The European Sickness

/ October 25, 2018

Well, it appears that these days Europe is not just welcoming Islam. It is bending over and bowing to Islam … the latest case in point:

BERLIN (AP) — The European Court of Human Rights says an Austrian woman’s conviction for calling the prophet of Islam a pedophile didn’t breach her freedom of speech.

The Strasbourg-based ECHR ruled Thursday that Austrian courts had “carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected.”

The woman in her late 40s, identified only as E.S., claimed during two public seminars in 2009 that the Prophet Muhammad’s marriage to a young girl was akin to “pedophilia.” A Vienna court convicted her in 2011 of disparaging religious doctrines, ordering her to pay a 480-euro ($547) fine, plus costs. The ruling was later upheld by an Austrian appeals court.

The ECHR said the Austrian court’s decision “served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace.”

Now, it is generally accepted by both Islamic and Western scholars that Muhammad married Aisha when she was seven years old, and he consummated the marriage when she was nine years old. And in Austria, as in the US,  rightly or wrongly this is known as “pedophilia”.

child bride.png

But nooo, in Europe you can’t be honest about Islam. So this poor woman told the truth about the Prophet Muhammad, and for her trouble, she’s been fined and ordered to pay court costs. Disgraceful.

And people wonder why I object to the US having anything to do with any of these kangaroo courts like the International Criminal Court, the ECHR mentioned above, the Court of Justice of the European Union, various UN bodies, and other such collections of vindictive cowards? When a woman can get fined by telling the absolute and agreed-upon truth about Islam, something is terribly, drastically wrong. I don’t want myself or any Americans anywhere near that kind of a dangerous society of vengeful autocratic lunatics.

Shame on the Austrian court for making this ruling, shame on the Austrian appeals court for agreeing to it, and shame on the ECHR for upholding it. You should all hide your heads and not venture out into polite society. Fining a woman for telling the absolute truth? You are a bunch of sick, sick puppies.

All I can say is that I am overjoyed to be an American, because in Europe I’d be in all kinds of legal trouble for my post called The Problem With Islam and the accompanying cartoons. I would assuredly be convicted of “disparaging religious doctrines”, because that is exactly what I did, and proudly so. Here’s a rude truth—if the European courts were actually serious about “hate speech”, they’d have to ban the Koran itself for encouraging rape, torture, and murder … but instead, in Austria I’d be fined for pointing out that undeniable truth about the Koran.

Here in the US, talking trash about any religion is something we are all totally free to engage in … but not in Europe. In Europe, all religions are equal … but clearly, some religions are more equal than others. You can put a statue of the Crucifixion in a jar of urine and that’s considered to be noble high art …

piss christ.png

… but telling the unvarnished truth about Islam will get you into all kinds of legal trouble.

Care for some irony? It was the Austrian victory over the Islamic armies in the Battle of Vienna in 1683 that marked the turning point in the previous Muslim attempt to conquer Europe. And now it is the Austrians who are turning belly-up in the latest Muslim attempt to conquer Europe …

Gotta say, I don’t see why you European folks put up with this for one minute. You need to start yelling and screaming as loud as you can, or you will assuredly be lost in the rising flood …

Meanwhile, here in the forest on our hillside near the coast, the sea fog has burned off and the redwood trees are basking in the sun. I’ve long held that I’m one of the most fortunate men on the planet …

forest sunshine.png

… and contemplating the verdant greenery from the window of my humble abode in America, and reflecting on how I’m not subject to the degenerate court rulings of a bunch of deranged Europeans, I can see no reason to change my mind.

My best regards to everyone, with fervent wishes for freedom of speech for all,

w.

Related posts

59 thoughts on “The European Sickness”

  1. “The European Court of Human Rights says an Austrian woman’s conviction for calling the prophet of Islam a pedophile didn’t breach her freedom of speech”

    She was free to say anything … and then be stoned for it.
    If they stoned her before she said it, that would violate her freedom of speech.
    If they threatened to stone her if she said it, that would be a gray area.

    She called him a pedophile. Someone objected, it doesn’t say, but it does imply someone’s religious feelings were hurt or insulted or questioned, it doesn’t say. The part I think is interesting is that they almost admit that he was, given Aisha’s age; they don’t dispute that. But they do think being called a pedophile is an insult (true or not) which means they do agree that pedophilia is bad. That’s too much thinking. The bottom line is that an insult is an insult, true or not. This way lies Dark Times.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

      • It’s interesting that most people install their woven wire fencing vertical. Install it horizontal and 12″ – 16″ off the ground and the taller critters don’t like it. I think horizontal is recommended for bears and bee hives. Question is what to grow under the fence. Strawberries? Maybe even tilting fence sections for ease of harvest?

        Like

        Reply

      • My grandfather saw a deer jump an 8 ft fence and told me about it when I was little. But, there is a fix for deer jumping fences. Just don’t make the fence vertical. Slant it so that is it much wider than an ordinary fence. They won’t even try and if they do, they are in big doo doo. There are deer in my neighborhood, but I haven’t seen any in our little forest.

        Like

        Reply

  3. “…carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected.” As Orwell would say, “Some rights are righter than other rights.” Where one’s right ends? How far away from the other guy’s nose?

    But feeling offended is anyone’s choice. I choose to feel offended it I want to. But in order to live in harmony sometimes is wiser not to choose to feel offended… or at least no to demonstrate it. Simply, paraphrasing The Beatles, “let it be”…

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  4. Pingback: The European Sickness – Wondering Why

  5. Pingback: The European Sickness – Truth is difficult but essential; to find, to understand, to accept

  6. While I agree that this stupid thing of hurting other people’s religious beliefs should be gone forever and ever from any laws in any country, I am missing a lot of context here, like what were the seminars about? What was the audience? And what point was she trying to make? Was she using her assertion just to insult who some people consider a holy man (reasons be ignored) for being/doing something that, in his epoch, was absolutely normal and likely didn’t cause any harm, because of being considered also normal by the, say, victims?

    Consider the sexual activity of a vast majority of species in the wilderness, which involve what in human terms we would undoubtedly call “raping”. We do not denigrate those species, because in THEIR context, that is a normal, expected and accepted activity. We can tell to our neighbour that his dog is a fucking rapist and we will not be lying, but it is ridiculous. His dog is expected to be what dogs are, and the purpose of calling him something obvious that is extremely bad in human context but not in HIS context can only be to try to hurt our neighbour. It is NOT providing any useful information. It is not telling anyone anything that they don’t know. It is being said for the sole purpose of trying to hurt someone else’s feelings. I can understand that in some places they want to have laws that penalise this.

    Like

    Reply

    • I’m sorry, Nylo, but it is exactly that kind of nonsense about “hurting someone’s feelings” that the founders specifically excluded with the US Constitutional right to freedom of speech. Here in the US, it is perfectly legal to hurt someone’s feelings, and it doesn’t matter one bit what the context is—a seminar, a discussion in private, a speech on TV, not important.

      It also doesn’t make a damn bit of difference whether it is providing any useful information. If it is true, you can broadcast it nationwide, regardless of some snowflake’s precious feelings.

      And that is as it should be. If we were to make hurting someone’s “pwecious feewings” illegal, everything would be illegal—there is always someone out there who will get all butthurt by any given statement.

      So unlike you, I absolutely cannot agree with any country having laws that penalize hurting someone’s feelings, for two reasons. FIrst reason is what I said above—every statement hurts someone’s feelings.

      The second reason is that every law should have what I call a “bright line”. This means it should be very evident to the populace EXACTLY where legal activity turns into illegal activity. For example, the old saying is, “Your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose”. That’s a bright line.

      But where is the bright line regarding feelings? If I say “Where are you from” someone may well jump up and tell me how that is totally insensitive and it’s a “microaggression” that hurts their feelings.

      And crazy as it may seem, this is not just a theory or some ludicrous example I made up—that exact statement is listed here as a microaggression by the Minnesota School of Public Health. Go figure.

      So I’m sorry, Nylo, but using “hurt feelings” as a basis for law is a terrible idea for both theoretical and practical reasons.

      My very best regards to you and yours,

      w.

      Like

      Reply

      • So unlike you, I absolutely cannot agree with any country having laws that penalize hurting someone’s feelings
        I didn’t say that I agree, I actually disagree. I said that I can understand it. I personally prefer that anyone can say anything which is not a lie without fearing legal prosecution. But I am well aware that some things are said with the sole intention of hurting someone else, that hurting is bad, and that some people want to fight anything that is bad. I disagree with this being done at the cost of freedom of speech.

        If I say that America is that country whose people erect statues to slave owners I am not lying. Many of the first american presidents were slave owners and they have their share of statues in prominent places. But this doesn’t make it a correct thing to say. The truth has many shades. Nobody erects those statues for the reason that they were slave owners, in the same way that nobody likes Muhammad because of having married to a 9 years old girl. Using those “sins” as a way to insult those who prefer to look at the characters in a different way, for other things that they achieved that are considered very important, is simply bad. It may not be a lie but it misrepresents what they believe or their reasons for believing it.

        Like

        Reply

        • Nylo you said “If I say that America is that country whose people erect statues to slave owners I am not lying. Many of the first american presidents were slave owners and they have their share of statues in prominent places. But this doesn’t make it a correct thing to say. The truth has many shades. Nobody erects those statues for the reason that they were slave owners, in the same way that nobody likes Muhammad because of having married to a 9 years old girl. Using those “sins” as a way to insult those who prefer to look at the characters in a different way, for other things that they achieved that are considered very important, is simply bad. It may not be a lie but it misrepresents what they believe or their reasons for believing it.”

          The problem is that to be an “orthodox” muslim is to literally believe Mohammad led the perfect life and that no action he took can be condemned and in fact should be emulated to the most of your ability.

          Hence why child brides are still a thing in the islamic world as well as slavery and women as subservient.

          The case has actually been argued that laws banning child marriage and even the concept of age of consent are blasphemy and even if they are on the books are not enforced.

          The point is not to hurt or judge on past sins it is to educate on the very real barbarism being practiced right now in the name of the pedo prophet.

          Like

          Reply

        • Thanks, Ben. You are 100% correct. Here’s the Ayatollah Khomeini on the subject:

          Whoever has a wife under nine years old cannot penetrate her, whether she is his permanent wife or his temporary wife. But other forms of sexual pleasure are allowed, such as lustful touching, embracing, or rubbing the penis on the thigh of the girl, even if she is an infant still.

          SOURCE

          The problem is that this is practiced today. And this issue of sex with nine year olds is not the only issue of this type. I tell people that the Koran and Hadiths say that women should be stoned to death, and half the people or so say “But, but, the Bible says to stone people to death!”

          And indeed it does … but neither Jews nor Christians have practiced it for thousands of years.

          Truly, the problem is what you say—anything that Muhammad did is considered to be just fine. He killed Jews, so it’s OK to kill Jews. He married a six-year-old, so it’s ok to marry six-year-olds. He kept sex slaves, so it’s ok to keep sex slaves. He crucified people for leaving the “religion”, so it’s ok to kill folks for leaving the religion.

          And make no mistake. ALL of those are being practiced by Orthodox Muslims right up to today.

          Read my post entitled The Problem With Islam … it details all of this.

          So no, Nylo. I’m not saying any of this “as a way to insult those who prefer to look at the characters in a different way”. I’m saying this because people who believe in and currently engage in that kind of 7th Century barbarity are DANGEROUS. Look at the history of Islam—they are NOT good neighbors. For the last 1,400 years, they have been trying to wipe the West off the map, and they have not stopped. All they’ve done is change and adapt their tactics, from ISIS to the current “peaceful” invasion of Europe that has led to rapes in Sweden going through the roof, with the women being raped by what are euphemistically called “migrants” …

          So I don’t give a damn if calling the Prophet a pedophile makes someone all butthurt. It is crucial to tell the truth about Islam. We’ve been in a 1,400 year war with Islam, and even though we don’t think that we are in a war … they are quite clear that they are in a war …

          w.

          Like

          Reply

          • It only takes one side to make a war.

            There was a long standing truism that I feel was accurate until roughly 2013 and has since faded.

            The right sees the left as uninformed and irrational and if they could just explain it properly and get people to listen they would understand and see that freedom, personal responsibility and the constitution are the fruit of hundreds of years of trial and error resulting in the best balance of the necessary evil of government.

            In short they are simply naive and need a little guidance. Not our enemies just confused. Ignorance needs education.

            The left sees the right as intentionally ignorant motivated by a hate of all things out side of the protestant christian anglo tradition that must be forced to step forward at every turn. Individuals are inherently pure and are controlled by the environment built around them an entire system of structures that if only aligned perfectly would result in eternal harmony as bad actors would cease to exist. You are not responsible for your actions your circumstance dictates what you do fix the circumstance fix the problem.

            In short they are intentionally and therefore evilly maintaining a system that perpetuates injustice and disharmony. Evil needs to be fought and destroyed.

            One side politically declared war 60 some years ago the other didn’t acknowledge the fight until 2013. This new found fight back from the right has baffled the left not just in the US and is causing a self reinforcing rage spiral.

            I think both sides are wrong neither are the enemy both need more education about history and logic.

            The base theories are diametrically opposed people are either fallen and inherently flawed or they are pure and flawed by institutions. The first is eternal and ancient the second is a relatively modern construct less than 500 years old. I know of no way to compromise these beliefs fully just as you can not have a half dictatorship…….. I have rambled enough at least I didn’t start going on about 1912 and the 17th amendment removing balance from our states and federal levels.

            Like

    • Nylo: “I am missing a lot of context here, like what were the seminars about? What was the audience? And what point was she trying to make? Was she using her assertion just to insult who some people consider a holy man (reasons be ignored) for being/doing something that, in his epoch, was absolutely normal and likely didn’t cause any harm, because of being considered also normal by the, say, victims?”

      The seminars were called “Basic Information on Islam.” The audience was small, about 30 each. They were organized by the Freedom Party Education Institute, said to be right-wing. She included the factual account of Mohammed’s marriage to Aisha. The point she was trying to make was that, although this was considered normal at the time, because Mohammed is considered to be the perfect man and the perfect role model and the Koran is considered perfect and unchangeable, there are Muslim societies today which consider this perfectly acceptable. And that by today’s norms, Mohammed would be considered a pedophile.

      The curious thing here is that some of these comments were made in private or at breaks where less than 30 people were present. 30 seems to be the magic number in Austria; saying something to 30 or more people is considered saying it in public. You might ask which of those people was offended or emotionally scarred by hearing this, and you might wonder how many Muslims were at these “right wing” seminars. The answer is none. There was a journalist from a socialist magazine in the audience and he recorded the seminars and passed them over to the prosecutor’s office. When the judge thought that the charges would not stick, he added additional charges.
      https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2702/sabaditsch-wolff-appeal
      “A Black Day for Austria”

      “If a society is to be a functioning, flourishing, free society, it must safeguard the robust exchange of knowledge and ideas. Absent that, the rule of reason dies, and with it freedom of conscience, equality before the law, due process, property rights, and equality of opportunity.”
      https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/free-speech-sharia-european-court-of-human-rights-ruling/
      Yeah, that has happened before, and a certain Austrian had a starring role in one of them.

      https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/europe-rules-against-free-speech/574369/
      “A Flawed European Ruling on Free Speech”
      “In the current political climate in Europe, where only the most courageous cartoonist would dare to make fun of the Prophet Muhammad, it is hard not to read the ECHR’s ruling as a concession to those who wouldn’t hesitate to interpret E.S.’s comments not just as offensive, but as deserving of a murderous retaliation.”

      The Terrorist Veto. After the Charlie Hebdo massacre, everybody claimed “Je suis Charlie”, but they did not act like it; maybe they meant they were dead/submissive now too. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam —

      Islām is the verbal noun of Form IV of the root, and means “submission” or “surrender”. Muslim, the word for an adherent of Islam, is the active participle of the same verb form, and means “submitter” or “one who surrenders”.

      Like

      Reply

  7. I make a distinction between treating someone differently when they are different from me by way of race, gender, sexuality or anything where they are just born that way. That does not apply to religion, which is a behaviour. I don’t mean faith, but adherence to a man-made set of rules. That set of rules is subject to valid criticism and so are the people who made the rules and those who apply (or enforce) them. I can’t see giving a pass to just any old religion whatever it espouses. The case here relates more to the power of Islam than the actual offence caused or the sanctity of religion per se. Truth and freedom of speech are more important than that.

    Like

    Reply

    • Yes but Islam doesn’t differentiate between religion and the state. Submission is mandatory either as an adherent or an outsider. The Europeans have become cowards because they know that moslems will become violent if you insult their religion or it’s founder.

      The “art” piece of a crucifix in urine created outrage in some people though no one tried to kill the artist, but look at the Charlie Hebdo massacre.

      Like

      Reply

      • Indeed, Bear, the Charlie Hebdo massacre is the “Religion of Peace” at its usual ugly work. That “religion” is nuts. I had to think long and hard before publishing my cartoons in The Problem With Islam. Those guys are nuts … and of course, in Austria, I could probably get arrested and convicted for calling them nuts, for my comments in that post, and for the mere act of publishing the cartoons.

        Scary stuff … and the capitulation of the Austrians is both pathetic and frightening.

        w.

        Like

        Reply

      • I can’t really seem to understand your point. You are making it seem like Islam is a religion that came into existence only 50 years ago. Islam existed long before “states” existed.

        Since you seem to not know much about Muslims or Islam let me educate you:
        True Muslims don’t kill people only the disbelievers do
        It’s MUSLIMS not Moslems
        Muhammad (PBUH) is not the founder of Islam, he is a messenger and a prophet

        Like

        Reply

        • Thanks, Zaki. Not quite sure how you misread my post so completely. A couple of points:

          First, the Prophet himself killed people. Your claim is simply not true. Lots of “true Muslims” have killed people. Sunnis kill Shiites. Shiites kill Sunnis. Simple fact.

          Next, written Arabic has no vowels. So the choice of how to transliterate the Arabic word M-S-L-M into English is totally arbitrary.

          Finally, the first person to practice a religion is called the “Founder” of the religion, whether he is a messenger, a prophet, or just a guy named Joe Smith (who founded the Mormon Church).

          Welcome to the blog,

          w.

          Like

          Reply

          • One thing that’s great about your blog is that I continually learn something new from you and the commenters though not always (ZakiStanford for example). I didn’t know that arabic didn’t use vowel sounds. Translating from other languages and especially ones that are not latin derived and use different scripts is imprecise at best. Hard enough with ones using the Latin alphabet.

            I’ve a smattering of knowledge about Japanese (three scripts: kanji derived from Chinese, hiragana and katakana (both phonetic) plus romaji which attempts to render the kana into the Latin alphabet). Instead of a lack of vowels, there is a lack of pure consonants with each consonant sound attached to a vowel sound (a, e, i, o, u). The only exception being an “n” sound. There are so many homonyms in the language that I’m amazed at how they even communicate at times.

            For another example, consider the spelling and pronunciation of the capital city of China which was Peking for most of my adolescence and is now Bejing.

            Like

        • You may not be familiar with the term “state” in this context. The “state” means the governing body or authority that governs. It can be anything such as a democracy, dictatorship, kingdom, theocracy, or any other group that administers an area. They existed long before Islam or Christianity. Rome was a state, Athens Greece, the Han dynasty, and so was the multiple caliphates that have existed.

          True Muslims don’t kill people only the disbelievers do

          Sorry, that is both historically, and theologically incorrect. As Willis pointed out, the Prophet killed so that statement implies that he wasn’t a True Muslim which I’m sure you couldn’t have meant. Since majorities in both Egypt and Pakistan believe in the killing of apostates there are a lot of people claiming to be Muslim that aren’t true Muslims. Do you accept the scriptures’ punishment for “ridda”? Do you deny that a fatwa was imposed on Salman Rushdie by none other than Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini for some considered insults to the Prophet? Do you know about the attacks on Coptic Christians in Egypt? The knife attacks in England?

          Frankly, you’ve provided no support for your pronouncement. Just an unsupported claim that has a mountain of historical evidence refuting it. That’s not education just propaganda.

          Like

          Reply

        • “It’s MUSLIMS not Moslems”

          Well, since you brought it up, let’s look under that rock.

          In Arabic, it’s مُسلِم‎ (pasted from Wikipedia, I hope that shows up). In any other language, it’s a translation.

          Muslim, Moslem, Mosalman, Mussalman, Mohammedans, Mahometans, Muslimite, Muslimist, Musulmán, Mosalmán, musulmán, Muselmann, musulman, muzułmanin, muzułmański, muçulmano, mussulmano, musulmano, musulman, μουσουλμάνος, Mussulman. Rewriting the lyric of the old standard, “You say Muslim, I say Moslem, let’s call the whole thing off”.

          Moslem was the accepted spelling in the UK — until 9/11. After that, it began to change, from pressure from Muslim groups, so now Muslim is the preferred spelling. Because…

          According to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies,”Moslem and Muslim are basically two different spellings for the same word.” But the seemingly arbitrary choice of spellings is a sensitive subject for many followers of Islam. Whereas for most English speakers, the two words are synonymous in meaning, the Arabic roots of the two words are very different. A Muslim in Arabic means”one who gives himself to God,” and is by definition, someone who adheres to Islam. By contrast, a Moslem in Arabic means “one who is evil and unjust” when the word is pronounced, as it is in English, Mozlem with a z.

          Short and to the point article:
          https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/524

          Long and fluffy article, reporting on the above article:
          https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/01/12/why-j-k-rowling-is-so-incensed-about-rupert-murdochs-tweet-about-moslems/

          Like

          Reply

        • “Muhammad (PBUH) is not the founder of Islam, he is a messenger and a prophet”

          That is assuming that he just echoed what the angels told him and didn’t make it up himself. I believe that just about as much as I believe that Joe Smith just copied down what it said on the gold plates that the angels showed him, or about as much as I believe any of the other people who claim that their God speaks to them and only them. Muhammad was the founder of Islam. Without Muhammad there would be no Islam.

          Quote from Laura Rosen Cohen: “Prophet Steyn PBUH (Pocket Squares Be Upon Him)”.

          Like

          Reply

          • My point is that if you kill someone in a haram way (the only halal way is in religious war or to protect yourself and killing is the only way) you are not Muslim. People think we are lying Allah said that if you slay a person, in a way not stated above, that is enough for you not to be Muslim. This is why Muslims don’t consider terrorist groups like Al-Shabaab, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS non-Muslims. People like the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, the man that conducted the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, a disbeliever. Just cause you pray, fast, pay charity, and celebrate eid isn’t enough to make you Muslim. And Arabic does have vowels they are: ا ر ز د ذ و

            And Muslims don’t actually have a founder because we believe Adam is the first Muslim, who came from heaven meaning he isn’t the founder either.

            Like

          • @zakistanford

            I’m sorry but what do you think the groups you mentioned are killing for? They’re conducting a religious war. Ego they are Muslim by your definition. As I understand it, there is no final authority in Islam such as the Pope for Catholicism. God may not consider them Muslim but they certainly do and many of your religions adherents do too. Go look at the videos of the people dancing in the streets in Egypt when the Twin Towers fell. Basically your argument is that if I agree with you, you’re a Muslim. If I don’t then you’re not. Oh, and let’s not forget the admonition to kill apostates. You seem to have forgotten that in your explanation.

            Like

  8. Has anyone in Austria been fined for calling any of the many convicted Priests a paedophile ?
    Extra marks, surely, for fining a judge ?

    Like

    Reply

  9. What is the greenery invading your carefully built patio? If not desired, it makes me think of the glyphosphate kerfluffle, another European (largely) disease, spreading to this country as well.

    Like

    Reply

    • Not sure what the greenery is. I’ve been keeping it under control with my weed-whacker, but I’ve been considering using Roundup (glyphosate). I don’t believe it’s carcinogenic. The problem is that our cat and our neighbor’s cat both eat those plants … I think I’ll cut them down level with the bricks and then use Roundup on them … maybe tomorrow … or the day after …

      w.

      Like

      Reply

      • ” . . . our cat and our neighbor’s cat both eat those plants … I think I’ll cut them down level with the bricks and then use Roundup on them . . . ”
        The cats or the plants, Willis?
        (sorry, I just had a vision of 2 stump-legged cats covered on Roundup)

        Like

        Reply

          • Dish wash detergent, salt and water. about 2 litres of water, 1/2 cup of detergent, 1/2 cup of salt. Shake well to dissolve the salt and spray weeds. The detergent acts as a surfactant and will break down any waxy leaf surface. The salt will explode the leaf and plant cells.

            Like

          • Roundup: Sorry for the off topic, but I didn’t start this.

            We (meaning 3 couples) bought a little land (5 acres ?) in 1978 and planted wine grapes. The land had not been cared for and was infested with Field bindweed, Convolvulus arvensis.
            UC IPM bindweed

            Roundup was still a one company product. Today generic versions are available.
            We used Roundup – see the above link at ‘Ornamental areas.’
            In 1989 we (wife & I) bought 20 acres of land – some riparian and some sage/steppe. For about one-hundred thousand dollars we got Knapweed, Centaurea diffusa, for about a dollar per plant. We cut, pulled, and sprayed. After 3 years there was a noticeable decrease in the plant. Did I mention it has stickers?

            Since then, I patrol the land (while exercising a Brittany). I’ve tried to train the dogs to dig or bite off the plants. No luck there.
            I use a 2 quart spray bottle with Glyphosate. I always see some blooming later in the season. Found one last week. The chemical does not kill the older plants, so I pull these and send them to the land-fill.

            Suggest anyone with a few acres or more should read about Glyphosate Company site, and other weed killers. Find out how they work and what happens then.
            Also, remember commercial food production requires millions of acres. Pulling weeds, salt, and boiling water are not good options. Also, I think I would rather ingest a little Glyphosate than detergent, but have not investigated the latter.

            Like

    • Oh, and Islam has taken to using the sword only when necessary. They’ve learned that infiltration and outbreeding the locals allows them to take over just by numbers. Lying also works. Look at what’s happened to secular Turkey since Erdogan (Muslim Brotherhood) has taken over and what’s happening in London”stan”

      Like

      Reply

      • Indeed, Bear. And the tragic part is that Austria was the bulwark that kept the Islamic invaders at bay the last time that Muslims tried to take over Europe. It was the Austrian victory at the Battle of Vienna on 12 September 1683 that was the turning point in the previous Muslim invasion …

        … and now Austria is the low point in the modern Muslim invasion of Europe.

        Grrrr …

        w.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

  11. I read a couple of books by Mark Steyn a few years back – “America Alone” and “After America”.
    His predictions about the spread of the islamic influenza are sadly coming to fruition.
    As you point out here, Willis, the USA is still a bastion of rationality when it comes to religious nuttery.
    For now, at least.

    Like

    Reply

    • Mark Steyn today posted an article he wrote 16 years ago about the dangers of insulting Islam, and it’s just as relevant today. Mark Steyn has a way with words; so much so that many Muslims would like to have a way with him.
      https://www.steynonline.com/8946/a-fatwa-of-one-own
      “A Fatwa of One’s Own”

      When Mr Khalfan says that irresponsible journalists “risk provoking individuals who cannot control their spiritual emotions and cause the death of innocent people,” he’s being far more objectionable about Muslims than me, Frum and that Nigerian woman rolled into one; he’s being more imperialist than any old-school Colonial Officer: He’s saying Muslims are wogs, savages, they know no better, what do you expect? You’ve gotta be careful around them, the slightest thing could set ’em off. Might be a novel, might be a beauty contest.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  12. On Friday here in Ireland we just abolished blasphemy from our constitution. I guess it was pointless since we are part of Europe.

    Like

    Reply

  13. Willis, is that a jaw bone next to that rectangular vessel on the table? And about that solar light,,,,, 😉

    Always interesting conversation here. Thanks for doin what you do!

    Like

    Reply

  14. Freedom of speech in the US?
    Maybe for US citizens….
    Ever heard of shadow-banning? It only happens to me when I post from the Netherlands to a US channel.
    Obviously it is illegal, otherwise they would just block it.
    Actually I am curious if this comment on your channel becomes visible to you.
    Just like or dislike.

    Like

    Reply

    • Thanks, Jan. Freedom of speech doesn’t apply to private forums, like Twitter or Facebook. You have a right to say whatever you want, but not to force someone to publish it.

      Having said that, if FB & Twitter are banning people, they come under different laws than a straight billboard. Someone who puts up a billboard where anyone can post is not legally liable for what is posted.

      But if, as is the case with FB and Twitter, they start banning people, they CAN get sued for what they post … and I hope that it happens very soon.

      Welcome to the blog …

      w.

      Like

      Reply

      • Thank you Willis, I am glad this one got through.

        The ban was actually on Youtube. Unfortunately I cant sue because I am not a US citizen.
        So I wonder if this shadow-banning happens to you folks also.

        FYI It works like this:
        The post is visible to yourself, but not for someone else.
        I suspected something was wrong when I got no likes, no dislikes or answers and the post stayed on top of the list of comments..
        The system is obviously not perfected.
        And when I looked via another account, I could see that my original comment was nowhere to be found. At that point I knew something was wrong…

        Like

        Reply

        • Welcome to “socialist” media. Well sorry, that’s name calling but I’m not sure what to call the leftists that are in control of Facebook, Twitter, Google, et al. Post something they don’t like and they block you or ban you. Of course, it appears that that’s only true if you’re on the right. However anti semites like Louis Farrakhan get a pass. Of course he’s a pseudo-muslim so maybe they’re afraid of him.

          Like

          Reply

  15. Mark Steyn writes about this case again today (he first wrote about it seven years ago):
    https://www.steynonline.com/8969/rationalizing-our-surrender

    “Whoa, hold it right there. There was “no violation” of freedom of expression because the courts “carefully balanced” freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected – and came down on the side of protecting feelings rather than freedom of expression.”

    “So it’s not that it’s illegal to “suggest” that the Big Mo “had paedophilic tendencies”, it’s just illegal to suggest there’s anything wrong with that.”

    Is it still legal to see something wrong with this court’s unanimous decision?
    BTW, note the balance of Europeans on this panel.

    Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:
    Angelika Nußberger (Germany), President,
    André Potocki (France),
    Síofra O’Leary (Ireland),
    Mārtiņš Mits (Latvia),
    Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer (Austria),
    Lәtif Hüseynov (Azerbaijan),
    Lado Chanturia (Georgia).

    Like

    Reply

  16. Pingback: An Open Letter To @elonmusk | Skating Under The Ice

Leave a reply to YMMV Cancel reply