Please Help New English Review
For our donors from the UK:
New English Review
New English Review Facebook Group
Follow New English Review On Twitter
Recent Publications by New English Review Authors
The Oil Cringe of the West: The Collected Essays and Reviews of J.B. Kelly Vol. 2
edited by S.B. Kelly
The Impact of Islam
by Emmet Scott
Sir Walter Scott's Crusades and Other Fantasies
by Ibn Warraq
Fighting the Retreat from Arabia and the Gulf: The Collected Essays and Reviews of J.B. Kelly. Vol. 1
edited by S.B. Kelly
The Literary Culture of France
by J. E. G. Dixon
Hamlet Made Simple and Other Essays
by David P. Gontar
Farewell Fear
by Theodore Dalrymple
The Eagle and The Bible: Lessons in Liberty from Holy Writ
by Kenneth Hanson
The West Speaks
interviews by Jerry Gordon
Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy
Emmet Scott
Why the West is Best: A Muslim Apostate's Defense of Liberal Democracy
Ibn Warraq
Anything Goes
by Theodore Dalrymple
Karimi Hotel
De Nidra Poller
The Left is Seldom Right
by Norman Berdichevsky
Allah is Dead: Why Islam is Not a Religion
by Rebecca Bynum
Virgins? What Virgins?: And Other Essays
by Ibn Warraq
An Introduction to Danish Culture
by Norman Berdichevsky
The New Vichy Syndrome:
by Theodore Dalrymple
Jihad and Genocide
by Richard L. Rubenstein
Spanish Vignettes: An Offbeat Look Into Spain's Culture, Society & History
by Norman Berdichevsky

Tuesday, 31 January 2006
Jacko Reverts and OD's

Michael Jackson was apparently reverting to Islam according to my National Enquirer (print edition) which has a picture of him in what appears to be a  woman's abaya complete with a headscarf while taking a stroll around Mecca.  Breaking news this morning, however, says Jackson has overdosed on Demerol (injected, no less) and Jack Daniels in Bahrain where he was "a guest of Sheik Abdullah bin Hamad Al Khalifa, the king's son, and was said to be staying in a royal palace." 

According to the print article, "After studying with Sheik Abdullah bin Hamad Al Khalifa..and his brother Jermaine, who is a devout Muslim, Michael feels Islam is the answer to all of his problems"

Posted on 01/31/2006 8:18 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Tuesday, 31 January 2006
Horowitz: The Palestinians have declared with this vote they want no peace.

David Horowitz shares some thoughts on the Palestinian elections:

The Palestinian Nazi Party has won the elections. This is a party, Hamas, that calls for the obliteration of the Jewish state (in so many words) and the killing of Jews because they are Jews (in so many words), and cites the Koranic damnation of Jews and incitement to murder Jews in justification. Hamas is a party of Islamic fanatics who are part of the global jihad against the United States and the West, whose hero is Osama bin Laden. Hamas was the biggest foreign supporter of Saddam Hussein. With this vote in record numbers, the Palestinian people have joined en masse the Axis of Evil. They are the self-declared enemies of Jews, of America and of civilized values, and should be treated as such. The Palestinians have declared with this vote they want no peace. They should be given none...

The Palestinians are the first people in the history of humanity to embrace terror and genocide as a way of life. Palestinian schools train kindergarteners and first graders to aspire to murder innocent Jews by blowing themselves up alongside them, and then tell them that if they're lucky enough to be males, they will go to heaven and have 72 virgins attend their every whim. Palestinian parents murder their own children by telling them to murder Jewish children so that Allah can reward them. This is the sickest culture on the face of the earth, and the fact that is supported by the American secular left reveals the terminal sickness of those who crusade in the name of social justice...

Indeed David, indeed.

Posted on 01/31/2006 8:05 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Tuesday, 31 January 2006
Fitzgerald: Whence Ayman Al-Zawahiri?

Hugh Fitzgerald has an especially informative piece up at Jihad Watch on the background and illustrious family history of Al-Qaeda #2 man Ayman Al-Zawahiri. 

"Al-Zawahiri does not come from the lower depths, and neither "poverty" nor any of those other off-the-shelf pseudo-explanations will do. He comes from the highest stratum of Egyptian Arab society. He was trained as a surgeon. He comes from a long line of physicians, professors, and others who have made their mark. His great-uncle was Azzam Pasha, the first Secretary-General of the Arab League, serving from 1945 to 1952. It was Azzam Pasha who promised, on the eve of the simultaneous attack by five Arab armies intended to snuff out in the cradle the nascent state of Israel, that the world would witness, in his words, "a massacre the likes of which the world had not seen since the days of the Mongols." That was the promise; that was what the Secretary-General of the Arab League foresaw...

Whether Ayman Al Zawahri left Egypt from the Cairo International Airport or from the backdoor, it is no secret the Azzam clan does not lack men in high places. Unlike the medically-minded Zawahri fraternity, the Azzams include an [indicted] MP, a former governor of Giza and several state counselors and prosecutors. Likewise, the clan is top heavy with senior government administrators and diplomats. Ironically, Egypt's sitting Supreme State Security Court Chief Justice is himself a relation of Ayman Al Zawahri, his natty Maadi villa guarded round the clock lest he become the next victim of a terrorist attack. Several fatal shootings this last decade cost the lives of several members of the judicial and legislation (including the speaker of parliament) as well as sundry police Officers in Upper Egypt and over 70 tourists in Luxor. […]

Source: Amman The Star in English -- Independent pro-establishment weekly newspaper. You can find the article in its entirety, and I recommend reading it all, at

Posted on 01/31/2006 7:42 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Tuesday, 31 January 2006
re: Shut up!
Oh, Mary, I knnnooowwww!  I sympathize dear, I really do.  Oh I knooowwww!
Posted on 01/31/2006 7:35 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Monday, 30 January 2006
"Shut up!" - Part 1

There are many ways to tell someone to shut up. Some of them are polite, for example, “one moment, please”. Some are brusque: “be quiet”, or “hold your tongue”. Others are rude, but colourful: “button it”, “put a sock in it”, “shut your gob”, “shut your cakehole”, and, last but not least, “stop your jaw”.


If you have ever sat on a bus full of teenage schoolchildren, you will have been tempted to use one or more of these expressions.


A couple of years ago, teenagers on buses were using a British version of “Valley Speak”: “I’m like “duh?”, and she’s like “hello?”, and I’m like “puhlease”, and she’s like “talk to the hand”, and I’m like “whatever”. But that’s all gone. Now, in addition to using slang such as “sket”, “buff” and so on, they are talking in a mixture of catch phrases from two comedy shows: “yeah but, no but, yeah, but am I bovvered? Look at my face - is this a bothered face? Yeah but no.”


Discussing this with a wiser and more patient friend, I complained that, not only is teen-speak irritating, it is also completely devoid of content. No actual information is imparted. Nor is this empty speech confined to teenagers. Elderly people can also burble on for ages saying things like, “Well, she says to me, she says, eee, and I says to her I says, by ‘eck, and she says to me, she says, you never, and I says to her I says….”. At the end of the exchange they are none the wiser. So what is the point? If you’ve nothing to say, why not keep quiet?


“Aha”, said my wiser, more patient friend, “aha” being the sort of thing wise people say. He went on to say that, though far too old for teenage slang, I was still too young to be curmudgeonly and should nip this tendency in the bud. Furthermore, I was missing the point. The purpose of such seemingly empty speech is not to impart information at all. It is merely to say, “You are my friend. I am your friend. We like each other.” In other words, the speakers are establishing or maintaining a rapport. (There is probably a word for this, beginning with “meta-“, but I believe that words beginning with “meta-“ should be used sparingly, so I won’t bother trying to remember it.)


Fair enough, I thought. Having nothing to say doesn’t mean you should keep quiet.


Shortly afterwards, I was to change my mind.


To be continued…

Posted on 01/30/2006 1:24 PM by Mary Jackson
Monday, 30 January 2006
"these totally outrageous cartoons against Islam..."

That is how former President Bill Clinton characterizes the controversy over whether free speech will survive in the west, and whether the west will survive at all - "outrageous cartoons against Islam." 

I suppose that vow to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States is no longer applicable.

Posted on 01/30/2006 11:34 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Monday, 30 January 2006
Legacy of Jihad reviewed at The Weekly Standard

Andy Bostom is on a roll this morning.   The Treacly Standard no less.

"The philosophy of offensive jihadists has also remained consistent through the ages. Not only does Bostom reprint passages from Islamic scholars from nearly a millennium ago belligerently calling for jihad, he shows the expansion of their thinking in the modern era. Perhaps most informative is a speech he reprints from Ayatollah Khomeini who wasn't enthusiastic about the "religion of peace" concept: Said Khomeini, "All those who study jihad will understand why Islam wants to conquer the world . . . Those who know nothing about Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. [They] are witless!" "

Posted on 01/30/2006 10:23 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Monday, 30 January 2006
Bostom interviewed at Front Page

NER's own Andrew Bostom is interviewed by Jamie Glazov at Frontpage this morning:

FP: There are scholars and critics amongst us who argue that the terrorists have exploited and hijacked Islam to serve their own violent ends. In their view, Islamist terror is a perversion of the true Islam. What do you think?
Bostom: This is ahistoricalprattle, which unfortunately appears to have been accepted by President Bush and his key advisers. But Mr. Bush is our President, not our theologian-in-chief. Neither he nor any of those you alluded to have made informed comments about Islam, least of all the utterance that Islam is a “religion of peace”. Ironically, the renowned 20th century Muslim ideologue Sayyid Qutb, perhaps the most brilliant Muslim scholar of the 20th century, who is demonized as a fomenter of “radical” Islam, has also referred to Islam as a “religion of peace”. But Qutb’s context is unapologetic and clear—he is referring to the Pax Islamica that would prevail when the entire world was submitted to Islamic domination, and the rule of Islamic law (i.e., the Shari’a), by jihad war.
Furthermore, in a recent speech President Bush insisted that the "ideology" of the most notable Muslim terrorists, who he maintained "distort the idea of jihad," is "very different from the religion of Islam" and indeed "exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision.” The President’s even more specific and assertive comments regarding jihad were a profound disappointment. Indeed, such words could have been written and uttered by the most uninformed, or deliberately disingenuous apologists for this devastating, and uniquely Islamic institution, well over a millennium old, and still wreaking havoc today.
Indeed, Andy, indeed.  Read the whole thing.
Posted on 01/30/2006 9:36 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Monday, 30 January 2006
Cloth-eared Beet

According to the New Duranty Times this morning, of the Hamas victory in the Palestinian territories, Ms. Rice says the following:

"I've asked why nobody saw it coming," Ms. Rice said, speaking of her own staff. "It does say something about us not having a good enough pulse."

Golly, maybe she better send "Mommy Karen" all around the region again so she can "listen" some more.

Or perhaps the President should find another Secretary of State, one who may perhaps understand the true nature of our peril...

Posted on 01/30/2006 8:08 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Monday, 30 January 2006
Cartoon Insanity

Over at the BBC this morning, is yet another story about the ongoing saga of the Muhammad cartoons first published by a Danish Newspaper, the Jyllands-Posten just to see what would happen, in other words, they asked themselves, "would Muslims lose it?"  Well, true to form, they have lost it, or perhaps never had it to start with.  Just like the infamous Koran flushing episode of last year, once again we are confronted Muslim inability to comprehend rationality as it exists in the Western world.  Violent rejection by Muslims of anything remotely approaching the truth about Islam is the rule of the day, and the western world is making an aggregious error is allowing them to get away with it. 

Where are our American newspapers?  Is there not a one with any courage at all?  Are we going to stand by and watch while little Denmark takes the stand we should all be taking?  Shouldn't all newspapers world-wide publish these cartoons in solidarity with Jyllands-Posten and in support of the principle of free speech?

Here is one of the offending cartoons showing the cartoonist with blinds drawn and beads of sweat coming off his brow by Arne Sorenson.

Posted on 01/30/2006 6:30 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Sunday, 29 January 2006
Begging to differ
The New English Review has been live only a few days; perhaps at this stage all bloggers should be singing from the same hymn sheet. Unfortunately, this, my maiden post, must be a dissenting view.
I admire Diana West's work greatly and share her views on Islam. However, I strongly disagree with the main argument of her recent article on the Abu Hamza trial.
The job of the prosecution counsel in the Abu Hamza trial is to demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt,  that the defendant has broken the law. At the moment, preaching from the Koran is not illegal so the Koran is irrelevant to the prosecution argument. What is relevant is whether Abu Hamza's words - Koran-inspired or not - could incite murder and racial hatred. The prosecution counsel is quite right to distance himself from the words of the Koran, to state: "This prosecution is not brought to criticize Islam or criticise the teachings of the Koran. It is brought because of what the defendant says." 
Conversely, the job of the counsel for the defence is to defend his client, regardless of whether he personally thinks he is guilty, or, certainly, whether anyone else - the public, The Telegraph, The Sun,  - think he is a "bad lot". Although the defence lawyer only has to prove that there is reasonable doubt about Hamza's guilt, given the weight of the evidence against him, he faces an uphill struggle. Like the "cultural" defence in the Australian rape case, citing the Koran is the best the lawyer can do. And, just as that defence did not convince, nor, in all probability, will this.

If a Muslim man, believing that the Koran sanctions this, rapes a non-Muslim woman who is "immodestly" dressed, the last thing the prosecuting counsel should do is to challenge the words of the Koran. To do so would be to muddy the waters, perhaps allowing the defendant to escape justice on a technicality. A Muslim man charged with rape should be treated like any other man charged with rape. Equality before the law means just that - making no allowances, favourable or unfavourable, for cultural or religious differences.

Diana West concludes by saying, "In other words, whether or not Abu Hamza does hard time, jihad gets a pass."  Maybe so, but jihad is not on trial, nor is the Koran. Abu Hamza is. The ideology of Islam, specifically jihad, should be put on trial - in the court of public opinion. It is to be hoped that this and other high profile cases will raise public awareness of  the aggressive nature of this ideology. But a court of law, this court, should not be used for any purpose other than trying the defendant; if the trial is not conducted properly, he may be "off the hook". Of course Abu Hamza  is innocent until proved guilty, but, realistically, we wouldn't want that, would we?    

Posted on 01/29/2006 7:17 AM by Mary Jackson
Saturday, 28 January 2006
Sea of Green / Why we are blue

The color of the resistance to Islamic expansion is blue.  As blue is the color of the sky and green the color of the earth, so our thoughts are higher than their thoughts, and our motives higher than their motives. 

Our blue scarf society page will be operational next week. 

Posted on 01/28/2006 10:06 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Saturday, 28 January 2006
Lebs vs Locals in Australia

The Australian has more on the aftermath of the Cronulla riots here.

First there were rapes, then there were gang rapes then there were riots: all perpetrated by Australia's latest arrivals, the "Lebs" or Lebanese Muslims, or Muslims in general.  The confusion as to what to call them, of course, lies in the fact that politically correct Australian media are absolutely insistent that the whole problem stems from the alleged "racism" of the locals.  Over 30 "white men" (read, non-Muslims) have been arrested for participation in the skirmishes with Muslims, while none of the Muslim Lebanese (who started the whole thing by beating up two lifeguards) have been arrested.

"Peter Debnam, in the riskiest political move of his five months so far as Opposition leader in NSW, took up the cause. He claimed the state Labor Government of Premier Morris Iemma had encouraged police to go soft on revenge attackers, most thought to be Middle Eastern, because of what he called Labor's political correctness."

First, the police claimed to have no evidence of the beatings of locals by "Lebs," but then a video surfaced clearly showing just such a beating by  "30 Lebanese bashing a bystander at Cronulla after the riot."

Police are backing off  "Lebanese" neighborhoods and not enforcing the laws of Australia there, because 1) political correctness imposes fear of law suits, 2) control of the police force has been given over to civilian ministries besotted by political correctness and 3) plain, old fashioned fear "of Lebanese gangs that, they say, have absolutely no respect for police, threaten to harm their families and have weapons they are quite prepared to use. "

No country can survive the loss of sovereignty from within.  The laws of Australia must be enforced everywhere, especially in immigrant neighborhoods.

Posted on 01/28/2006 8:45 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Saturday, 28 January 2006
West on the al-Masri trial

Diana West points out the illogic political correctness has placed on the trial of the notorious Abu Hamza al-Masri now being tried at the Old Bailey here.

"But even after mastering the heinous evidence, the jurors' task will be harder still. They will then have to make sense of the illogically contorted, politically correct legal arguments being mounted both for and against the defendant in order to exempt the role of Islam in modern-day jihad, or holy war.
    For the prosecution, David Perry says: "This is nothing more or less than preaching hatred and murder," which, he makes clear, has nothing to do with Islam.
    For the defense, Edward Fitzgerald says: "It is said he was preaching murder. But he was actually preaching from the Koran itself."
    Well, which is it, gentlemen? He's preaching murder that has nothing to do with Islam; or he's preaching the Koran that has nothing to do with murder. For people trying to fend off jihad in their midst, the question becomes a distracting conundrum.
But even after mastering the heinous evidence, the jurors' task will be harder still. They will then have to make sense of the illogically contorted, politically correct legal arguments being mounted both for and against the defendant in order to exempt the role of Islam in modern-day jihad, or holy war.
    For the prosecution, David Perry says: "This is nothing more or less than preaching hatred and murder," which, he makes clear, has nothing to do with Islam.
    For the defense, Edward Fitzgerald says: "It is said he was preaching murder. But he was actually preaching from the Koran itself."
    Well, which is it, gentlemen? He's preaching murder that has nothing to do with Islam; or he's preaching the Koran that has nothing to do with murder. For people trying to fend off jihad in their midst, the question becomes a distracting conundrum....

"...And that's the way they like it. Both the prosecution and the defense have decided that Islam plays no animating role in the modern jihadist movement of which Abu Hamza is a part. When the prosecutor describes Abu Hamza's preaching -- "holy war in the cause of Allah" as a "religious obligation" that includes the killing of non-believers -- he is describing the classic jihad ideology that has driven Islamic history; but he attributes it to Abu Hamza's idiosyncratic version of Islam. The defense, meanwhile, takes the same preaching -- "the language of blood and retribution," Mr. Fitzgerald says -- and declares it no different from any other religion's language.

    " In other words, whether or not Abu Hamza does hard time, jihad gets a pass."

Posted on 01/28/2006 8:03 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Saturday, 28 January 2006
The proliferation of the man-child

One sad fact of modernity is that in our rush toward "equality," we have (as women) insisted on scrubbing away at our femininity until men no longer are supposed to even notice that we are female at all. Everything is gender neutral and we have gutted our language of the commonplace niceties that used to accompany the acknowledgement of gender and age.

After having been addressed with the utmost disrespect by a young man whose boss stood by while it was occurring, I thought, "My God, young man, you do not address a woman in that manner and you certainly do not address a woman in your mother's age bracket in that manner."

Our culture has thrown out all distinction and with it the manners that rely upon distinction. Children are no longer taught codes of honor, and learn to make no distinction between people (that would be wrong), in fact, they are barely socialized.

The young man in question sat in a beautiful modern office in full view of the public in a tee shirt and jeans, long, stringy hair, with a scowling, resentful countenance.  It is obvious he resents his job and he resents the requirement for civility that comes with it as well. I shudder at the thought about how this boy would behave on a date, if they even have dates any more - just "hook-ups."

No manners required.

How will our girls ever learn to be women if our boys never learn to be men?

Posted on 01/28/2006 7:19 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Friday, 27 January 2006
Welcome to The Iconoclast
We have a wonderful lineup of authors, including Theodore Dalrymple (The Spectator, City Journal, New Criterion, National Review and the author of several book including Our Culture, What's Left of It: The Mandarins and the Masses), Hugh Fitzgerald (Jihad Watch, Campus Watch), Diana West (columnist with The Washington Times and Jewish World Review), and Andrew Bostom (author of The Legacy of Jihad) and John Derbyshire (National Review, New Criterion) and the author of several books including his latest, Unknown Quantity: A Real And Imaginary History of Algebra ) will stop in from time to time as he takes time off from The Corner
You may know me, Rebecca Bynum, from Jihad Watch.
Thanks for stopping by.
Posted on 01/27/2006 7:55 AM by Rebecca Bynum

Most Recent Posts at The Iconoclast
Search The Iconoclast
Enter text, Go to search:
The Iconoclast Posts by Author
The Iconoclast Archives
sun mon tue wed thu fri sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31     

Via: email  RSS