societies, but recently it has been issuing reports on the Israeli-Arab conflict that suggest the Israelis have been acting like a bunch of belligerent, bullet-happy lunatics with a huge, throbbing collective hard-on for politically-motivated war.

At HRW, we have always recognised that open, democratic societies have faults and commit abuses. But we saw that they have the ability to correct them - through vigorous public debate, an adversarial press and many other mechanisms that encourage reform.

Of course, some open, democratic societies' faults and abuses can sometimes continue for more than forty years with total impunity, despite showing every sign of being tacit state policy. Such societies may vigorously debate whether state violence should go all the way up to eleven or merely to ten, with the small minority of dissenters being disregarded as traitors and fifth columnists. The press may be adversarial only over the voltage by which neighbouring cities should be zapped, and reform may restrict itself to the quadrennial election of increasingly insane gaggles of paranoid, gung-ho fucknut headbangers, but I think the lesson here is clear.

A democratic nation should be able conduct morally dubious, politically convenient bombing campaigns in heavily-populated areas, then orchestrate its own sham investigation and whitewash exoneration, without having to answer a lot of impertinent questions.

Israel is highly democratic, while the Arab and Iranian regimes are brutal, closed and autocratic, permitting no dissent at all. Ergo, organisations like HRW should so totally, like, cut the Israelis some slack every time they rev up their war machines to drop some seriously righteous whizzbang somewhere in the general vicinity of some terrorists.

At this point, I'd like readers to pretend that they are unaware that HRW prepares a very large number of reports about Iraq, Iran, Egypt etcetera, and to act as if it is in some way suspicious that a human rights organisation would report on massive aerial and artillery bombardments of an essentially incarcerated population.

Dodgy, isn't it?

Anyway, Hamas and Hezbollah are both racist, genocidal organisations, and as such HRW should be aware that this somehow exempts the Israelis from obeying international law in some vague manner that I won't deign to explain in this particular bout of waffling, diversionary boo-hoo.

HRW hasn't been able to verify its reports with the Israeli leadership, largely because the entire state apparatus spent the assault and its aftermath bluntly ordering every concerned organisation, neutral monitoring body and government to fuck off, and take their Geneva Conventions with them. Clearly, if the Israeli military had been committing war crimes, they would have said so by now.

More alarmingly, HRW have had to rely on untrustworthy eyewitness accounts, because the Israelis deliberately closed the battlefield to reporters and international observers. Never mind the fact that eyewitness reports can be biased and unreliable - reporting on a conflict without having been invited to do so is bad manners, and gatecrashing the party with a load of bothersome allegations is just plain rude.

And while we're on the subject of unreliable eyewitness reports, did I mention the fact that a British general was good enough to provide a glowing statement about how the Israelis take great care not to harm civilians while they're dropping several tons of high explosives on them?

This neat juxtaposition between hundreds of eyewitness reports, backed by supporting evidence and analysis, and a British general's offhand one-liner, should tell you everything you need to know about my concerns about HRW's reporting. That's unless you feel that the implication that the former is worthless and the latter obviously truthful is basically dishonest.

So, in conclusion, Human Rights Watch needs to return to its roots by directing all of its attention at the atrocities committed by unaccountable middle eastern tyrants, and essentially grant the Israelis carte blanche to use whatever weapons they like, wherever they like, whenever they like, without raising a whisper of complaint. If not, HRW leaves itself open to accusations of relativism.

That would devalue all of the good work this wonderful organisation does by giving the impression that it's only interested in certain rights violations by a very specific group of people, and we certainly couldn't have that.

"It's Our Generation's Spanish Civil War"
Guest post by Jerry Gorgon, Canadian Decent Front

You know, furious anti-war leftists often stop me in the street and say Jerry, don't you think we should just leave Afghanistan and cheer the Taliban on as they embark on a genocidal rampage of blood-curdling horror?

I just laugh and say Of course not, for the Afghan campaign is this generation's Spanish Civil War, and I shall follow in the footsteps of great leftists like George Orwell by sitting in my study denouncing everyone who says otherwise.

It's usually at this point that they say something like Wait a minute, Orwell didn't do that. He joined a Republican militia, fought in engagements and got shot in the throat, and Why are you rattling on about the Spanish War as if you were some kind of eight-foot tall killing machine, rather than a slightly tweedy dork with a website?

I see that as the very epitome of leftist unseriousness, and I always make a point of saying Why? Because SHUT UP, that's why.

Despite this unreasoning and maniacal aggression, it remains vital that we complete our mission and defeat the Taliban. The fate of the Afghan people is in our hands, and we must stand by them in their hour of need. Failure is not an option.

Afghanistan is every bit as much like the Spanish Civil War as the invasion of Iraq was like World War II; so was the Israel/Lebanon war. It's as similar to the war in Spain as Russia vs. Georgia is to the appeasement of Hitler in 1938, i.e. practically identical.

Of course, one can always count on the defeatists and idiots of the anti-war left to come up with stupid objections. There are no end of fools pointing to the generals and military advisors who say they can't win without more troops, more materiel and more money... As if troops, tanks, helicopters, planes, guns, bombs and money were the most important thing in a war!

We shouldn't be distracted by such waffle. The most important thing is that we win - everything else is a secondary consideration, and no amount of complaining about how there aren't enough soldiers to beat the fascist Taliban changes that.

That's why I draw this astute comparison to the Spanish Civil War. Victory in Afghanistan is vital for the future of democracy in the region, and just as in Spain, it is imperative that other people do their part for the Afghan people.

Thank you.

Administrative Notes 6

Improve Your Argumentative Abilities With This Free Special Edition EoD "Condemnittm" Office Assistant

As a special, one-time-only offer, Encyclopedia readers can now claim this free office assistant for their home computers.

If you struggle to maintain the blazing hostility needed to dish out daily denunciations, Condemnittm will tone up your weak and equivocal tone into furious, fiery and bellicose blasts of bitchy rhetorical bombast.

Condemnittm contains a state-of-the-art Grudge-O-Matictm database, including a comprehensive list of all historical atrocities, animosities, injustices and bellicosities; back-stabbings, land-grabbings, annexations, conflagrations and devastations; all partitions and seditions; bombings, lootings, beatings, shootings, meetings, murders and disputings; Theocracies, hypocrisies and apostasies; Haters, fools, dictators, tools, traitors, race-baiters and reds...

In fact, if it's pissed off somebody, somewhere, Condemnittm has it, ready and waiting to be crow-barred into the discussion or needlessly thrown in the faces of total strangers!

Don't delay - get your Condemnittm Office Assistant today.

"I wouldn't be where I am today without my Condemnittm Office Assistant - truly, a vital tool in dealing with the lugubrious moral idiocies of the modern apologist." - C. Hitchens, writer.

It's No Longer Left vs. Right, But Pro-Western vs. Anti Western

Guest Post By Barry Agricola Coccyx

The distinction between the "Left" and the "Right" right in global politics today is increasingly redundant. The dialectic has given rise to and been superceded by a new dialectic: Pro-Western vs. Anti-Western.

As this new paradigm has arisen, it has become apparent that the Pro-Western factions (or The Goodies, if you will) believe in free markets, the welfare state and liberal democracy, while the Anti-Western movements (let us say, The Baddies) put their faith in sociopathic hatred, mindless violence and psychotic outbursts of bloodcurdling horror.

To appreciate the magnitude of this tectonic upheaval in global politics, one must look back to the dominant political consensus of the Cold War era, when Left and Right moved in two distinct orbits but could put aside their differences and come together in the interests of liberal democracy if so required.

The Cold War Spectrum



With the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, political thought has bashed itself inside out and disappeared up its own fundamentals, and now a coalition of Blairites, former Cold War liberals and Neoconservatives (or Us, if that would be easier) find themselves on the frontlines of a battle for the democratic future of the human species.

A significant portion of the former "Left", however, found itself with no outlet for their anti-democratic impulses, and soon found willing partners in fascist, anti-democratic movements. This motley crew of Islamists, Stalinists and nasty Tories (Them seems apt) squat at the opposite end of the new political spectrum, where their ferocious hatred burns remorseless in the eternal night of their fat, black totalitarian hearts.

The Modern Political Landscape



At first glance, this political labyrinth is a minefield of pitfalls and mantraps, but with the correct ideological maps, torches and crampons it is possible to safely navigate its swift, often treacherous waters.

What cleaves the mere Pro-Western left (Our political allies, if you will) from Muscular Liberalism (Me and my mates) who stand steadfast in the face of this looming menace is the willingness to intervene militarily to protect our values. This "Bright line" neatly demarcates the Muscular Liberal from the merely tepid Pro-Westerner in the new political landscape, and is depicted on the right.

It is only when all of these elements are combined that we can begin to make sense of the threat we face, and the proper position of Decency in this era-defining existential struggle for humanity.

The Muscular Liberal In a Post-Left World

I think it is clear where the Muscular Liberal stands in this fight - proud, upright and unafraid to raise his head, spit in the eye of the enemy and say I will not be beaten, sucked in or jerked around by Fascists!

Our faith in liberal democracy is a mighty weapon, and we must use it to draw a line in the sand against anti-liberal religious chauvanists. The hand of fate has fallen into our laps, and we refuse to spend the Greatest Intellectual Struggle of Our Time tucked out of sight or stuck in the rear.

Thank you for your time.

Muscular Taxonomy

Know Your Decency

A Regular Series

#2 The Adumbrator

An intellect of near-galactic proportions, The Adumbrator is charged with the intellectual heavy lifting of Decentism, focusing the vast power of his remarkable mind upon the threat of modern Horrorism.

Through the use of Thought Experiments, The Adumbrator explores the motivations and manifestations of Atrocitivistic Nihilism, in the context of the impending British Jihadalanche. With only the occasional aside to inform the public of the countless dusky maidens he has selflessly penetrated, he ponders the great unaskable questions of the modern age, such as Have Women Become Too Uppity To Outbreed The Heathen? and There, That's Ten Thousand Words, Will That Do?

"There is a definite urge - don't you have it? - to say 'The Muslim community will have to suffer until it gets its house in order.' What sort of suffering? Chinese burns and wedgies... The infliction of dead arms, further down the road... The flushing of heads down the sixth-form's toilets, until it hurts the whole community and they start bogwashing their children... And if that doesn't work, perhaps a program of sterilisation." - From The Great, Big, Bumper Book Of Adumbration, Vol. II

Muscular Taxonomy

Know Your Decency

A Regular Series

#1 The Working Class Superhero

A titan of authenticity, the Working Class Superhero speaks for his entire social stratum with invincible moral authority, his every pronouncement a testament to the hard-learned wisdom of generations of ordinary Britons.

Appearing in public, onlookers gasp in astonishment at his amazing feats of humbleness, as he holds forth on who is and is not Tory filth, liberal scum, middle class vermin or fascist bastards.

Using the boundless power of his proletarian bona fides, the Superhero defends New Labour, the beloved blue-collar tribunes of the people, from relentless attacks by an unstoppable tide of chardonnay-swilling liberal elitists and ivory tower intellectuals. Armed with only five cursewords and a hideously repellent personality, the Superhero lays waste to the Waitrose-shopping moral relativists who seek to crush the plebians beneath their perfumed heel.

For intellectual sustenance, the Superhero turns to those rough-handed sons of toil Christopher Hitchens and Martin Amis, hanging rapt upon their every word. No matter where they go, they can be sure that the faithful Superhero will be on hand to protect them from hordes of bruschetta-munching hatemongers.

Even when Hitchens finds himself in darkened basements calling for torture and perpetual war, the Superhero will be huffing close behind, all clattering pots and pans, crying "I don't know where you're goin', Mister 'Itchens, but I'm comin' with you!" like some kind of mentally impaired, modern day Sam Gamgee.

For the Working Class Superhero, all considerations are secondary to the need to kill fascists, a term he defines so broadly that it encompasses roughly 60% of the planet's population. Naturally, the Superhero is content to delegate the actual fascist-killing to others, preferring to direct operations from the rear.

In the wider movement of Muscular Liberalism, the Superhero is the lone wolf, the loose cannon, even moved to deny his own Decency on occasion. The deception fools no-one, however, for the Superhero's perpetual hissy-fits and generalised condemnations prove that you can take the man out of Decency, but you can't take the Decency out of the man.