helping commies get to know knives
Sunday, April 25, 2004
Time for another Bad Commie Book Review! Mr Knife, prepare to meet Mr "Book", Mr Book, say hello to Mr Knife!
I finally finished reading Halldor Laxness' book "Independent people". Here is my book review on Amazon:
Ahh, Commies. Does their disgusting depravity known any bounds? Is there a depth so low that commies will not sink to it in their desire to steal the property of other men? Take the Nobel "Prize" Winning Communist Halldor Laxness. With a piercing eye he writes a book about a great and fiercely independent people. Blond-haired, eagle-eyed justice-seeking heroes that fight for independence. Proud and Fair, with a rich culture and a tradition of independence in the harshest environments. But as the book goes on the reader begins to see that he wants no part of these people and their hopes and dreams. In a mirror of Iceland's political history of his time (http://dannyreviews.com/h/Iceland.html) - he begins to denigrate the ideals of the great Icelandic people. By the end of the book, the independent man is shown to be a helpless nobody, unable to adapt to the times. The problems of the protagonist - like being forced into communes and having his money stolen, are all just explained away as fate. WELL IT WASN'T FATE THAT STOLE ALL HIS MONEY. IT WAS COMMIES, YOU DUMB ICELANDIC BASTARD. COMMIES. Communists are portrayed as good guys on the verge of murdering Iceland civic leaders who somehow deserve to get it because other commies were a failure. That's right. The whole point of this book is not that icelanders are independent, but that commies should be allowed to take everyone's property and kill civic Icelandic leaders.
In short, Halldor Laxness wouldn't know independence if it bit him on his fat ass. And it did. Repeatedly. And he still didn't know what it was. A communist like that needs a lesson. FROM MR KNIFE. AND THEN MR TORCH. That will teach him about human nature.
Looking at the reviews of the book, I notice a lot of drooling mongoloids saying "Oh, independence is just so bad, he shows so eloquently that you so need communism to live". The one actual icelander in the Amazon reviews says this:
He shattered the glorified image of our ancestors and portrayed them in a manner that was unprecedented at the time. He showed them not as the blond-haired, eagle-eyed justice-seeking heroes that our independence fight in the 19. c. had envisioned but portrayed them as stubborn, dark and almost barbaric hoodlums with questionable morals, to say the least. And thus made them more believable, human and interesting than ever. Many narrow minded and arrogant people of the time were shocked and appalled and he was even criticized for what was seen as "lack of patriotism". Since then, historians have come to the conclusion that his portrayal was much closer too the truth. Laxness was very controversial early in his lifetime (in the USA, the fact that he was a communist did not exactly do him well in the 50's or even onwards) although in the past decades he has rightfully been given his due as the genius he truly was. I will not elaborate further on the subject, although I could go on for (p)ages but urge people to read more of Laxness' work, especially Islandsklukkan. In my opinion, it stands with Sjalfstaett as his greatest work. If Islandsklukkan has not been translated into English, I suggest that transcribers pull up their sleeves... quickly.
Oh, I'm rolling up my sleeves, alright, Mr Commie. You just watch me roll them up. See that knife on the table? Guess what its for.
"Stabbing commies?", Oh good, you guessed.
Now you win the prize of communists everywhere.
Hope this particular Nobel prize winner gets killed like the mass murdering billionaire communist thief Arafat. Oh, he's dead you say? Good.
In other news Iraqis enjoy new freedom of expression on Web journals. And what does freedom get them? Looks like death threats from the common German and French populace which is all still composed of nazis:
She also has been corresponding with an American woman whose son is stationed in Baghdad. "We share the same feelings," she says. "Mothers are the same all over the world. I feel sad when a U.S. soldier is killed or injured, as if he was my own son or brother."
Back at the Twin Towers cafe, the Fadhil brothers are pecking away at the keyboard, reading volumes of e-mail. Some of the messages are hostile, even threatening. A German reader, who Ali says is "anti-everything," would like to kill the Fadhils for their pro-American comments. Ali clicks a few buttons to block the offender from his site.
The brothers say they won't bow to the high-tech threats. They say their postwar access to the Internet has been a form of liberation. "I am not afraid," Ali says. "I was afraid all my life. I will not go back to living in fear."
More News, Noah Chomsky finally admits the point of it all in this excellent interview:
Chomsky: "-- moving on, it involved years and years of hard work of plenty of young people, mostly young, which finally ended up getting a protest movement."
protein wisdom: "And that's a more effective dynamic, in your estimation -- having students involved, moreso than having the movement run by the old guard, the professors (many of them alumnists of those Vietnam era protests), as is happening today...?
Chomsky: "Well, who would you rather bang after a long day of shouting rhythmic slogans and carrying heavy cardboard signs: a wide-eyed 18-year old whose pink breasts are still perky with idealism, or some grizzled old poli-sci hag with an Iron Butterfly tattoo on her sagging, wrinkled ass?"
protein wisdom: "I take it that was a rhetorical question..."
Chomsky: "'If you say so."
In another very fun interview and American soldier tries to explain to an Iraqi "holy man" (i.e. unstabbed thieving communist) why advocating killing is bad:
The U.S. commanders don't know exactly where the imams live, and aren't sure they will show up for today's meeting, though Iraqi Police have been dispatched to each mosque with a summons. Finally, perhaps a half hour late, they arrive. Sheik Akram wears a kind of dished turban on his head, and a floor-length cream tunic. In two long meetings where I have a chance to observe him, Akram strikes me as a deceiver, and a bit simple. His eyes shift rapidly and he often shrugs his shoulders and cracks pained satirical smiles. Sheik Riyad, chubby and dark-bearded and wearing a white shawl over his head and shoulders that always holds an exquisite little crease where it falls above his nose, is brighter but even less transparent. He is openly haughty, arrogant, and dripping with disdain.
Once again, the American commanders exhibit bottomless patience--if anything, erring on the side of being too enduring, in my judgment. They earnestly lay out American concepts of faith, toleration, and free speech. Col. Fuller has studied the Koran this summer, and he asks the two clerics to explain their understanding of what the book counsels on religious belief, Godliness, jihad, and killing. He asks them to be specific about who are "the enemies of Islam" (which they refer to ritually in their sermons). The conversation snakes its way through an Army interpreter, somewhat painfully, over a period of two and a half hours.
Fuller allows Sheik Riyad a long speech on the American deficiencies that create armed resistance in Iraq. After hearing him out, and explaining the rules under which he operates, Col. Fuller gets to the heart of the matter. "While we go to great lengths to be respectful, and avoid embarrassing people, you must understand that our actions are often a matter of life and death. I am responsible for stopping terrorists who have killed and hurt hundreds of people in this area. And I need the help of all good people in the community.
"Unfortunately we know that there are imams who support terrorists, and who actually encourage terrorist attacks. Many of the terrorists we see act on religious grounds. You must know that the freedom of speech carries with it great responsibilities. In particular, you cannot incite violence. A real holy man would never do that anyway.
"So I need to know today whether you are my ally or my enemy. I suppose you will say you are not my enemy, as you have in the past. But then in your public statements to your audience you call for death to the enemies of Islam, and violent opposition to occupiers, and so forth. What am I to do?"
Akram recognizes that this is a climactic conversation, and finally answers carefully: "Iraq is our country, but it is now occupied. We must accept the status quo. So I am going to try to avoid these subjects that have created misunderstanding."
Haight confronts him forcefully: "But you told me that on Wednesday. And then you went right out on Friday and conjured up more violence anyway. You know what? You may deny you are instigating attacks, but when you say people should attack 'infidels' and 'the enemies of Islam' they think of one thing: this uniform [tugging hard at his own sleeve]. And you both know that!"
Akram: "In my Friday prayers I asked God to 'kill the enemies of religion, wherever you find them, split them, destroy them, wherever you find them.' I did not say Americans or British."
Fuller, exploding: "I don't care who you said to kill! You cannot tell people to kill others. No holy man would do that! Where does the Koran sanction such a thing?"
Akram: "I have been doing that for 20 years. Saddam never objected to this."
Haight: "Then you've been wrong for 20 years."
Akram: "OK. I'm not going to say it from now on."
Fuller: "Yeah, and you promised that last time, then broke your word just a few days later."
Akram: "When you asked me to this meeting I consulted with my mentor at the Religious Science Organization. He counseled me to avoid words like 'enemies,' 'unbelievers,' and so forth, so I am going to try. I will preach only about patience, the Koran, and such. I will leave the problem alone now."
Wow, what if our soldiers really do have to fight a holy war? With words? Oh well, I'm all for it. Whatever W does is fine by me because he is a Texan.
Comments: Post a Comment