Terrorism: The Ultimate Heckler’s Veto

Think of a good reason not to approve a permit to build a synagogue. Parking issues, noise, poor road access…all legitimate things every community would address. It is true that you can’t just plop a big house of worship anywhere. There are legitimate reasons to deny a permit.

How about “the Islamists might try to blow you up?”

The Algemeiner:

 Australian Jews Outraged as Local Council Bans Construction of Sydney Synagogue, Citing Fear of Potential Terror Attack

This one in Sydney is already built. We may never see the inside of the other one. Or, another one.

“The decision is unprecedented,” Rabbi Yehoram Ulman told Australian media after the Land and Environment Court backed the decision by Waverley Council to ban the construction of a new synagogue in the well-heeled Sydney suburb of Bondi — expressing the fear that it would become a target for Islamist terrorists.

“Its implications are enormous,” Rabbi Ulman said. “It basically implies that no Jewish organization should be allowed to exist in residential areas. It stands to stifle Jewish existence and activity in Sydney and indeed, by creating a precedent, the whole of Australia, and by extension rewarding terrorism.”

Some people are far too quick to allow terrorists, thugs and other folks become their masters. In a real conflict, I’d rather have Rabbi Ulman and his friends on my side, as opposed to the folk with the Land and Environment Court. 

Readers of this blog notice that sometimes I hint that the world is headed toward conflict. It is not between left and right, socialist and capitalist…but between society and anarchy.

Anyone willing to be pushed around by the anarchists is of no good to society. 

In this case, the anarchists didn’t even have to threaten.  Sad, really.


By the way, the Algemeiner is an excellent read for those interested in Jewish news. Link.


This entry was posted in freedom, Religious Freedom, Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Terrorism: The Ultimate Heckler’s Veto

  1. JorgXMcKie says:

    They’re not anarchists, they’re nihilists. True anarchists wouldn’t push anyone around. The Amish and other Plain People are Christian Anarchists and how do they treat others?
    The A-holes on the Left truly intend to use either legal or illegal application of force to make others do what the A-holes want. The y don’t really care which works. That’s not anarchism.
    Confession: I am at least a minarchist.


    • Pablo says:

      Anarchists demanding government intervention in all areas of private life? Worst. Anarchists. Ever.


      Liked by 2 people

    • onwyrdsdream says:

      The ideal of anarchy is peaceful, but nothing exists in its ideal form. Something like, ‘God only has one bed because if he had two, they couldn’t both be ideal.’ ..which is vaguely paraphrased from book ten of Plato’s the Republic. The case of the Amish fits pretty well with the John Adams quote, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” The extent to which an external government is required is precisely the extent to which an internal government (more or less a superego) is lacking. I more or less feel the anarchy occasionally described in Heinlein’s later works was in today’s vernacular an end state libertarian system.

      Certainly, among those who want to exist in the anarchist’s particular ideal world, society in general stands in opposition so resorting to violence hasn’t been rare. The guy who assassinated McKinley was after all, a true believer who was connected to the intellectuals of the movement, who in the end of the 19th century turned to violence as the only practical means of reaching their ends. I am less clear on how closely connected the anarchists who assassinated other world leaders in the turn of the 20th century were, but it was to the point that the US for a while blocked anarchists from immigrating here.

      Granted, these guys are mostly cheap knock-offs who use an incomplete understanding of the end state that anarchists desire, gleaned perhaps from punk rock videos and Max Max movies, to justify living as bundles of pure id. That said, whatever they are or claim to be, they stand as the opposite of more or less everything the left claims to stand for, which, conversely, is also pretty much exactly what the modern left actually DOES stand for. Further, rather than what they desire (which seams to be an apex predator in human society) a society actually run by them would quickly come to resemble the early days of the Soviet Union, and the ones that didn’t end up toward whichever attracted dominated would quickly become the no longer useful idiots. Fortunately, no matter who ends up in charge, those of us with actually useful skills are useful in entirely different ways.


  2. JorgXMcKie says:

    I’ve found that generally those most lacking in truly useful skills [including so-called “soft skills”] are most desirous of gaining control of any system in which they find themselves. They do this in order to force those who actually have skills to use those skills form the benefit of their rulers in the system.
    These “Antifas” expose themselves as being mostly without skills I think. Thus they are left with only destruction as a tool to coerce others into doing their bidding.
    They may not like what they eventually end up receiving.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s