Marx and Mohammed in Manchester

Daniel Greenfield 2 Comments Friday, July 28, 2017 @ Sultan Knish Blog

There’s good news for Manchester. The city with the highest death rate and some of the worst drug and alcohol problems in England is getting a statue of Friedrich Engels.

A scowling bearded cement statue of Marx’s best friend will fix everything wrong with Manchester.

The statue comes to Manchester courtesy of Phil Collins. That’s not the singer who crooned, “You’ll Be In My Heart”, but the British artist who introduced East German instructors of Marxism-Leninism to Manchester with Marxism Today. Like the more famous Phil, he has his share of love songs, but it’s Marx and Engels, who are in his heart.

Manchester had no statues of Engels. Now thanks to Collins, it will.

Phil Collins lives in Berlin. The Engels statue comes from the Ukraine. And he would like to bring the unemployed instructors of Marxism-Leninism from East Germany to Manchester “to teach Marxism in schools there.” It failed in the Ukraine. It failed in East Germany. But it’s bound to work in Manchester.

The search for the statue started out in the Russian city of Engels: a post-industrial disaster area where unemployment is high and drug smuggling and human trafficking are major industries. The old Communist infrastructure is coming apart. And so on he went to Mala Pereshchepina in the Ukraine.

Mala Pereshchepina had previously been best known for the tomb of Kubrat, founder of Old Great Bulgaria, who had been laid to rest surrounded by golden vessels and jeweled rings. There Phil found a broken cement statue of an old monster and decided to haul the ugly old thing over to Manchester.

There’s always been a market for the art and tchotchkes of fallen totalitarian regimes. There’s a booming market in Nazi and Communist souvenirs. And Collins isn’t the first sympathizers to haul back one of the many Comrade Ozymandias statues that were tossed into the dirt when the Soviet Union fell.

There’s a Lenin statue in Fremont, Seattle. It was bought and shipped over by an English teacher who mortgaged his house to pay for the statue of a mass murderer. It’s been for sale for over twenty years. The current asking price is $250K. So far no capitalist has acquired Lenin as a lawn ornament.

The New York Lenin facing Wall Street hasn’t done any better. On Houston Street, the Red Square building houses a FedEx, a Dunkin’ Donuts, a Sleepy’s and an H&R Block. The building was built by a former NYU professor of “radical sociology”. Then it was bought for $100 million. The Red Square was renamed, Lenin came down and occupies a humbler perch on an eyesore of a tenement.

The icons of Communism don’t hold up well against the march of capitalism.

Being derivative, Phil Collins has to compensate by being twice as loud. The Engels statue will encourage Manchester’s working class to contemplate the “conditions of the working class” today. But Collins seems oddly uninterested in contemplating the condition of the working class in the former Communist countries he passed through while searching for the kitschy junk souvenirs of Marxist tyranny. 

Indeed, the only people whose conditions he seemed interested in had been pushing Marxism-Leninism.

Phil Collins would not have done well under Communism. Just ask the Russian Futurists. What began with a boisterous call to throw the art and literature of the past overboard from the “steamship of modernity” ended with a muffled whimper as the Futurists were forced to adopt Socialist Realism. Collins’ statue is, among other things, a tribute to the Communist suppression of modern art.

The irony of modern art celebrating its own suppression is both heartbreaking and stupefying.

The Engels statue will sit in Tony Wilson Place. Mr. Manchester’s spot has a certain appropriateness and inappropriateness. Wilson was a Socialist who refused to pay for private health care, despite being fairly wealthy. Engels profited from the same misery that he graphically condemned. But none of it matters.

A mile away from Mr. Engels’ new digs is the Manchester Arena where Salman Ramadan Abedi, a second-generation Muslim refugee, murdered 22 concert goers and wounded hundreds more.

A specter had stalked the streets of Manchester. And it was no longer the specter of Communism. It was Salman howling,

“There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is the messenger of Allah”. 

Forget Marx. In Manchester, it’s Mohammed time. And Islam does not allow any paintings, cartoons or statues of Mo. 

Cops raided Abedi’s home in a part of South Manchester where sixteen other Jihadis had operated. Forget Engels, you can tour the home of Abu Qaqa al-Britani, the ISIS propaganda point man who did for the Islamic terror group what Engels had done for the popularization of his left-wing cause.  

Friedrich Engels had lived in Moss Side, Manchester. These days Moss Side is best known as a no-go zone in progress. The neighborhood swarms with Muslim migrants. It’s violent and broken. 36% of the population is Christian and 34% Muslim. 12% of the population comes from Somalia or Pakistan.

The Engels house was long since demolished. But Salman Abedi’s home is still standing in Moss Side.

There is a different breed of radicals in Manchester now. Forget the old folks flying the red flag. It’s the black and white flag of the Jihad that counts now. The new radicals of Manchester aren’t fighting for the dictatorship of the proletariat, but the tyranny of Sharia.

The new murderous utopian movement cares nothing for Das Kapital. Its guidebook is the Koran.

Dumping a statue of Engels salvaged from the wreck of Communism into a city on the verge of being wrecked by the left’s enthusiasm for migration is more of a morbid prank than anything else. The left’s nostalgia for its murderous past has blinded it to the reality of the murderous present and future.

Engels viewed the “Mohammedan revolution” as class warfare. The Manifesto of the Communist Party written by Marx and Engels sees their radical movement as the superior inheritors of Islamic fanaticism.

"Islam was unconquerable so long as it trusted in itself alone and saw an enemy in every non-Mohammedan," they write in its closing message. “From the moment when Islam entered upon the path of compromise and united with the non-Mohammedan, the so-called civilized powers, its conquering power was gone. With Islam it could not have been otherwise. It was not the true world redeeming faith.”

“Socialism, however, is this, and socialism cannot conquer nor redeem the world if it ceases to believe upon itself alone,” they conclude.

There are many Socialist militants in the UK, but they have made their compromise with Islam.    That’s why Jeremy Corbyn winks and nods at Hamas and Hezbollah. It’s why Phil Collins went to the West Bank. For his Ramallah production, he screened The Battle of Algiers which glamorized the FLN terrorists who desecrated the Great Synagogue in Algiers, planted an FLN flag and scrawled, “Death to the Jews”. The synagogue is now a mosque. Yesterday Algiers, tomorrow Manchester.

Labour meetings in Manchester have been known to be segregated by gender. The police spend more time hunting Islamophobes than fighting Islamic terror. The specter isn’t of Communism, but of Sharia.

Muslims in Manchester know what the true world redeeming faith is. And it wasn’t preached by Engels. It was the left, not Islam that failed. The left turned over its mission to Third World radicals who were more Islamic than Socialist, but who had the courage to bomb and kill that the European left no longer did. And then when the Socialism vanished and there was only Islam, the Socialists bowed their heads.

Forget Engels. Mohammed is in Manchester now.

 

The Prophet Pedophile

By Pete Parker / 15 April 2013 / 2 Comments

Only the mentally challenged (think Chris Christie and Nancy Pelosi) could possibly make the claim that a dogma — started by one of history’s most notorious and virulent pedophiles — is a religion of “peace.”  According to the Hadith (Muslim 8:3309) Islam’s founder — the Prophet Mohammed — married Aisha when she was 6 and consummated the union when the child was barely 9.  (At the time of the consummation — Mohammed was 60.)    

This act clearly underscores the barbaric and misogynistic propensities of the man who founded the so-called religion of  peace. Yes, a man depicted by politically incorrect historians as one of the most brutally violent and nefarious figures of the seventh century……. Moreover, Mohammed’s well documented sexual depravities are the very reason why Islam is the most misogynistic religion known to man. 

From child molestation to female genital mutilation to rape — the prophet’s profane practices have been mimicked by Muslim men since the 7th century…….Winston Churchil [stated] “How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries. Besides the fanatical frenzy which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is a fateful fatalistic apathy.”…..

After witnessing (first hand) the manner in which Christian Sudanese girls were being savagely raped and dismembered by Muslim Arab men during Sudan’s protracted and bloody civil war –renowned evangelist Franklin Graham unhesitatingly declared the following: “Islam is an evil and wicked religion.”….. the mentally challenged among us continue…..to heap the endless “peace” accolade….To Read More

The "Untold Story": Did Muhammad Live?

By Rich Kozlovich

I have known about this for some time, but I have deliberately shied away from it because I just don’t have much confidence in historical deconstructionists and “higher criticisms” because they seem to be mostly nitpicking with a goal.  Much like scientific studies that are more conclusions in search of data than a search for truth.

 There are those who claim that Moses didn’t write the Pentateuch, for among other reasons, he used different words at different parts of the Pentateuch.  “The differences in style as suggested by the JEDP Theory of Documentary Hypothesis are easily explained even with examples of modern literature where authors change style according to subject matter. There is also substantial unity in the documents which cannot be explained by multiple authors of vastly different time periods.”   I have used different words as I grew older and Moses is reported to have lived for 120 years. 

All the criticisms have been largely dismissed by reasonable people.  “The evidence, together with clear statements in the texts themselves point to Moses as the author and final editor in the case of Genesis, of the first five books of the Bible.”

There are those who have criticized Biblical historicity for decades because “leading scholars” had no archeological information to substantiate statements in “The Book”.  As the years have gone by each of the claims made against Biblical historicity has fallen.  There is still controversy about Jericho, however in the seventies the absolute historicity of Sodom and Gomorrah was established after they broke into a chamber filled with clay receipts mentioning those cities.   Apparently they already had large commercial dealings with Babylon and the rest of the Middle East.  Based on “archeological” history; I think we will find the answer to Jericho also. 

This brings me back to the point. Did Mohammad actually live?  In England a scholar named Tom Holland had a documentary presented on British TV called the “Untold Story” that says that there is absolutely no evidence that he did. 

“Since it was screened last week, presenter Tom Holland, a historian with a double first from Cambridge, has been subjected  to a torrent of abusive tweets, some of which have included physical threats.”….”Untold Story has triggered nearly 550 complaints to both the television regulator Ofcom and Channel 4 itself. ……It has also sparked a bitter war of words on Twitter involving leading historians and Islamic scholars.”

Mr. Holland said: ‘The origins of Islam are a legitimate subject of historical inquiry and this film is wholly in keeping with other series and programmes on Channel 4.   Historians have rallied to Mr. Holland’s defence…..One persons described “the programme as ‘a triumph’, tweeting: ‘Dear angry, mad people –  it is conceivable that you know more than the world’s leading scholars, but very unlikely.’”

I believe that research on this subject is absolute worthy of scholarly inquiry.  I believe that programming on this subject is worthy to be presented.  If it is acceptable to do so for other religions it certainly is acceptable to do so regarding Islam.  So what is the big difference?  
The BIG difference is that Islamists have the tendency to kill those who say things they don’t like. 

One of their own, Salmon Rushdie, incurred the absolute wrath of Muslims worldwide for writing “The Satanic Verses” in 1988.   Death threats were made against him, including a death sentence issued by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of Iran, on 14 February 1989, and set a $5.2 million bounty on Rushdie's head.”

“Radio Tehran went on, declaring in the Iranian government's name Feb. 15, 1989 a "day of national mourning . . . in protest against the new conspiracy of the great Satan (the United States) to publish poisonous and insulting subject-matter concerning Islam, the Koran and the blessed prophet." Within 72 hours, six people died and more than 160 were wounded in violent demonstrations against the book in Pakistan and India.”

Now back to Holland’s claim that there is no evidence that Mohammad ever lived.  I can’t say either way, but I find it difficult to believe such a large movement could have sprung up overnight, and created an empire of loosely united kingdoms that "in fewer than one hundred years stretched from the Iberian Peninsula to India", and there was no one in charge at the beginning of it all. 

If we accept the idea Mohammad didn't exist, then we have to believe that all of this was accomplished by a conspiracy so enormous as to unhinge the imagination.  That is far too irrational and incomprehensible to be believed.  Clearly, we need to be able attach a valid scientific explanation for all of this.  I would use Occam's Razor.  "The simplest explanation is probably the correct one."

As for the claim that it is unlikely that others “know” more than the leading scholar on the subject - that is a logical fallacy known as “Appeal to Authority”, and authorities have been proven to be …..well…. really stupid in the past. 

So, am I defending the Islamists?  No!  What I am saying is that Islam isn’t a “made-up religion” as stated.  I’m saying that Islam isn’t a religion at all.  When a “religion” requires its adherents to kill, rape and rob in the name of their faith then it isn’t a religion; it is a criminal organization masquerading as a religion.  No less so than the Thuggee of India, which was a gang of murderers and thieves who “would join travelers and gain their confidence. This would allow them to then surprise and strangle them by tossing a handkerchief or noose around their necks. The killings were performed in honour of the goddess Kali and were very ritualistic.  They would then rob the bodies of valuables and bury them.” “In the 1830s they were targeted by William Bentinck, along with his chief captain William Henry Sleeman, for eradication. They were seemingly destroyed by this effort.”  They were defined and recognized for what they were by their actions.  Thieves and murders!

Religions that promote violence as a part of their credo will eventually incur violence in opposition to their credo.  In Muslim controlled countries we see those who profess to be Jews, Christians, and even different Muslim sects, being murdered by the local population for their beliefs; clearly with the spoken or unspoken approval of the ruling authorities.  This kind of madness cannot exist in a vacuum.  Eventually opposition forces will gain arms and expertise to defend themselves and to attack their opponents; much like what occurred in Lebanon in the 1970’s and 1980’s.   All of this internal criminality is one of the reasons their economies are a mess.  Take away the oil and they would revert to Middle Age cultures all over again. 

 I almost wish that they could prove that Mohammad really didn't exist and that Islam is a made up religion; then maybe people would regain their sanity and stop the slaughter of so many innocent people. 

Editor's Note:  You may wish to peruse the following material.

Did Muhammad Exist?

Did Muhammad Ever Really Live?

Historical Islam, Historical Muhammad

Did the Prophet Muhammad Really Exist? This Is Robert Spencer’s Shocking Answer

###